Is that everything, and I mean, everything, is intricately and inexorably tied in with “the market,” “the factories,” the “bourgeoise” and the “worker.” Oh, and “capital.”
Now, as a rather broad economic and social theory, it may make sense, but I’ve read about the very same unchanging format of Marxist theory in everything from criminology all the way through to the popularity of football (yes, apparently the capitalists own football clubs and use the competitvness of the game, which simulates the competitivness of the market, to pacify the worker and exploit them further outside the factories ).
Can Marxists, who still exist today, please update their theories to apply in the 21st Century, not the smegging 19th Century?
It’d be nice if they took account of human nature, which generally, rubs up against communism the wrong way. Which is w hy you see a lot of corruption in a lot of communist states, though, I guess you see that elsewhere too.
Actually marxism, and lets be clear the one marx wrote, is about
the economy. Marx was an economist and this is the key point
to remember. For marx, the economy is the base on which everything
else stands on. Everything has an economic side, (side note, one historian
even wrote a book basing the founding of America on the marxist idea of economic perhaps beard or hamlin?)
As far as human nature goes, Marxism is far closer to human nature then capitalism.
The best way to understand this is actually to read an anarchist by the name
Of Peter Kropotkin, UMMMMMM, sounds familiar. Anyway, read his
“Fields, factories and workshops tomorrow” he paints a different picture
of human nature then capital does.
Actually marxism would work well if it did not involve humans, the same with socialism communism and capitalism… It is just the human factor that throws everything out of whack. The human factor takes a wonderful idea and makes it a really reallly bad idea.
This has been said to death, but that doesn’t stop anyone from saying it again. Marxism does work well. Cuba from 1959 and still going strong. North Korea from '45. And this is inspite of half a century of embargo.
But certainly factory life is not the best. I watch a documentary last month about workers taking over the factories in Argentina. At an aluminium tube factory a worker/owner is asked “so this is the paradise?” The worker replies, “making tubes is not paradise.”
Um if it worked so well, why do those govt’s. stop people from leaving those two countries? If it is such a wonderful thing why do they have armed gaurds that kill people who try to leave the country?
People naturally form hiearchies and naturally strive to climb those social ladders. Doesn’t sound very communist to me. People are not happy getting the same resource returns, from differing skills.
Capitalism is predicated upon the basic idea that humans are animals motivated only by greed, and upon the preposterous notion that some good will eventually result from the cultivation of that social vice.
No ideal society is possible, and no ideal mankind will ever be created to people such a society. Rather, pragmatically, as a form of relationship, every society, or economy, or nation can work better or worse, however, and who ever it is judged by. If a particular form of relationship, be it property, or government does not serve all the people it does not serve enough people, and as we see now, in America, the lean years are eating up the fat years, and a greater portion than ever of the national wealth is being privatized, so that democracy is impossible and everyone is desparate and insecure. Does it work? If this form of relationship does not work is there some reason we are bound to suffer it? Humanity cannot change. People can barely change. Our needs and abilities are pretty much constant. We have no other method of change than the one we have always had when our societies did not work for us, and that is revolution, and revolution is a change of forms of relationship. Jefferson said the same of forms in the Declaration of Independence. Changing forms is not what anyone ever wants to do, but what people must often do if they are going to progress out of the past and protect their investment in the future.
If capitalism worked so well, why are so many people living in cardboard boxes or the cheverolet motel? It’s like saying: if marriage were perfect, why would anyone get a divorce? The fact is that the form of marriage is the same for all, but every relationship is different. Some people ride the relationship, and some carry. Those who carry under capital or under communism shouldn’t put up with it; but just as in marriage, if they get enough good out of the deal they will tolerate the form because we are all fearful of change. And change is inevitable, and it is worse when those who organize marriages or societies do not take pains to keep the society from going badly out of balance. I think it was Mark Twain who was talking about a tribe on the Mississippi river, perhaps the Natches, who had great royal families in their nation, but every few generations the royalty would have to marry a stinkard. It was in part to preserve genetic health, but also to make the wealth of the society common. There should be some method of keeping the poor from being too poor, or the rich from being too rich, and wealth, if not given away before death should be taken by society after. People who take offense at communism as an ideal social system should realize that the only tried and true method of social organization was communism and we have all come out of that form. But, primitives who were all communists, all lived in highly regimented societies, which was natural when there were enemies everywhere, and the necessities of life where scarce. If we ever accept socialism it will be out of necessity, because there is not enough for all, so luxury is not permitted.
This is not the fault of capitalism. In the US, for instance, enough wealth is generated to take care of everyone’s basic needs - and then some, which is why latin americans flock here. Distribution is a problem in any economic system. But in any event, the reasons why some people are homeless are much more complex than “capitalism doesn’t work”.
Sorry, philosophy should be able to cut through the complexity and see the beast as it, and you spell it out: wealth generation; which is generated by labor, but the price of any commodity will be the sum of labor, profit, waste, and taxes, which all means that the workers alone cannot buy back all they produce. Now, we have lived as a nation not alone on our labor but on the labor of the third world, and, what we could sell at a loss, and what this means is that property long held in families has gone into the hands of the rich. Now that we have nothing left to sell, and not enough wages to support ourselves, and buy back our product we find we are individually and as a nation slipping deeper and deeper into poverty to maintain a bloated class of wealthy good for nothings. All we have left to sell is our rights, and plenty are willing for church and state to give those away, so I think the simple and obvious conclusion that capitalism does not work should be accepted or disproved, and I have tried for forty years to disprove it without success. Capitalism does not work. It creates both wealth and poverty. It creates both luxury and want. It creates pleasure and pollution. It never was an unalloyed virtue as an economy, but it has now entered its final condition of war and want and disease.
Capitalism exists - it is manifest. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just compare it to every other economic system. Then you have your answer.
This is true - despite their wealth, footballers are modern day slaves. They are bought and sold at will by their owners, and most of their earnings goes either to the government of the country they play in, or their agents who supposedly help and enhance their careers.
Capitalism exists. Kool Now say what existence is. I would say you are about half right, because capitalism should be compared to other economic systems, and all economic systems are forms of relationship. Trade, employment, industry and agriculture, all facets of economy are like the conceptual manifold called economy in being forms of relationship. We cannot compare the relationships because they are pure phenomenon, but we can compare forms as forms. Capitalism as an economy can be compared to every other economy as a form. Now, religion is a form too, and so religions can be compared to other religions as forms, but as a form it can be compared to every other form, so that if religion, or a religion should be compared to an economy there should be certain points in common. Now, I think the economy of capitalism has many striking points in common with certain faiths. Both, for example, rely upon faith to sustain them, and miracles. There is not particular philosophy associated with faith or capitalism. Rather there is a certain pessimistic judgement in both, one which condemns the avarice and heartlessness of man, and one which applauds it. Now to your first point. It is not forms which exist, but relationships, and forms on give to relationships a certain structure and stability. It is not forms, precisely, which make us real, but we who give to our forms a gloss of reality. We should never forget that our forms of relationship are meant to serve humanity, and those forms which begin to feed upon humanity to maintain their meaning have become parasitic beyond rejuvination. Thanks
It’s also worth noting that while we do live in a capitalist society, we don’t only live in a capitalist society. Britain, my homeland, is a mix of capitalism, monarchy, representative democracy, theocracy and of course it is part of the attempt to build a European superstate. Not to mention the oddly reciprocal relationship with the US.
If you’re trying to fight the power, fighting capitalism alone is a waste of time. If you’re trying to uphold the status quo, only upholding capitalism is a waste of time. History is plural.
You are correct, it is the fact that inferior kinds of men women and children are born, not that they are bad people, but they have bad conscious and unconscious habits and personalities and attachments to things that fuck everything up for intelligent, ethical and altruistic people.
The whole problem is biology, if we could rid everyone of their sense experience (pleasure/pain) and put them into a state where they doubted their own thoughts generated by evolutionary trash (their feral brains), it would do a world of good.
Ya! Right. The problem is never the ideology, but the frail people charged with implementing perfection. Give me a break. Everything is a form, with is to say -idea, around which relationships are formed. Compared to each other, no form is necessarily better than another; but examed through the medium of the relationships they form, one is always better than another, and all have their faults. People, meaning all of humanity, grow out of forms and into others all the time. The only problem results when some people try to hold onto old form too long after they no longer serve a general good purpose, or when people build such perfect ideal forms that they are incapable of change. We could reform america if so much was not spent convincing people that their constitution was already perfect, and that their fellow citizen is the enemy. Without change, and without the ability to change to meet new challenges, all societies, that is, forms of relationship- die.
Your posts demonstrate how scientifically ignorant you are.
“Ignorance, the root and the stem of every evil.” – Plato
[/quote]
I can do better than that: I am ignorant in every fashion and to the greatest degree. Educate me.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
).