What qualities hurt society?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
as melon pointed out, marx can be thanked for reforms made within capitalism. he and his radical band of extremists (/sarcasm) can also be thanked in large part for the development of democracy in western europe.

remaining strictly within the marxist paradigm, it is easy to see why every notable modern attempt at communist has failed. the point is that the advanced capitalist nations would fold in on themselves once their markets had been depleted. basically revolution had to begin within the industrialized nations of the world. where have we seen minority vanguard parties attempt to lead "revolutions?" russia, cuba, vietnam, north korea, etc. not exactly developed nations at the time of thier so-called revolutions. so right out of the gate a marxist would see these experiments as bound for failure...and they all failed miserably. also to marx, revolution was supposed to come from underneath, a mass movement of the workers, not the doing of vanguard parties forcing everyone to go along with them. i am rambling.

what individual rights do you think are overruled that are necessary to humanity?

voluntary communism? not for the ruling class, but for the majority - it's possible.
 
The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.
--Gandhi
 
Now here is a legitimate point; western capitalism has invariably used poor nations for resources and cheap labour. Now could an ideal capitalist system ever operate where there is a balance between production and consumption so that practically every human being on the planet have a decent living standard i.e. own a house and have some disposable income, not die of preventable disease. Could this happen without a strict global government?
 
Se7en said:
as melon pointed out, marx can be thanked for reforms made within capitalism. he and his radical band of extremists (/sarcasm) can also be thanked in large part for the development of democracy in western europe.

Wow, so now we're thanking Marx for capitalism and democracy.

If we're going down that road, perhaps we should thank Christianity for Marxism, given that his philosophy was heavily influenced by the Christian "paradigm". Also his philosophy was quite conservative, in my understanding.
 
Se7en said:

remaining strictly within the marxist paradigm, it is easy to see why every notable modern attempt at communist has failed. the point is that the advanced capitalist nations would fold in on themselves once their markets had been depleted. basically revolution had to begin within the industrialized nations of the world. where have we seen minority vanguard parties attempt to lead "revolutions?" russia, cuba, vietnam, north korea, etc. not exactly developed nations at the time of thier so-called revolutions. so right out of the gate a marxist would see these experiments as bound for failure...and they all failed miserably. also to marx, revolution was supposed to come from underneath, a mass movement of the workers, not the doing of vanguard parties forcing everyone to go along with them. i am rambling.

No revolution along the lines you hypothesize is possible in advanced industrial societies.

If you control business and the media, you control pretty much everything.

In advanced industrial societies, revolution comes from the ruling/moneyed classes, or not at all.

This has been the case since the 1930's, if not before.
 
financeguy said:
Yes there is actually a budding campaign to reclaim Smith for the left. ('Left' here meaning social democratic left, i.e. not communists.)

I didn't know that. I'm always ahead of my time. :sexywink:

Melon
 
A_Wanderer said:
Now here is a legitimate point; western capitalism has invariably used poor nations for resources and cheap labour.

Theories on trade suggest that some trade is almost always better than no trade at all - both for the richer and for the less well off countries involved.
 
financeguy said:


I'll put it this way.

If apologists for Marxism are entitled to use the "a true communist society has never been tried" argument to get communism off the hook, can advocates of capitalism use the reverse argument to explain away any perceived failings of free market capitalist societies?

Deal?:wink:

i'm not saying communism has never been tried. (see the spanish civil war and the paris commune as other examples of attempts at commism) i'm saying that they were not accurate representations of marx's paradigm, nay they were not marxist in the slightest.

also, if in your other post you are suggesting that the intellectual community has abandoned marx all together i think you are sorely mistaken. his contributions to social and economic critique havne't gone out of style quite yet.

i'm not sure how some people seem to overlook the inherent libertarian and democratic elements of marx's thought alltogether.
 
financeguy said:


Wow, so now we're thanking Marx for capitalism and democracy.


i believe we're thanking marx for his critique of capitalism, as it brought about reforms that likely saved it. and yes, marxist thought played a large role in the development of democracy across europe. see: forging democracy.

If we're going down that road, perhaps we should thank Christianity for Marxism, given that his philosophy was heavily influenced by the Christian "paradigm". Also his philosophy was quite conservative, in my understanding.

:der:
 
Se7en said:
also, if in your other post you are suggesting that the intellectual community has abandoned marx all together i think you are sorely mistaken. his contributions to social and economic critique havne't gone out of style quite yet.

Oh, doubtless true. They would be better off concentrating on situationism, in my view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationism
 
A_Wanderer said:
Whats the problem, selfishness and celebration of wealth can be virtues.

Selfishness and or greed are leading obstacles to charity.

"Why should my hard earned money/tax dollars go to support (Pick one: poor people, sick people, unemployed people)?"
 
financeguy said:


No revolution along the lines you hypothesize is possible in advanced industrial societies.

If you control business and the media, you control pretty much everything.

In advanced industrial societies, revolution comes from the ruling/moneyed classes, or not at all.

This has been the case since the 1930's, if not before.

i think you're missing the part about the possible collapse of economic society as a result of the advanced accumulation of capital into the hands of an increasingly small minority?
 
Se7en said:
as melon pointed out, marx can be thanked for reforms made within capitalism. he and his radical band of extremists (/sarcasm) can also be thanked in large part for the development of democracy in western europe.
I believe that the enlightenment, US constitution and the growing system of representative democracy in the early 19th Century had a lot more to do with that than Marx.

remaining strictly within the marxist paradigm, it is easy to see why every notable modern attempt at communist has failed. the point is that the advanced capitalist nations would fold in on themselves once their markets had been depleted. basically revolution had to begin within the industrialized nations of the world. where have we seen minority vanguard parties attempt to lead "revolutions?" russia, cuba, vietnam, north korea, etc. not exactly developed nations at the time of thier so-called revolutions. so right out of the gate a marxist would see these experiments as bound for failure...and they all failed miserably. also to marx, revolution was supposed to come from underneath, a mass movement of the workers, not the doing of vanguard parties forcing everyone to go along with them. i am rambling.
But these romantic idealised workers lack the leadership; don't they invariably require the educated class to lead them? It is no coincidence that most political revolutions are lead by educated and well off political idealists.

what individual rights do you think are overruled that are necessary to humanity?
Freedom. The control over my own life. In capitalist systems it is to a degree enabled by wealth ~ but wealth can be attained; in theory any individual could strike it rich, many will not, many will remain in a soggy middle but there is no institutionalised restrictions. In a communist society could I attain a state of freedom, could I retire and move to a sunny place or travel the world wherever I want to. See individual rights are nothing to do with humanity, they are to do with the individual. The treatment of people as a monolithic blocks with restrictions removes individual rights, "the workers" and the "bourgeois". The people who own business are portrayed as robber barons out of the 19th Century and the many small business owners are ignored. A nation of shopkeepers is what keeps the workers employed.

voluntary communism? not for the ruling class, but for the majority - it's possible.
So it is voluntary for those that go along with it but it must be forced upon those that oppose it. Here is the fundamental problem with this system, it is opressive to those that refuse to go along with it.
 
Last edited:
Se7en said:
i think you're missing the part about the possible collapse of economic society as a result of the advanced accumulation of capital into the hands of an increasingly small minority?

No, I'm not missing it. I'm saying it ain't gonna happen any time soon, that's what I'm saying.

Marxists waiting for the collapse of capitalism is a bit like Christians awaiting the return of their Saviour. Both would be better advised finding more profitable uses of their time, in my view.
 
echo0001 said:


Selfishness and or greed are leading obstacles to charity.

"Why should my hard earned money/tax dollars go to support (Pick one: poor people, sick people, unemployed people)?"
So now taxes are a form of charity?
 
A_Wanderer said:
But these romantic idealised workers lack the leadership; don't they invariably require the educated class to lead them? It is no coincidence that most political revolutions are lead by educated and well off political idealists.


especially in today's world, the workers are not as stupid as people enjoy making them out to be. i see no reason why they can't lead themselves in a democratic form. look at bolivia. their workers effectively shut the country down with no clear leadership from an "educated class." you're sounding more like lenin or any other more authoritarian communist than marx.

Freedom. The control over my own life. In capitalist systems it is to a degree enabled by wealth ~ but wealth can be attained; in theory any individual could strike it rich, many will not, many will remain in a soggy middle but there is no institutionalised restrictions. In a communist society could I attain a state of freedom, could I retire and move to a sunny place or travel the world wherever I want to. See individual rights are nothing to do with humanity, they are to do with the individual. The treatment of people as a monolithic block, "the worker" and the "bourgeois". The people who own business are portrayed as robber barons out of the 19th Century and the many small business owners are ignored. A nation of shopkeepers is what keeps the workers employed.

i don't see why you wouldn't be able to travel wherever you wanted to. what is stopping you? marx wrote a great deal about man being able to come to a better understanding of self once his existance is no longer reduced to the amount of capital he is forced to sell his labor for. it's true that in totalitarian dictatorships, the individual is reduced to party fodder, but marx had a much greater vision.

So it is voluntary for those that go along with it but it must be forced upon those that oppose it. Here is the fundamental problem with this system, it is opressive to those that refuse to go along with it.

isn't that a characteristic of ANY system? capitalism is oppressive to me because i would prefer to not have to sell my labor to survive, yet i am forced to. and i can't afford health insurance and my parents have to help pay for my car insurance along the way. sucks don't it?
 
Se7en said:
capitalism is oppressive to me because i would prefer to not have to sell my labor to survive, yet i am forced to.

"Never work" - Ne travaillez jamais - Anonymous graffiti, Paris 1968


:wink:
 
financeguy said:


No, I'm not missing it. I'm saying it ain't gonna happen any time soon, that's what I'm saying.

Marxists waiting for the collapse of capitalism is a bit like Christians awaiting the return of their Saviour. Both would be better advised finding more profitable uses of their time, in my view.

because all marxists do is sit around and wait for capitalism to collapse? they don't get involved with labor movements or fight extreme nationalism, racism, and sexism? i also don't expect capitalism to collapse anytime in the near future, but any crisis in the system may be something that could be taken advantage of. who's to say? we'll see. i think that if in another century or so, we still see the world progressing in the same direction of free trade and capitalism with no crisis in sight, i will concede and say that marx was way off...i'll be dead, but that's beside the point.
 
Se7en said:
i don't see why you wouldn't be able to travel wherever you wanted to. what is stopping you? marx wrote a great deal about man being able to come to a better understanding of self once his existance is no longer reduced to the amount of capital he is forced to sell his labor for. it's true that in totalitarian dictatorships, the individual is reduced to party fodder, but marx had a much greater vision.
I am a pawn of the state; I am not reduced to the ammount of capital that I sell I am reduced to being a resource of the state who's labour goes to the state and in return I would recieve what I need to survive. It is slavery.
 
Se7en said:


wishing to no longer be a part of a wage slavery system is quite different than never wanting to work.
Who would take out the garbage? who would clean the urinals? who gets to run the factories? who gets to make films? Not everybody can do the great jobs, who decides who gets what?

Being outside the "wage slavery" system is untenable; if there is no reason or reward in working then what is the point? a society like that produces less for its citizens than one where people are working for reward.
 
Se7en said:
what state?
The one that makes sure that things are running smoothly enough; government is something that nations have used to organise and it has worked quite effectively. Organises things like census and taxation, would run and monitor all those industries once they get confiscated from capitalists, runs the education systems.

Or you are advocating anarcho-communism which is an entirely different system. One which still suffers from the problems of production. It is dificult to maintain living standards when there are not enough things being made. Would we have to go back to basics for your system?

Does "true communism" require mankind to go back to an agrarian society?
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
Who would take out the garbage? who would clean the urinals? who gets to run the factories? who gets to make films? Not everybody can do the great jobs, who decides who gets what?

Indeed, this is EXACTLY why I think communism is closer to Christianity than it is to capitalism - because it depends upon so much on sacrificing oneself to the greater good, etc.

Human nature isn't that selfless, unfortunately.
 
pax said:
The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.
--Gandhi

That's a good quote.
 
Se7en said:
i also don't expect capitalism to collapse anytime in the near future, but any crisis in the system may be something that could be taken advantage of. who's to say? .

There was a pretty major crisis back in '29, and it still didn't herald in Marx's utopia.
 
Back
Top Bottom