Marxists Thread

[unriggable]

Capitalism = you earned what you get. How can that be any more capitalist?

What exactly is your point?

Capitalism = Capitalism

What? When did this happen? Why did no-one inform me?

Just being sarcastic. Word it better next time.

Capitalism = you earn what you can get.

Survival of the fittest = You earn what you get.

Evolution = survival of the fittest.

[Neutrino]

I read that post as well. Seeing as I completely disagreed with it I just ignored it but now I guess I have to explain why. I'm going to first ask the same question as beezer: please name a civilisation where communism has existed successfully, even flourished. If you can, although I doubt it, then I have to ask why that civilisation no longer exists?

If you are referring to tribal systems then keep in mind that they are not communist. Tribal elders are considered greater in these societies. That people live in tribes does not necessarily mean that all possessions are shared.

So, with that clarified, we have to look even further back to find your 'ideal society'. Unfortunately, tribalism was the first form of civilisation. Communism cannot exist without civilisation and this brings me back to my original question. Where and when exactly has this communist society existed?

The reason there are no recent Communist civilizations is that, once you reach a certain population limit and dont know the name of your neighbour, the Tribalism-Socialisy system fails. It fails because the selfish and greedy part of human nature kicks in at that point. If you dont know your neighbour's name and there arnt any wolves yapping at the gate, then most people become rather unfriendly to someone they dont know coming around and asking them for their stuff, even if the other person does need it rather more.

Now: ive sayd this before and ill say it again; I am not saying that Communism is the perfect system and should be implemented immediatly. In fact, I acknowledge that Communism as it is now is rather full of basic oversights and misjudgement of human nature. The reason that I am defending it is that most of you seem rather inclined to dismiss the ideas of Communism out of hand, not even seeing if they might work.

You may say Capitalism as it is now is perfect and dosent need any Communist ideas. Say hat to the millions of poor in America who are recieving no help to get out of the gutter. Say that to the countries who are being given the equivilant of shiny beads for their natural resources by the US and say that.

Open your minds and think about how some Communist ideas might help Captalism and not just dismiss them out of hand.

[/rant]

[unriggable]

Open your minds and think about how some Communist ideas might help Captalism and not just dismiss them out of hand.

[/rant]

I support you in that but what you are saying is all-or-nothing capitalism doesn't work. We do need a balance, yet I would say capitalism is much better (lack of a better word). I find it important to have socialist programs in place such as welfare and taxing the rich more than the poor (NO flat tax), but overall capitalism needs to dominate.

[beezer]

Sorry Beezer,
I'm not a communist nor do I think it's the best system, but reread the book of Acts from an economist's point of view. New converts gave their money to the Christian community. The community then shared among themselves to meet everyone's needs. What is a monastery or convent if not a religious commune?
I agree with you completely that it doesn't seem to stack up against capitalism, but for different reasons. It is completely dependent of the one party being benevolent. If there is no opposition then you have the problem of one man gaining a monopoly on power and establishing a dictatorship. There are plenty of current examples of that (Cuba, N. Korea, Stalinist Russia).

No problem man, at least you gave me a specific example of why you think the early church fits that description. I'll tell you why I don't think it's the same.

Marxism cries out for the violent overthrow of the capitalist governments, to be replaced by a working class proletariat dictatorship that will transition to a classless society. The early Christians you're talking about were simply meeting an immediate need, not trying to overthrow the Roman government. Churches were more concerned about spreading the gospel than economics. They were centers for fellowshiping and training early Christians about the ways of Jesus Christ.

[DangerBoy]

Open your minds and think about how some Communist ideas might help Captalism and not just dismiss them out of hand.

[/rant]

I support you in that but what you are saying is all-or-nothing capitalism doesn't work. We do need a balance, yet I would say capitalism is much better (lack of a better word). I find it important to have socialist programs in place such as welfare and taxing the rich more than the poor (NO flat tax), but overall capitalism needs to dominate.

Do you think the US economy the way it is now is an example of being balanced? Republicans always complain about too many social programs, but it seems that if we don't expand them too much, that we can do pretty well. I just don't want Democrats starting new ones all the times.

[Neutrino]

I can give you an example of where capitalism works: The United States. Even with restrictions on it since we have a mixed economy, it still works!

I think that communists just exploit the natural tendency of people to feel jealousy towards those that have more than them, while setting themselves up to be against materialism.

No, you can give me an example of where Capitalism is working.

It may be working fine for now (at the expense of most of the rest of the world I might add), but the world sure as hell cant support that kind of environmental impact for too much longer.

OK, it's impossible to have a conversation with you on this. When we asked for a specific example, you're answer was basically that your "lack of unwillingness" to provide one is a good enough answer. When DangerBoy offered the US as an example as where capitalism works, you just dismissed is by saying it only works "fine for now" but it will not because of environmental reasons.

So you are disputing the harsh realities of Global Warming, Erosion, Pollution and Salinity?

Ok then. Go to those small Pacific islands that are now underwater, or to Antarctia and stand under the crumbling ice sheets and deny Global Warming.

Go to the Eastern Garbage Patch, where there are 1 000 000+ pieces of garbage per km2 and inface the enitr Pacific Ocean in general, where the zooplancton is outweighed by the garbage 6:1 and deny pollution and excessive use of plastics.

Capitalists insist that 'the market will adapt'.
How will it adapt when all the fertile farmland has eroded away and people are paying dozens or hundreds of dollars for a loaf of bread?

I am simply pointing out that, at the rate that it is progressing, Capitalism is unsustainable.

[everywhere116]

I can give you an example of where capitalism works: The United States. Even with restrictions on it since we have a mixed economy, it still works!

I think that communists just exploit the natural tendency of people to feel jealousy towards those that have more than them, while setting themselves up to be against materialism.

No, you can give me an example of where Capitalism is working.

It may be working fine for now (at the expense of most of the rest of the world I might add), but the world sure as hell cant support that kind of environmental impact for too much longer.

OK, it's impossible to have a conversation with you on this. When we asked for a specific example, you're answer was basically that your "lack of unwillingness" to provide one is a good enough answer. When DangerBoy offered the US as an example as where capitalism works, you just dismissed is by saying it only works "fine for now" but it will not because of environmental reasons.

So you are disputing the harsh realities of Global Warming, Erosion, Pollution and Salinity?

Ok then. Go to those small Pacific islands that are now underwater, or to Antarctia and stand under the crumbling ice sheets and deny Global Warming.

Go to the Eastern Garbage Patch, where there are 1 000 000+ pieces of garbage per km2 and inface the enitr Pacific Ocean in general, where the zooplancton is outweighed by the garbage 6:1 and deny pollution and excessive use of plastics.

Capitalists insist that 'the market will adapt'.
How will it adapt when all the fertile farmland has eroded away and people are paying dozens or hundreds of dollars for a loaf of bread?

I am simply pointing out that, at the rate that it is progressing, Capitalism is unsustainable.

Do you have proof the water level is rising or erosion is happenning? (which erosion is very natural)

[Neutrino]

Do you have proof the water level is rising or erosion is happenning? (which erosion is very natural)

People: The point of this thread is Marxism.

Does anyone here see the words 'Global Warming' in Marxism?

Excelent.

For those who cannot intellectually grasp even the most basic form of implication:

This thread is not about Global Warming. If you wnt to discuss Global warming, go make another thread about it.
I was bringing up a valid and widely accepted point and I dont want this thread turned into another about Global Warming.

[beezer]

So you are disputing the harsh realities of Global Warming, Erosion, Pollution and Salinity?

You're changing the subject, but if you don't want to talk about ancient communist societies, then I'll drop it too.

I do believe that Global Warming is taking place, but not that it is the fault of capitalist societies. When my parents were in school they were taught that Global Cooling was taking place. Perhaps the earth goes through cycles, but I'm not an expert.

Erosion is a natural part of the earth's processes.

Pollution takes place all over the world, by all different kinds of societies.

Desalinization plants can be better constructed, administered, and maintained by capitalist societies...so yes, I think capitalism adapts better to address that problem. In general, I think capitalism does adapt better because it makes no sense to destroy natural resources when you can use them to better peoples' lives.

I hope I'm not ruining your vacation. You seem like someone who really cares about the environment. For the record, I recycle.

[everywhere116]

Do you have proof the water level is rising or erosion is happenning? (which erosion is very natural)

People: The point of this thread is Marxism.

Does anyone here see the words 'Global Warming' in Marxism?

Excelent.

For those who cannot intellectually grasp even the most basic form of implication:

This thread is not about Global Warming. If you wnt to discuss Global warming, go make another thread about it.
I was bringing up a valid and widely accepted point and I dont want this thread turned into another about Global Warming.

Well, you brought it up, and you seem to think they are connected. Trying to get an out?

[beezer]

Like we've been saying, communism HAS worked (just for a few hundred thousand years, nothing compared to the 450 we've had capitalism), people just havrto be socialized to realize that worth isn't imbued in possesions. Tall order, but sertainly not impossible.

Ok I'll bite...where has it worked?

Kibutz

Thanks, I enjoyed reading that. Isn't that different than Marxism though since they're mixing Zionism with it?

[Neutrino]

Erosion is a natural part of the earth's processes.

Erosion is natural. Having some guy come along and cut down hundreds of hectares of forest and replacing it with food crops, which, because of their short roots, do not hold the grount together well enough is not.

Pollution takes place all over the world, by all different kinds of societies.

Yes, but mostly by the two superpowers (if you count China as a superpower yet), one of whom is Capitalist and the other who is well on its way to being.

Desalinization plants can be better constructed, administered, and maintained by capitalist societies...so yes, I think capitalism adapts better to address that problem. In general, I think capitalism does adapt better because it makes no sense to destroy natural resources when you can use them to better peoples' lives.

I dont think you are thinking of the right thing here. You are speaking of desalination, I am speaking of Salinity. Although they both concern Salt, they are very different. Salinity is when the local trees and shrubs are removed, usually to make room for food cropps or cattle. When they are removed, the local water table begins to rise, as the trees are no longer using up a large perccentage of the rainfall. This may sound good (free water for the crops), but it actually is very, very bad.
A layer of salt that is deposited by the water tableis redisolved by the rising water. Eventually the water table rises to ground level, or near ground level and brings all that nice salt with it. The salt is deposited and nothing will ever grow there again.

Its pretty major.

[beezer]

I dont think you are thinking of the right thing here. You are speaking of desalination, I am speaking of Salinity. Although they both concern Salt, they are very different. Salinity is when the local trees and shrubs are removed, usually to make room for food cropps or cattle. When they are removed, the local water table begins to rise, as the trees are no longer using up a large perccentage of the rainfall. This may sound good (free water for the crops), but it actually is very, very bad.
A layer of salt that is deposited by the water tableis redisolved by the rising water. Eventually the water table rises to ground level, or near ground level and brings all that nice salt with it. The salt is deposited and nothing will ever grow there again.

Its pretty major.

OK thanks for taking the time to explain that. I hope you have a good holiday.

[foolish_yeti]

You're changing the subject, but if you don't want to talk about ancient communist societies, then I'll drop it too.

When he is speaking of ancient civilizations using communism he is speaking of it in loose terms. It is more tribalism than anything- Nomadic hunter-gatherers all working together to ensure their own survival. So it's not communism per se, but shares many similar attributes.

I do believe that Global Warming is taking place, but not that it is the fault of capitalist societies. When my parents were in school they were taught that Global Cooling was taking place. Perhaps the earth goes through cycles, but I'm not an expert.

The whole global cooling thing was due to recent (then) better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary decrease in temperature... the earth obviously goes through cycles, and we are in an upturn right now. Global warming is a naturally occurring process- so it's nobody's fault- the problem is this is being accelerated by human activity...possibly pushed to new heights. Suddenly dumping tons and tons of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere throws the carbon (and other) cycles out of whack. The earth naturally deals with greenhouse gases just fine, but our actions are overloading it- we're beyond what it can process (especially sice we're razing green space at an alarming rate).

Erosion is a natural part of the earth's processes.

Yes, but the rate of erosion is increasing due to human activity- loss of ground cover, farming techniques, etc.- do some research into global topsoil loss (you know, the thin layer of soil where all livings get their nutrients)- it's pretty scary. Problems such as this will only get worse as the population increases- and this happens exponentially. The doubling time is getting shorter and shorter.

Pollution takes place all over the world, by all different kinds of societies.

The vast majority of societies are capitalist. The vast majority of human pollution comes from capitalist activities. Communism would pollute as well- but I think a society where the goal is not profits and perpetual growth would pollute less and be more open to environmentally friendly methods.

In general, I think capitalism does adapt better because it makes no sense to destroy natural resources when you can use them to better peoples' lives.

Then why are we destroying ecosystems at an alarming rate? As was stated before- as growth and profit are the main focus of capitalism, profits are key. Ignoring the environment maximizes profits (short term gains vs. long term sustainability)

[Iliad]

Global warming exists! But this isn't a global warming thread! So let's get back on topic!

[unriggable]

I can give you an example of where capitalism works: The United States. Even with restrictions on it since we have a mixed economy, it still works!

I think that communists just exploit the natural tendency of people to feel jealousy towards those that have more than them, while setting themselves up to be against materialism.

No, you can give me an example of where Capitalism is working.

It may be working fine for now (at the expense of most of the rest of the world I might add), but the world sure as hell cant support that kind of environmental impact for too much longer.

OK, it's impossible to have a conversation with you on this. When we asked for a specific example, you're answer was basically that your "lack of unwillingness" to provide one is a good enough answer. When DangerBoy offered the US as an example as where capitalism works, you just dismissed is by saying it only works "fine for now" but it will not because of environmental reasons.

So you are disputing the harsh realities of Global Warming, Erosion, Pollution and Salinity?

Ok then. Go to those small Pacific islands that are now underwater, or to Antarctia and stand under the crumbling ice sheets and deny Global Warming.

Go to the Eastern Garbage Patch, where there are 1 000 000+ pieces of garbage per km2 and inface the enitr Pacific Ocean in general, where the zooplancton is outweighed by the garbage 6:1 and deny pollution and excessive use of plastics.

Capitalists insist that 'the market will adapt'.
How will it adapt when all the fertile farmland has eroded away and people are paying dozens or hundreds of dollars for a loaf of bread?

I am simply pointing out that, at the rate that it is progressing, Capitalism is unsustainable.

He said nothing of those things!

[KomradeKloininov]

wait... why was everyone talking about geography in a thread named: "Marxists Thread"?

[jnd94]

they were talking bout where communism has been used in the past

[qeee1]

Capitalism = you earned what you get

Earn is a very loaded word, I'd be cautious about using it. For example did Bill Gates earn 50billion dollars or whatever he has? Did he work that much harder or have that many more ingenious ideas to deserve such astronomical wealth? He earned it, in the sense that he made that much money legally under the current laws of the country/world, but earn implies some sense of justice. Does someone who inherited their fathers wealth earn it? To claim that capitalism means you earned what you get is a little simplistic.

I went into detail about capitalism and the environment a few pages back. Read it.

Anyway I think the point neutrino is trying to make is that even if you disagree with implementing a communist or marxist society as a whole, you shouldn't just dismiss all the teachings of that philosophy. For example Marx's critique/exposition of capitalism is still relevant today, and really hasn't been bettered, only refined. If you actually engage with the philosophy you'll probably find you have much to learn from it.

Has a utopian society existed in the past: NO, otherwise it'd probably still be around, however there are plenty of examples of societies or tribes that have shown sucessful implementation of communist style ways of life, that suggest that communism isn't fundamentally against human nature.

What follows is a brief exposition of some aspects of Marxism, not necessarily part of the debate, just posted because I started typing something, forgot what it was about, and ended up rambling.


To Marx who believed in a history of dialectics, that is that humanity has moved along obvious paths, and when the motivating factors behind these paths can be discerned we can predict the future to some extent. This idea was taken from Hegel. However Hegel held that history was the product of the evolution of a spirit (towards truth or some such I think...) while for Marx history was determined by class struggles and the methods of economic organisation.

To him tribal communism was distinctly different from his vision of communism.

Tribal communism sufficed to sustain the needs of the primitive societies for most of humanities history, but didn't exactly lead to progress, as when the surplus resources were divided out the little that went to everybody did little to progress society.

Tribal communism was suceeded by Feudalism, as that ensured the best way for society to progress. As there weren't enough resources for everyone to be well educated, feudalism ensured that a few were, and then given positions of power, or importance such as trades.

After the industrial revolution feudalism was replaced by capitalism, as feudalism could no longer respond to the changing nature of the market.

Marx believed that the next step in societies progress would be towards communism, as after the market had generated sufficient resources for people to be educated etc. it would no longer be the best way to run society, as it would fail to respond to the needs of society, or advance it, in the same way that tribal communism and feudalism had become outdated.

Of course the last step was the most controversial, and Marx seemed sure that the move to communism would occur in a very brief period of time, once the workers realised that the means of production no longer served the ends of society. The fact that these predictions have failed to materialise many years after they were made has led to embarassment for some marxists, and also a dismissal of Marxism by some.

Other marxists have saught to advance theories as to why the working classes still haven't risen up, including people like gramsci who first advanced the theory of hegemony, which has had a huge influence on cultural analysis by different groups of people, such as feminists, colonised people etc. Traditionally capitalist control is maintained through violence and economics (eg. police enforcing capitalist laws, creating a state whereby it's extermely difficult to live outside capitalism and not be in poverty).

Gramsci theorised that as well as this, there's also hegemonic control, that is the control of culture and thought.

Later Marxists have expanded on this theory of cultural control, and been influenced also by post stucturalist criticisms. In my opinion the most persuasive one is Louis Althusser, who developed a comprehensive if sometimes depressing theory of ideology.

While earlier Marxists held that if we destroy the hegemony we can percieve truth (and with it the nature of class relations) Althusser claims that all action is done within a given ideology, and when the hegemony of the ruling class is displaced, it won't lead to truth, but rather another ideology.

Criticisms of popular culture have been heavily influenced by later marxist thinkers.

[got tonkaed]

thank you qeee, i think this thread defintly benefits with your addition with some more relvant information to the marxist side.

i agree with pretty much everything you have listed here, especially the bits on marxist views being relvant to popular culture and the simple fact that marx's criticism on capitalism are quite possibly still the best, other than the fine tuning that many have done since.

I suppose id add i dont know if marx understood at the time the moderating effect that the state could have on the desire for the working class to revolt. Since most states were still relatively toothless at time, it would have been difficult to properly understand their relevance.

A question for you qee1, do you think we are seeing an adjustment in use values. As public goods like water and wind were seen by marx as something that didnt have a value as a commodity, do you think this is changing as global capitalism continues to expand? I think its become the general business consenus that we should own as much of these general use values as possible, something that may not have existed perhaps even 100 years ago.

[qeee1]

A question for you qee1, do you think we are seeing an adjustment in use values. As public goods like water and wind were seen by marx as something that didnt have a value as a commodity, do you think this is changing as global capitalism continues to expand? I think its become the general business consenus that we should own as much of these general use values as possible, something that may not have existed perhaps even 100 years ago.

Eh, simply put, yes. Which is probably a bad thing. When the waters have all been polluted we'll be buying it back...

Anyone ever see that film Total Recall, where some guy has a monopoly on oxygen on Mars? Scary idea, only the films more like a comedy... memorable for the girl with three breasts.

[KomradeKloininov]

That is just capitalism taken too far. I might add that the US has tried at one point to get monatary access to the great lakes. It didn't go through, but still, just an example of just that. Capitalism controlling nature, necessary for life resources.

[Jayge]

I'd just like to point out that as Socialism promotes the goverment controlling the distribution of, well, everything, wouldn't that be more of a controlling nature?

[unriggable]

I'd just like to point out that as Socialism promotes the goverment controlling the distribution of, well, everything, wouldn't that be more of a controlling nature?

Welcome to CC.

Capitalism promotes the companies controlling the people.

[flashleg8]

I have been in CC a while and have noticed a vast greater number of capitalists to communists/Marxists, by which I mean no Marxists whatsoever. Therefore here is a place for all the Marxists to talk and whatnot in an equal setting from the rest of the forum.

Sorry I didn't see this thread earlier. I've been too busy being exploited by my fat cat overlords to be in the forums much!

I see it’s already nearly up to 30 pages so I'll have a read through to catch up on the debate.

Good to see some more comrades on the site, look forward to reading your posts.