Marxists Thread

[Stopper]

I wouldn't say dominated. This poll would suggest a slight centre-left bias, but maybe it needs a few more votes, to update it.

[Jolly Roger]

Hence why I'm a chirstian; evolution fails to explain the basic human evils of greed, lust, envy, etc. (the Seven Deadly Sins). But, Humans are known to be VERY selfish by nature as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom.

There's no need for evolution to explain evil - good and evil are subjective constructs which exist nowhere but in our minds. Sin is just the violation of those artificial constructs. To my knowledge, no animal (excluding the human variety) has been shown to act based on moral principles. As for selfishness, they appear to rely solely on instinct and will do whatever is most likely to ensure their own survival, the survival of their young or, for social animals, the survival of their group (which incidentally improves the chances of their own survival and that of their young).
Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to override instinct through intellect. We are also not subject to the "law of the jungle" in the truest sense since we are able to develop and use tools which would allow a weak individual to defeat a strong individual in a struggle for resources. Since the natural rules do not apply to human societies in the same way they apply to the rest of the animal kingdom, new rules were necessary to ensure that some semblance of order could be maintained. Enter government and religion. Hence you are Christian.

[flashleg8]

Posted in your poll Stopper, just not happy that communism is lumped in with fascism on it

As for this thread, I'm personally board with the circular argument here so I'm attempting to alter the focus here - sort of paralleling what Crazy Anglican has done with his "fish club" thread.

Post any literature, film or documentaries that have interested you recently or you've found helpful in the global socialist cause.

Personal I'm reading "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell now (on the recommendation of Guiscard in the book thread). It details Orwell’s experiences fighting for the international brigade in the Spanish Civil war - so far I can say its excellent. Its describes perfectly his sympathy and disillusionment with the cause.

For a good film that might interest some of you I can recommend "Goodbye Lenin" I re-watched this last week, it really is superb.
Its a German comedy (if that’s not an oxymoron ) about the period of the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany. Although heavily critical of the East German experience - especially the Stasi, it is sympathetic to the socialist cause and presents an interesting alternative future that could/should have happened.

One the TV front I can highly recommend BBC4s current documentary "Cuba! Africa! Cuba! Africa! Revolution!". It details Cuba’s attempts in the sixties to help the African nations to throw of their colonial masters yoke and gain independence. The first episode was shown last Tuesday (detailing Che's efforts to aid the Congo's rebels fight against the CIA backed right wing coup), the final part is to be shown on Tuesday I believe its about Cuba’s aid to the Angolan liberation movement against the fascist Portuguese empire.

Does anyone else have any other recommendations? Doesn't need to be dry political literature - anything from popular culture with an interest to socialists would do.

[Jenos Ridan]

Hence why I'm a chirstian; evolution fails to explain the basic human evils of greed, lust, envy, etc. (the Seven Deadly Sins). But, Humans are known to be VERY selfish by nature as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom.

There's no need for evolution to explain evil - good and evil are subjective constructs which exist nowhere but in our minds. Sin is just the violation of those artificial constructs.

So, man is evil of his own twisted accord? I know full well that science can't explain the vast majority of human predilictions and the kicker; it was never ment to!

Human nature, true, has little in comman with the animal kingdom. But, we do have an inherant evil nature. Children don't learn how to be selfess, they just are (ever witness a child throwing a tantrum over a toy?). An adult is little different in this, our toys are only more complicated. Is there hope, yes, but it won't come by way of man.

[Neutrino]

Hence why I'm a chirstian; evolution fails to explain the basic human evils of greed, lust, envy, etc. (the Seven Deadly Sins). But, Humans are known to be VERY selfish by nature as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom.

There's no need for evolution to explain evil - good and evil are subjective constructs which exist nowhere but in our minds. Sin is just the violation of those artificial constructs.

So, man is evil of his own twisted accord? I know full well that science can't explain the vast majority of human predilictions and the kicker; it was never ment to!

Human nature, true, has little in comman with the animal kingdom. But, we do have an inherant evil nature. Children don't learn how to be selfess, they just are (ever witness a child throwing a tantrum over a toy?). An adult is little different in this, our toys are only more complicated. Is there hope, yes, but it won't come by way of man.

How can that be considered evil?
That is not evil, that is a child doing what is best for itself (a vital survival trait).

At the risk of sounding like a steriotypical supervillian:
There is no good and evil. There is only power! Good and evil are entirely subjective. Something that may be great for one person may be unimportant or horrible for another. There is no ultimate good and ultimate evil.

[Stopper]

Posted in your poll Stopper, just not happy that communism is lumped in with fascism on it

Yikes! It wasn't my poll! I wouldn't lump the Lib Dems with Socialists for a start!

BTW, I've seen Goodbye Lenin and read Homage to Catalonia (a very long time ago), and yes, they're both really good, I'd recommend them to anyone.

I'm sure I can think of a lot more left-leaning/political stuff, but one off the top of my head is Ken Loach's Land and Freedom, about a Liverpudlian Communist who runs away to Spain to fight in the civil war. He joins up with a motley band of POUM members (and anarchists I think), and later on, his loyalties are severely tested when the Communists and Republicans turn on each other. It's really good - actually highly similar to the recent Barley film in some ways, but better.

Oh, and The Reds And The Whites - an effective anti-war film. Highly unusual, I'd recommend reading a bit about it before watching it, because it can be a bit disorienting the first time you see it.

[flashleg8]

Posted in your poll Stopper, just not happy that communism is lumped in with fascism on it

Yikes! It wasn't my poll! I wouldn't lump the Lib Dems with Socialists for a start!

BTW, I've seen Goodbye Lenin and read Homage to Catalonia (a very long time ago), and yes, they're both really good, I'd recommend them to anyone.

I'm sure I can think of a lot more left-leaning/political stuff, but one off the top of my head is Ken Loach's Land and Freedom, about a Liverpudlian Communist who runs away to Spain to fight in the civil war. He joins up with a motley band of POUM members (and anarchists I think), and later on, his loyalties are severely tested when the Communists and Republicans turn on each other. It's really good - actually highly similar to the recent Barley film in some ways, but better.

Oh, and The Reds And The Whites - an effective anti-war film. Highly unusual, I'd recommend reading a bit about it before watching it, because it can be a bit disorienting the first time you see it.

Cheers for the recommendations, I've seen Land and Freedom - I'm a big Ken Loach fan (sweet sixteen is a personal favorite of mine - wee neds on film!).

The other film seems very interesting, I'll try and download it.
(It only seems fair to pirate any socialist leaning films! - put your money, or lack of it, where your mouth is type thing!)
(I'm just a tight fist really)

[Jenos Ridan]

Hence why I'm a chirstian; evolution fails to explain the basic human evils of greed, lust, envy, etc. (the Seven Deadly Sins). But, Humans are known to be VERY selfish by nature as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom.

There's no need for evolution to explain evil - good and evil are subjective constructs which exist nowhere but in our minds. Sin is just the violation of those artificial constructs.

So, man is evil of his own twisted accord? I know full well that science can't explain the vast majority of human predilictions and the kicker; it was never ment to!

Human nature, true, has little in comman with the animal kingdom. But, we do have an inherant evil nature. Children don't learn how to be selfess, they just are (ever witness a child throwing a tantrum over a toy?). An adult is little different in this, our toys are only more complicated. Is there hope, yes, but it won't come by way of man.

How can that be considered evil?
That is not evil, that is a child doing what is best for itself (a vital survival trait).

At the risk of sounding like a steriotypical supervillian:
There is no good and evil. There is only power! Good and evil are entirely subjective. Something that may be great for one person may be unimportant or horrible for another. There is no ultimate good and ultimate evil.

Firstly, Selfishness is the root of Greed. True, self-interest can be a good thing, but there is a reason why parents discouage selfishness. And yes, there are things which are fundimentally good and evil. Man has spent what are considered by some to be ridiculess amount fo time on this point.

[got tonkaed]

Firstly, Selfishness is the root of Greed. True, self-interest can be a good thing, but there is a reason why parents discouage selfishness. And yes, there are things which are fundimentally good and evil. Man has spent what are considered by some to be ridiculess amount fo time on this point.

Im merely sidebaring here, but theres a bit of a flaw in your premise here i think. Yes man, has for much of the time that man has devoted to such things agreed there are some things which are fundamentally evil and others which are good. Im not here to say this impossible. However, its important to realize each of those speakers (and to a lesser degree many of the thinkers still - all thinkers) are colored by the socialization of their era. I dont think we should automatically dismiss the notion of relativsm simply because thinkers who were influenced in an opposite direction said so.

I happen to think capitalist socialization has taught us that self interest is in fact an end all be all, even if its not implicitly said, at least on the theorectical level. This is part of the reason that it would be very difficult to bring a left system into place...theres just too much socialization for anything to happen all that quickly. Which is a very similar vein to a religious argument, we simply have been socialized to believe in certain things for so long, the mere thoughts of things that are different become a little less tolerable.

[Jenos Ridan]

Firstly, Selfishness is the root of Greed. True, self-interest can be a good thing, but there is a reason why parents discouage selfishness. And yes, there are things which are fundimentally good and evil. Man has spent what are considered by some to be ridiculess amount fo time on this point.

Im merely sidebaring here, but theres a bit of a flaw in your premise here i think. Yes man, has for much of the time that man has devoted to such things agreed there are some things which are fundamentally evil and others which are good. Im not here to say this impossible. However, its important to realize each of those speakers (and to a lesser degree many of the thinkers still - all thinkers) are colored by the socialization of their era. I dont think we should automatically dismiss the notion of relativsm simply because thinkers who were influenced in an opposite direction said so.

I happen to think capitalist socialization has taught us that self interest is in fact an end all be all, even if its not implicitly said, at least on the theorectical level. This is part of the reason that it would be very difficult to bring a left system into place...theres just too much socialization for anything to happen all that quickly. Which is a very similar vein to a religious argument, we simply have been socialized to believe in certain things for so long, the mere thoughts of things that are different become a little less tolerable.

At least your vision of relativism isn't along the lines of "Culture A preforms Female Genital Mutilation and Culture B doesn't and that it that". Glade to see a little rationallity in that.

Colored views on good and evil? Well, I agree it happens. I'm reminded of an old latin quote; "There are as many opinions as there are men".

As for a marxist society, if it was to happen, it will involve a small group of like-minded people in isolation from the world.

[got tonkaed]

To borrow from you jenos on the topic of relativism....

The interesting thing about female genital mutilation...is that even in places where it is still practiced, despite the introduction of some feminist ideals, a small majority of women still plan on having the procedure done on their daughters if they have female children. There is a clear functional reason for why its done, and though the practice makes quite a bit queasy and i would wish that its not done, its interesting that despite the fact that most women (at least in the Chad) although not approving of the practice, would still have it done on their daughters.

Relavtism is a trickier concept than its often pawned off as.

[Jenos Ridan]

To borrow from you jenos on the topic of relativism....

The interesting thing about female genital mutilation...is that even in places where it is still practiced, despite the introduction of some feminist ideals, a small majority of women still plan on having the procedure done on their daughters if they have female children. There is a clear functional reason for why its done, and though the practice makes quite a bit queasy and i would wish that its not done, its interesting that despite the fact that most women (at least in the Chad) although not approving of the practice, would still have it done on their daughters.

Relavtism is a trickier concept than its often pawned off as.

I've always thought that Relativism (at least, as advertized) was a bad idea.

As for "Female Circumcision", I find the idea ethically and morally repugant. No two ways about it.

[Jenos Ridan]

Did this just thread die?

[luns101]

Did this just thread die?

Perhaps it will die...so someone will just start a Friedrich Engels thread later and the whole argument will revive in a different way.

[Skittles!]

I just had to bump this thread. It's a great thread, especially at the start. Let's keep this on topic though. I'll finish reading this later, I suggest some others do the same to enlighten their intelligence if they have no idea what Marxism is.

[Malkithe]

Reading through this brings up an interesting point - Communism, Marxism, and Socialism are radically different philosophies - I think Marx is tremendously misunderstood.

Marx spoke of a society in which we were divided into many groups, each of which competes with each other for a limited amount of resources. This, according to Marx, is the fundamental motivation for all social (and later on, by extension, economical) phenomena.

However, Marx did not believe this was due to 'greed' or 'evil.' He believed (as a follower of traditional Greek philosophical heritage) that the world was composed of such opposing tensions, and that these brought stability.

It is true that Marx advocated revolution for the lower classes in Europe - by that was his way of re-balancing the power in a world that had become unbalanced.

The following premises are very unfounded, and border on urban myth:

1. Marx is the father of Communism
2. Marxism and Russian culture are tied together (and yes, the vodka references can be a little insulting too)
3. The soviet union's government was attempting to form a 'utopia'
4. Karl Marx was Russian
5. References to under class revolt accounted for anything over a very very tiny percentage of his huge body of work
6. Marx believed that the capital owners were inherently evil

I think it would be wonderful if some people with knowledge of Marx's works would post their thoughts regarding the above myths and how they perpetuate.

[flashleg8]

The following premises are very unfounded, and border on urban myth:

1. Marx is the father of Communism
2. Marxism and Russian culture are tied together (and yes, the vodka references can be a little insulting too)
3. The soviet union's government was attempting to form a 'utopia'
4. Karl Marx was Russian
5. References to under class revolt accounted for anything over a very very tiny percentage of his huge body of work
6. Marx believed that the capital owners were inherently evil

I think it would be wonderful if some people with knowledge of Marx's works would post their thoughts regarding the above myths and how they perpetuate.

Enjoyed your post. It's very true to say that Marx's works are often confused and misinterpreted. This is in no small way due to the schisms in the international communist movement - and is often a deliberate ploy by various sects of the left to show they are the "true" Marxist party. Lenin, Stalin and Mao have all interpretated Marx's works differently so it really is no surprise that today’s left have a different view.

As for your "myths":

1) I partly agree with you on your point that Marx is not the father of communism. Communism really grew from the Chartist movement and the groups demanding rights for working men during the industrial revolution, many of the ideals of the French revolution were communist and Marx and Engels were heavily influenced by this. Marx however really was one of the first (with Engels) to define what Communism was in its modern form (in a globalised industrial society). His work inspired so many of the socialist movements and was fundamental to the Communist movement of the 20th century that he really deserves the credit for this. I for one have no problem describing his as the father of Communism - if not the founder.

2) If what you mean is that Marx himself wrote much regarding Russia - you’re right. The Russia of that time was very backwards - really still a feudal state, not industrialised at all. He concentrated more on Germany (where he assumed the first Communist revolution would occur), France (where a Communist style government "the Paris Commune" did occur during his life time) and England (probably the most industrialised country of the era with a long history of workers rights movements).
But, the post Bolshevik revolutionary Russia is intrinsically tied to Marx. Historical, Philosophical though was dominated by Marx's work (and through him Hegelian dialectic) for half a century. It would be as impossible to view Russian society without reading Marx as it is to view Middle Ages China without reading Confucius, or the West without reading the Bible.

3) Hmm. Well depends where you look on the Soviet Union. From Lenin’s days, he was attempting to "kick start" the process that Marx predicted would inevitably occur. Their goal was to install a "dictatorship of the proletarian" to facilitate the rise of the proletarian. Stalin intensified the collectivisation of agriculture and dragged Russia into the industrialised age (though his methods were abhorrent). This interim period was envisaged as being a necessary step until the global communist movement would occur and a truly socialist society would evolve - certainly what I would call Utopian. Whether individual leaders used their power to their own ends or not, surely the wider party had this as their ultimate aim? Though during the Great Patriotic war and the later Cold War the aims of international socialism were often overruled by nationalist policies.

4) He was of course Jewish-German.

5) To be perfectly honest, I've not read all of Marx’s work so I can only comment on the texts I've read.

6). Evil? I'm not sure if he would have used this word either. Unjust, imperialist, insatiable, unstable: instead maybe. You're right to state that he was more focused on describing the economic forces driving history. He certainly felt that the capitalist system was just another extension of the slaver system - with modern workers being no more than wage slaves with the capitalist operating a parasitical function, living of the produce of another. And also that the producers (the proletarian) are valued only for the produce they can create. Due to the huge imbalance between the numbers of the proletarians and the bourgeoisie. He viewed it as inevitable that the proletarians would sieve power and create a society where everyone would benefit equally and thus economic and social crises would be less likely.

[nagerous]

Lenin built upon Marx's ideas but changed them by introducing the concept of a 'vanguard party' which would guide the proletariat into revolution. Lenin saw this only as a temporary measure but Stalin took the vanguard party once Lenin died and created a totalitarian communist state, strongly against Marx's teachings.

[KiwiTaker]

Lol i'm not a communist but what I would like to say is vodka gooooood.

[AlgyTaylor]

I'd say that, eventually, a global Marxist state is an inevitability. I say 'eventually' ... I don't think it'll happen for a VERY long time (hundreds of years at least). Freedom's a hard-earned thing - it took pretty much 150 years to get from a Parliament to the Magna Carta, and another 50 years after that for those people to be elected. It was then 400 years until the English civil war, and it wasn't until 1832 - 766 years after the formation of parliament - that the reform act came along, allowing a whopping 20% of the male population to vote. The common man didn't have a say until 1884, and women didn't get the vote until 1928.

Our (the UK) modern electoral rights didn't come about until 1969, over 900 years after parliament had first been created.

What I'm saying is that the idea of a Marxist revolution has been, and will always be, a ridiculous concept - as is the one of "exporting democracy" a la the Bush administration. It's not a simple thing to implement, and you need the people who are affected to actually understand it conceptually. At present, as you can see from earlier in this thread, people have the mental belief that some people's jobs are "worth" more than others, that their opinion somehow counts for more - in much the same way that nobles would've done in medieval times. Until this changes, true communism isn't possible. When it does change, and it will, we'll have a utopia of our own

[btownmeggy]

There is a clear functional reason for why its done.

!?!

Here are the reasons I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_gen ... us_aspects

None of which are particularly clear or functional.