the following sentence literally refutes that: — Maw
Obviously, the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are not the same kind of book. — Bitter Crank
Marx described the reasons for class conflict (between the proles and capitalists) and that the proles would win--not because it was his preference, but because the exploited class would eventually achieve a level of development where they could, and would, dispossess the exploiters. Of course, they (WE) don't have to win -- now or at any time in the future. — Bitter Crank
Karl Marx didn't lay out a time table. — Bitter Crank
I've only been seriously studying philosophy for a little over a year. There are some hard choices I need to make as to which of the many dense tomes that are ahead of me I invest my time and energy in - and in what order. I always try to be upfront as to the limits of my own knowledge, and one of the reasons why I engage here is that I figure I might actually learn a thing or two from people who are a bit ahead of me. Or at least know more about certain things than I do. If you want to be contemptuously dismissive of that, then fine — Theologian
But, here's the thing that you or Marx missed out on. Namely, that advancements in technology and resulting productivity increases via automation, AI, and the rest would cause the same luxurious lifestyle of the bourgeoisie, to be available even with the income of a proletariat worker, given enough time and possibly credit... So, essentially this renders class struggles as irrelevant. This has been happening for a great while already. — Wallows
I've only been seriously studying philosophy for a little over a year. There are some hard choices I need to make as to which of the many dense tomes that are ahead of me I invest my time and energy in - and in what order. — Theologian
Now I think we'll be lucky to make it through a few centuries of global warming. — Bitter Crank
While that's sometimes claimed, that's not quite what Marx thought, and most of the misunderstanding of Marx is due to the same problem, a misinterpretation of the word 'proletariat'
This was a very old concept, since Roman times in fact, of a class of people who have rights to vote in a democracy but who are illiterate. It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie to limit education, and therefore over time the class of illiterate increases until its decisions dominate the republic. The proletariat are easy to manipulate, and therefore do not vote in their favor. Some may argue that the process is well underway in the USA, perhaps for good reason. — ernestm
Well, I'm just going to come off as trite here; but, the US is a classless society. — Wallows
I confess: Back when I was an English major (shortly after Adam and Eve moved out of Eden) I too had to decide which long boring books I would skip. Sometimes the skipped books were important. But... there are only so many hours in a day, and one's brain can absorb and process only so much. I admit it: The thought of reading all of Shakespeare is still horrifying. Or any of Thackeray and Trollope. It's not going to happen, and I still call myself an English major.
I believe in evolution, but I didn't read Darwin. Instead I've read lots of bits and pieces about evolution. — Bitter Crank
What I find "dismissive" is someone who has not read an iota of Marx and yet has already passed judgement on Marxism because of secondary sources, de-contextualized readings from a political pamphlet, and a citation-less online encyclopedia, which while useful is not a substitute for doing the actual readings. — Maw
These elements of the class structure are still in operation, but have changed. — Bitter Crank
Class has not disappeared. It is as deterministic and pervasive as ever. — Bitter Crank
Where was it tried? — Valentinus
As Slavoj Zizek has said, Marx many time said that history/events can go the other direction he envisioned them going... and that typically was the way how things went.So, I may have been using the terms too broadly. I still feel as though the logic is sound in the OP, according to Marxist economics. — Wallows
Well, jackals and jackasses aren't great as leaders in ANY society no matter who owns the capital.I would say "It is better to be live in a well run capitalist economy than in a socialist economy run by jackasses. Similarly, "It might be better to try socialism than put up with a ruinous capitalist system run by jackals, even if socialism has not been proven to work." — Bitter Crank
The Social Democrats, the Ex-Communists (the Leftist Alliance), the Green Party and the Centrist Party are making a bold new effort here in my country now. The conservative Party is in the Opposition after being 12 years in power.The fact is, capitalism is not proving itself compatible with a liveable future. The oil companies (capitalists all) clearly plan to suck up the last profitable drop of oil and burn it. By the time they get done doing this, a liveable future will likely be impossible. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like our democratic institutions are going to be able to control the economic powers.
I'm not sure there will be any sort of socialist revolution. But I'm pretty sure capitalism is offering a no-win future. Socialism seems worth a try. — Bitter Crank
I've only been seriously studying philosophy for a little over a year. There are some hard choices I need to make as to which of the many dense tomes that are ahead of me I invest my time and energy in - and in what order. I always try to be upfront as to the limits of my own knowledge, and one of the reasons why I engage here is that I figure I might actually learn a thing or two from people who are a bit ahead of me. Or at least know more about certain things than I do. If you want to be contemptuously dismissive of that, then fine. But I think that says more about you than it does about me. — Theologian
haha don't take it personally son — ritikew
...may have lead you to believe! :wink:I've only been seriously studying philosophy for a little over a year. — Theologian
...part, feel free to make the case. I'm certainly not here claiming to be any kind of expert on Marxist theory myself.so far from what I have seen here, pretty much correct on Marx's work. — ritikew
Norway's government owns over 70% of the nation's entire wealth — Maw
you cherry pick some misleading facts and must deliberately dance around facts that would demolish the notion you try to put forward. — ritikew
But I do consider it a little more authoritative than a random person I just met on the internet. — Theologian
haha don't take it personally son, Maw is a veteran on these forums and on the previous one. He is an outspoken leftist (not Marxist though, as he leans more towards anarchism/left wing libertarianism), a bit insecure, hence his 'contemptuously dismissive' comments and a bit autistic when it comes to social interaction. Nevertheless, he is incredibly well read and is, so far from what I have seen here, pretty much correct on Marx's work — ritikew
That is your argument for socialism? I don't know if I should laugh or be genuinely happy, perhaps I'll do both.Excluding wealth from home-ownership, Norway's government owns over 70% of the nation's entire wealth, which is notably more than the percentage of wealth in China that's owned by it's government. The state owns over 70 companies, including the largest financial company, telecom company, and oil company. That sounds like a successful and workable socialized ownership of capital to me. Additionally, other models that socialize capital such as worker co-operatives are successful alternatives to traditional company models. — Maw
Not quite the "socialist" country that people like to portray.. — ritikew
The statistic "non-home wealth" is ad hoc defined to serve a political agenda. — ritikew
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.