Yet democracy was only a tool for the proletariat, to get power. Others classes have to fall under the lead of the proletariat. This shows clearly how Marx isn't at all a democrat or believes in democracy. Marx or his followers do not believe that (liberal) democracy could be self correcting and fix many of the injustices. Neither was it acceptable to be a socialist who attempts to work within the system. — ssu
I think Marx was basically a Democrat as the whole idea was to gain political power through democratic means (or other means in non-democratic countries) to then push through rules that would put an end to class struggle by effectively abolishing class distinction. Once everyone is in the same class, democracy logically followed as both economic and political power would be vested in the same people and the democratic would no longer be marred by class struggle. — Benkei
The middle class, which isn't the favorite class divide of Marx. A lot of those nasty bourgeoisie in that category.What class makes up the majority of society? — JerseyFlight
The middle class, which isn't the favorite class divide of Marx. — ssu
a vast majority of people are generally content with their lives — whollyrolling
a vast majority of people are generally content with their lives. — whollyrolling
You could say that. But you can find interesting things as long as you know how to separate the straw from the grain. And complement it with other sources. Information demands effort, it doesn't come to you like manna.The daily press? The daily press is primarily a farce. — whollyrolling
That's weird. I haven't seen those people you say. My sources are journalists and activists who are not among the 1% who benefit from exploitation.Let me just add here that the people I've heard complaining about the conditions of outsource factories are primarily "the 1% wealthy elite", — whollyrolling
Again, you have no idea who you're speaking to and know nothing of my character. — whollyrolling
I'm not interested in your character but in what you say. And there's nothing leftist in what you say.I was a "left-wing liberal" my entire life. — whollyrolling
We are discussing that, because it is part of Marx's predictions about the evolution of capitalism. The worldwide concentration of capital is one of the few that has come true.As far as your commentary on media and the wealthy 1% "elite"--I agree with some of it, but that isn't what we were discussing. — whollyrolling
This is one of the classic excuses of the exploiter: I pay them a shitty salary, the working conditions are infamous, but they must thank me: I give them work. And I'm getting richer and richer. Everybody is happy, is it not?For one thing, and you need to be more specific about location, the nations to which these manufacturing tasks are outsourced are impoverished and in need of work, — whollyrolling
Well, it looks like you do. In any case, the maquiladoras and other industries established in the third world by Western companies are an essential part of capitalism. It's global capitalism, you know. In many of the corrupt countries what keep the business going it is the local bourgeois class (capitalism) that benefits along with the transnational corporations. And they are democracies endorsed by the American Friend and the rest of the gang. Nowadays you have to present things with a good facade, even if they are as rotten as ever underneath. Ballots are made, they are put in ballot boxes and the usual ones with different collars win. That's nice and it quiets down some well-meaning critics. "The People want it." This is what Marx rightly - in this case - denounced .And let me be clear that I do not condone sweatshops, but that's a whole other conversation. — whollyrolling
Obviously. Marx was not a liberal Democrat. He thought that parliamentary democracy was an instrument in the hands of the bourgeois class and that other types of democracy must be sought that would put an end to exploitation. This is the alphabet of Marxism.Yet democracy was only a tool for the proletariat, to get power. Others classes have to fall under the lead of the proletariat. This shows clearly how Marx isn't at all a democrat or believes in democracy. — ssu
If one analyzes the role of European social democracy after Marx there is no doubt that he was right, from his assumptions."Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow." — ssu
Don't be melodramatic: Marx didn't want to "kill" an entire class. He wanted the bourgeois class to disappear as a class because it was living off the exploitation of humanity. In his opinion this would happen "naturally" when private ownership of the means of production disappears. But he did not think that the process would be very peaceful. The exploiters don't like to have their means of exploitation taken away from them and they have enough power to defend themselves violently. The way he had done it in Europe (France especially during the communes of 1848 and 1871) made this very clear.And neither did the Communists that took up arms and were eager to kill the class enemy. — ssu
How Americans think income should be distributed, how they think it is distributed, and how it actually is distributed: — Pfhorrest
Don't be melodramatic: Marx didn't want to "kill" an entire class. He wanted the bourgeois class to disappear as a class because it was living off the exploitation of humanity. In his opinion this would happen "naturally" when private ownership of the means of production disappears. But he did not think that the process would be very peaceful. The exploiters don't like to have their means of exploitation taken away from them and they have enough power to defend themselves violently. — David Mo
The defenders of the system (who are usually the ones who benefit from it) often argue that social justice is at odds with freedom. Therefore, there must be more freedom (for the riches) than social justice (for the poor).
If the argument is not convincing, they move on to the next line of argument: democratic systems are not good, but everything else is worse.
If the argument is not convincing, they move on to the next phase: There is no alternative. Capitalist liberalism is a natural necessity. Scientific economy and so. Besides the defenders of the system are very strong and very violent: you cannot go against the rich. It is our destiny to be subject to them.
Apart from this argument there is the subliminal propaganda exercised by a multitude of advertisements, films and series that show the delights of capitalism (Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas type) and the horror of non-capitalist systems (terrorists, bombs, dictatorships, pest...).This is one of the most important gaps in the Marxist theory of revolution. — David Mo
And then my question for you is: what are you going to do with the 4 billion year old genetically encoded competitive nature of all species when you remove all elements of competition from your utopian society, are you going to rewrite RNA/DNA codes? — whollyrolling
And one wonders:
Why is the scarecrow of communism still being used when there are virtually no communists today? Why does it keep coming back to a 19th century thinker who's already quite old-fashioned?
I can think of only two possibilities:
1. To throw a smokescreen over the problems of capitalism.
2. Because Marx was right about a few basic points about capitalism.
They are not exclusive. There may be others I can't think of now, of course.
Further, your objection, like so many other objections in this domain, begins with the false metaphysical assumption of the predestined evil of human nature. — JerseyFlight
Exactly! But it's even worse because the defenders of capitalism play with two cards: neo-Darwinism and contractualism. When it suits them, they appeal to the contractualist card to show off capitalism's pacifying virtues (Steve Pinker). When things don't work out, they claim the competitive Darwinian basis of capitalism. What are we left with? Can we or can we not?If you're trying to claim a kind of genetic determinism, specifically social Darwinism, friend you have it all wrong. — JerseyFlight
There are plenty of communists. — NOS4A2
And Marx puts on a pedestal a very specific type of labor, not having much thought to farmers or the self-employed, who can be indeed poor, but, as with farmers owning their small patch of land are theoretically totally different by the values of Marx (which can be seen clearly in the treatment of the so-called 'kulaks' and even here in Finland during the Red rebellion in 1918). The sharecropper or tenant farmer has the wrong ideas for Marx if he wants to own his land. Which again show the flaws in his theories that Marx as a city dweller didn't think so much.You're looking at the "middle income class". Marx doesn't divide classes up by their income; he divides them up by whether or not they own the means of production. — Pfhorrest
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with
reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science,
into its paid wage labourers.
We have had a lot of experience of these "other democracies" and how democracy is killed by this method when there isn't actual representation of any others than those firm believers of the right cause. And this is why communism is so bad and has failed where social democracy has basically triumphed.Obviously. Marx was not a liberal Democrat. He thought that parliamentary democracy was an instrument in the hands of the bourgeois class and that other types of democracy must be sought that would put an end to exploitation. This is the alphabet of Marxism. — David Mo
How so?If one analyzes the role of European social democracy after Marx there is no doubt that he was right, from his assumptions. — David Mo
:lol:Marx didn't want to "kill" an entire class. He wanted the bourgeois class to disappear as a class because it was living off the exploitation of humanity. — David Mo
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!
That's really funny, David. What do we call people who want a whole group of other people to disappear and then make statements like: — ssu
For God's sake! Apart from the Communist-Capitalist parties that are as Marxist as my aunt - well my aunt is quite a bit more than they are - the rest are just unimportant residues that fade away on their own. The world is capitalist, man. If you were afraid, you can relax.
Are you a Marxist? — NOS4A2
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.