Marxism

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What about people who are inveterate capitalists? Would their ideals be forever suppressed in a Marxist world? If so, it cannot be described as anything other than an affront to freedom of thought and expression.

You dont get Marx do you pal.

Once Marxism has completed all its stages, the final stage is one where material gain becomes irrelevant and personal freedom becomes optimal. At the final stage Government ceases to exist. The people are free from all oppression, they are self reliant and totally free.

By understanding the above you can see why Marx saw statist Socialism as the biggest danger to Communism as people become over reliant on the state and do not seek to move to the next level. The paradox is that Socialism is needed to begin with.

To expect material gain to become irrelevant is so far detached from the reality of human nature it is bordering on the insane. It is innate within us all to strive to provide food and shelter to those around us, literally and metaphorically.

Human society needs government to provide law, order, structure and rules to our lives. Every sophisticated human society I can think of has existed in this format for a reason. It is because it is the only way the people can exist together within a properly functioning society. What would this society you imagine without any government do about people who fuck kids, or beat their spouse up every night? How would contracts between parties operate when one went back on the agreement? How would that be enforced? Who would decide whether new housing was built and why - and to what specification? I could go on. Human society cannot operate without laws; and laws cannot function, evolve and be enforced without government.

I don't even know what 'freedom is optimal' actually means.

Your vision is hopelessly simplistic, but even if it was possible what about those people who like material things? They don't rule my life, but I like them. Driving a nice car feels better than driving a shit one: I've done both in the last few years and the difference is stark. Are the aspirations of 'material people' (as they will exist) to count for nothing in this world? If so, and it's difficult to see how they could be accommodated, then the system is oppressive. It states, quite simply, our way of life obliterates all in its path. Any dissenting thoughts from this are a perversion, a twisting of reality. A thought crime, if you will.

Sound familiar?

Any system which assumes universal concord on political thinking is wrong. People's brains are wired differently: they have different values, priorities, upbringings and ways of looking at the world. To expect everyone to feel the same way about your vision of the world is naive and myopic, and if that is the case, your vision of a universal global system would be a vision of hell for some.

Not everyone sees the world as you do, my friend.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

I agree with that post GDM, but let's say Capitalism is unfair to a lot of people, and so would Socialism/Communism, such diverse we are as people and what we value. If I had to pick, I would be inclined to the left, but the centre it seems is the happy medium. Well, not happy, the miserable medium say.

 

[SWP's back]

I agree with that post GDM, but let's say Capitalism is unfair to a lot of people, and so would Socialism/Communism, such diverse we are as people and what we value. If I had to pick, I would be inclined to the left, but the centre it seems is the happy medium. Well, not happy, the miserable medium say.

Capitalism is the fairest way.

The hard working and gifted can work their way up.

The work shy and mundane won't.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

I agree with that post GDM, but let's say Capitalism is unfair to a lot of people, and so would Socialism/Communism, such diverse we are as people and what we value. If I had to pick, I would be inclined to the left, but the centre it seems is the happy medium. Well, not happy, the miserable medium say.

Capitalism is the fairest way.

The hard working and gifted can work their way up.

The work shy and mundane won't.

Are you rich by any chance? :)

Seriously though, that's utter shite and I'm sure you know it. Chose your education did you? your parents? your genes? your ability to take in and use information?

People have bodies, if they use them, they should be rewarded sufficiently. There should be no such thing as a poor ground worker/scaffolder/labourer.

 

[SWP's back]

I agree with that post GDM, but let's say Capitalism is unfair to a lot of people, and so would Socialism/Communism, such diverse we are as people and what we value. If I had to pick, I would be inclined to the left, but the centre it seems is the happy medium. Well, not happy, the miserable medium say.

Capitalism is the fairest way.

The hard working and gifted can work their way up.

The work shy and mundane won't.

Are you rich by any chance? :)

Seriously though, that's utter shite and I'm sure you know it. Chose your education did you? your parents? your genes? your ability to take in and use information?

People have bodies, if they use them, they should be rewarded sufficiently. There should no such thing as a poor ground worker/scaffolder/labourer.

Normal primary in a village and then a royal grammar school.

Life isn't fair. No two people are alike. Should Silva get paid the same as a brickie as they both work hard with their bodies? Bollocks.

You get paid for the skill set you have. If your job can be done by anyone, you won't get much for it. If it's by a limited few then supply and demand dictates you'll get more.

If you don't get rewarded sufficiently then you've made bad choices.

 

[Ducado]

It's all very nice in theory, but that's what it is and will always be because it is unworkable

It's a pity it's attracted some of the cruellest and most despotic people in the history of mankind, whilst I take the point that they were not "True Marxists" they certainley marched under the banner of it.

Countless millions have died because of it, lets not forget that, from the purges of Stalinist Russia tot eh Killing Fields of Cambodia

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Capitalism is the fairest way.

The hard working and gifted can work their way up.

The work shy and mundane won't.

Are you rich by any chance? :)

Seriously though, that's utter shite and I'm sure you know it. Chose your education did you? your parents? your genes? your ability to take in and use information?

People have bodies, if they use them, they should be rewarded sufficiently. There should no such thing as a poor ground worker/scaffolder/labourer.

Normal primary in a village and then a royal grammar school.

Life isn't fair. No two people are alike. Should Silva get paid the same as a brickie as they both work hard with their bodies? Bollocks.

You get paid for the skill set you have. If your job can be done by anyone, you won't get much for it. If it's by a limited few then supply and demand dictates you'll get more.

If you don't get rewarded sufficiently then you've made bad choices.

Yep that's the whole argument. Supply and demand. Fair that is it?

I have no problem whatsoever with people who work hard and get the fruits of their labour etc. Good luck to them. That's bettering oneself. It's the system of surplus and profit and exploitation I have a problem with - so did Marx I guess.

Yes life isn't fair, it will never be, but we can try to make it a bit more fair surely. Don't even know why I'm arguing. I couldn't honestly give a shit about money. I live on the basics and I am content on those grounds. I have 0 desire to own a good car/big house/nice clothes or whatnot.

As was said by GDM, and I agreed. People are diverse, and value different things. The norm though I think history shows, is that people generally take value in what they have got.. food and shelter. That's enough to reproduce, so Billy big bucks is safe don't worry.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The problem with the teachings of Marx is that so few actually understand them and quickly confuse what they actually are with totalitarianist Soviet Union.


Marxism is democrat.

THIS^^^^

As always seems to happen, an idea was posited and different people ran with it for their own aims and advantage. Today, of course, it is a four letter word and the Mighty Dollar/Pound/Euro/Yen/Yuan is the be all and end all.

We must never lose sight of what LIFE is about....and it isn't money, it is people. Humanity is not, and should never be confused with, currency.

 

[Rascal]

What about people who are inveterate capitalists? Would their ideals be forever suppressed in a Marxist world? If so, it cannot be described as anything other than an affront to freedom of thought and expression.

You dont get Marx do you pal.

Once Marxism has completed all its stages, the final stage is one where material gain becomes irrelevant and personal freedom becomes optimal. At the final stage Government ceases to exist. The people are free from all oppression, they are self reliant and totally free.

By understanding the above you can see why Marx saw statist Socialism as the biggest danger to Communism as people become over reliant on the state and do not seek to move to the next level. The paradox is that Socialism is needed to begin with.

To expect material gain to become irrelevant is so far detached from the reality of human nature it is bordering on the insane. It is innate within us all to strive to provide food and shelter to those around us, literally and metaphorically.

Human society needs government to provide law, order, structure and rules to our lives. Every sophisticated human society I can think of has existed in this format for a reason. It is because it is the only way the people can exist together within a properly functioning society. What would this society you imagine without any government do about people who fuck kids, or beat their spouse up every night? How would contracts between parties operate when one went back on the agreement? How would that be enforced? Who would decide whether new housing was built and why - and to what specification? I could go on. Human society cannot operate without laws; and laws cannot function, evolve and be enforced without government.

I don't even know what 'freedom is optimal' actually means.

Your vision is hopelessly simplistic, but even if it was possible what about those people who like material things? They don't rule my life, but I like them. Driving a nice car feels better than driving a shit one: I've done both in the last few years and the difference is stark. Are the aspirations of 'material people' (as they will exist) to count for nothing in this world? If so, and it's difficult to see how they could be accommodated, then the system is oppressive. It states, quite simply, our way of life obliterates all in its path. Any dissenting thoughts from this are a perversion, a twisting of reality. A thought crime, if you will.

Sound familiar?

Any system which assumes universal concord on political thinking is wrong. People's brains are wired differently: they have different values, priorities, upbringings and ways of looking at the world. To expect everyone to feel the same way about your vision of the world is naive and myopic, and if that is the case, your vision of a universal global system would be a vision of hell for some.

Not everyone sees the world as you do, my friend.

Obviously my 2 paragraphs cannot in anyway explain Marxism. There are many facets to it and i gave a very very simplistic overview.

I think one of the mistakes that is made is trying to compare what we have and what marxism is. We tend to view everything through capitalist eyes and basically there is another way. Marx thoerised that man could begin to make living his main business, rather than producing the means for living. This in effect enpowers the individual. That is optimal freedom.

Irrelevant was probably a bad word to use, i should have used secondary to a mans well being. Marx believed his theory created the conditions for the truly free, rational, active and independent man, not as you suggest the view that is widely held that it crushes free thinking and individuality of thought.

Society should serve the needs of man but Marx saw the needs of man as distinct from the synthetic, artificial needs of man. Therefore material gain whilst not being irrelevant is very much secondary.Its the idea of the "good society" as the condition for the realization of man's spiritual needs. It was antiauthoritarian, both as far as the Church and the State are concerned, hence it aimed at the eventual disappearance of the state and at the establishment of a society composed of voluntarily cooperating individuals. Its aim was a reconstruction of society in such a way as to make it the basis for man's true return to himself, without the presence of those authoritarian forces which restricted and impoverished man's mind. This is why Stalinism and other supposed Communist states are the antithesis of Marxism. They are totalitarian wheras Marx wanted freedom to be yourself.

I find Marxism fascinating for the simple reason it is open to interpretation and some of the great political thinkers see it differently. Its a blueprint as i see it to a better way of doing things and for a better world. Yes its idealistic and whilst capitalism is our god it will forever be a blueprint. But it is there and its comforting to see that Marx is still amongst the best sellers today as he was an immense thinker.

 

[scotty123]

It's all very nice in theory, but that's what it is and will always be because it is unworkable

It's a pity it's attracted some of the cruellest and most despotic people in the history of mankind, whilst I take the point that they were not "True Marxists" they certainley marched under the banner of it.

Countless millions have died because of it, lets not forget that, from the purges of Stalinist Russia tot eh Killing Fields of Cambodia

They made good target practice for my Dads Lee Enfield rifle in Korea, he shot loads of the fuckers, said it was like putting diseased dogs down