Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Upton Sinclair - The Jungle - Capitalism vs. Socialism

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12

    Upton Sinclair - The Jungle - Capitalism vs. Socialism

    I wanted to start a discussion about Upton Sinclairs ideas of Capitalism vs. Socialism as portrayed in his novel, The Jungle. I found it very facinating that the main character, Jurgis, and his family were from Lithuania. These were country people who came to America to work and earn a living. It is here that they experianced the devestation of greed. Sinclair argued that Socialism was the solution to the monopolys of giant buisiness's and how they effected the lives of those who worked for them. Does anyone see the paralell's between Jurgis's time and ours today? Consider that in the novel, familys were forced to give the ultimate to survive because of the corporations that controlled them. Is it possible that today many 3rd world countries are forced to live like the families in the novel because of how we as American's live today? This novel has compelled me to become interested in socialism. What do you guys think?

  2. #2
    King of Plastic Spoons imthefoolonthehill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lost in my own incoherence
    Posts
    2,378
    Interested in Socialism, eh? Well... heh... heh... look at the ammount of taxes in Socialist countries. Now, look at the gun-control policies of Socialist Contries. Still want socialism? Look at the hate-crime laws, and special rights given to minorities. Next, look at the crime rates. After that, look at the over all cost of living. Then, look at the suicide rates. Then, look at the amount of drug usage.

    On some of those, (like the suicide rates, cost of living, and drug usage) I have absolutely no idea what you will find. However, I believe that if you look at those, you will quickly lose pro-socialism tendencies...

    Just a thought.... I suppose I could be wrong, but I will probably find out next summer when I go to Europe for 2-6 weeks.
    Told by a fool, signifying nothing.

  3. #3
    L'artiste est morte crisaor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Stuck inside a cloud
    Posts
    1,405
    Well, there are plenty of sources on socialism. What exactly are you looking for? Socialism as in the welfare state? Socialism as in the utopic point of view? Socialism's more extreme views (e.g. communism)? A socialist point of view of today's world?. For the first one, you can read many books, although most of them are of an economic nature. If this is the case, Keynes's general theory is a must. About the second, Gandhi wrote several books on socialism. They're very nice. On communism, the communist manifesto is basic reading, although further down the line you'll find many differences among the authors (Marx himself said at one point that he wasn't marxist due to the various interpretations of his works :o ). About the last, there are many historians/writers/journalists who more or less share this view. Just to name a few: Eric Hobsbawm, Noam Chomsky, Pierre Bourdieu, Ignacio Ramonet, etc.

    Hope that helps.

  4. #4
    [quote="crisaor"]On communism, the communist manifesto is basic reading, although further down the line you'll find many differences among the authors (Marx himself said at one point that he wasn't marxist due to the various interpretations of his works :o ).quote]

    'Das Kapital' is the authoritative work on Communism. Forget about 'The Communist Manifesto', it was written by a young, hot-headed Marx who was forced to renounce much of his own theory later on in light of facts that were and are overlooked by most scholars, even to this day (the most notorious being Marx's original theory that the standard of living would gradually decrease in a Capitalist society--quite the contrary, as Marx himself was aware, the standard of living rises as the value of human life and well-being decreases . . . in other words, we become exploitable machinery in the Capitalist universe, which will eventually collapse in on itself). Pretty much any work of Marx criticism will employ that lame argument.

    Marx may have been the first to lay a fully-grounded, logical argument against Capitalism . . . but before Marx, the term 'Capitalism' was varied depending on who you read (Ricardo's Capitalism, for instance, was quite different than Smith's or Malthus'). It was Marx who articulated exactly what Capitalism was, and we may credit him at least with that colossal task. Oddly enough, many students of Capitalism study 'Kapital' as part of their economics curriculum. Whatever your economic or social orientation is though, 'Das Kapital' is a captivating read.

    Socialism, as crisaor pointed out, is something entirely different . . .

  5. #5
    So much of how one views socialism hangs on how it is defined. As a previous writer stated... the extreme of socialism would be communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds wonderful but it just doesn't fit with human nature.

    On the other hand, the kind of completely free capitalism you find in Sinclairs "The Jungle"... and can see prevalent during "the guilded age" led to such horrible injustices that something was needed to correct things. As usual, the pendalum swung a bit too far with some and Marx and others were there trying to invent a new society. It didn't work.

    A bad paraphrase of a good quote (by Churchill, I believe)..... The problem with capitalism is that is distributes its blessing so unfairly. The problem with communism is that it spreads its misery so evenly.

    For a society to work well (IMO) it must have the following.....
    A mechanism by which effort, work, and production are rewarded.
    Legal checks on rampant self interest, to protect the weak.
    Some sort of safety net for those who get trampled along the way.
    Equal opportunity in culture, employment and education, and elsewhere.
    As little punishing of the rich (ie: the productive rich) as possible. ie.... if the society doesn't reward healthy productivity, it will cease to have any. People will end up fighting over who gets how much of the pie, and in the meantime neglect to bake the pie at all.
    A people who "self govern" by a sense of morality which comes from inside their character. Without that, all bets are off. Might makes right, and whoever has the best lawyer wins.

    I DO know how to ramble on.
    jmark1949

  6. #6
    Do you think such a society exists already? (I don't, just wondering if you based those ideas on an existing society). Self-government through morality would be great, let me know when you find it and I'll be the first to move there.
    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    --Aristotle

  7. #7
    No, I don't think such a society exists, alas. But we must not let the ideal be the enemy of the good. I'm not much of a flag waver, but I am grateful to live in the good ole USA with our freedoms and protections, imperfect as they are. Numerous other countries do as well or better. No need to be cynical. Human nature being what it is, utopia will have to wait.

    Speaking of Utopia, did you ever read Thomas Moore's book of the same name? I remember when I started reading it thinking that this just might be an ideal society, then giving it deeper thought and concluding... no, not really. I wonder if we'd know (or even want) and ideal society if we actually lived in one. Your thoughts?
    jmark1949

  8. #8
    I hardly believe you've read anything by Marx, which gives you little right to criticize any of the beliefs that you might think he advocated. Let me give you an analogy that will help you understand. When astronomers began looking up to the stars with their primitive telescopes during the Englightenment, many began to notice that the orbits of planets like Mercury were not circular, as they had been led to believe. As a result, enlightened thinkers began assaulting the Catholic church's doctrine that the earth is the absolute center of our universe. What strikes me as short-sighted is that no one questioned whether blame for this anomaly should be placed on the tools being used at the time--the primitive telescopes. However, there is, in fact, a perfectly logical explanation for such short-sightedness: the astronomers weren't concerned so much with whether or not Mercury orbited the sun on a circular path; rather, their aim was to undermine the credibility of the Catholic church. As it turns out, those astronomers were right (we aren't the center of the Universe), but it's their methods that are in question here, not the truth to their claims.

    Likewise, your attack on Marx's theories is simply a convenient tool to justify the atrocities that the US has committed in the name of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. The fact is, you probably don't know what Marx thought about what the real problems are with Capitalism (after all, he defined Capitalism and those who support the free-market cite Das Kapital as a technical guide to understand the way the market works). How much do you know about the Bolshevik Revolution and the Cultural Revolution? They failed miserably, but no one in favor of Capitalism ever bothered to concern themselves with the way the Revolution was executed and whether the methods employed were justified by Marx's theory. Food for thought.

  9. #9
    Busted! You got me. I've never read Marx, only some stuff that's been written about him and his ideas. Never a good way to go. jmark1949

  10. #10
    2nd reply from jmark1949

    There is an old saying (who said it? Chesterton? I don't know.) Paraphrased from faulty memory it goes...."Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been wanted but never tried." Are you saying something like that about Marx' ideas? And how do you imagine (in brief) an ideal society?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by jmark1949
    2nd reply from jmark1949

    There is an old saying (who said it? Chesterton? I don't know.) Paraphrased from faulty memory it goes...."Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been wanted but never tried." Are you saying something like that about Marx' ideas? And how do you imagine (in brief) an ideal society?
    I'm not sure exactly what the context of that quote was. What does it mean to 'try' Christianity, especially today? Have we not succeeded in trying, or are we not trying hard enough? You've got me a little confused, but I realize what you're getting at: Marxism has never truly been 'tried' and tested, though the situation is probably different. Then again, the only distinction I can think of off the top of my head is that no one--and by no one I mean the vast majority (sorry, that sounds awkward)--really wants to try Marxism. Most people don't even know that Marx spent most of his life in the National Library in London researching for his planned six-volume opus, Das Kapital (though it was eventually trimmed down to three volumes posthumously by his life-long colleague and friend, Frederich Engels).

    When people think of Marx, they think of revolution (and Che Gueverra). They are mistaken, he was a thinker just like Adam Smith or Isaac Newton. He lived well below the poverty line, but that was in part his own fault: he was never willing to work a regular blue-collar job like the people he claimed to be 'defending'. I like that about Marx though, it shows he was human and had characteristic flaws just like you and me. I think people are so intimidated by him that they conscientously object to his whole theory because it throws into doubt their whole way of life. But I'll get right to it. You want to know what I think about Marxism? I don't think it has a chance of ever becoming a world-wide phenomenon even if revolutionaries move beyond the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' (the first BIG phase in a Marxist revolution, in which rights are suspended while the Communist state is being set up . . . Of course, no one in power ever wants to move beyond this phase because it is an easy way to establish a fully-functioning dictatorship without a lot of opposition).

    I say it has no real chance of going world-wide for a few reasons and, again, I will use a similar analogy to illustrate this point more clearly: The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory emerged roughly in the 11th century and, from that point on, the sacred ritual of praying for the dead became common-place throughout Europe. However, by 1560 there was a good deal of protest against the Catholic Church by the 'Protestants' who had witnessed hundreds of years of subversion because of one Church doctrine that, ironically, was totally unfounded by any Biblical scripture. The question arised as to whether Purgatory was simply a tool employed by the Church to collect taxes and receive additional income on indulgences (prayers for the dead), which allowed the clergy to live in comfort which surpassed that of the King himself. Of course, it would be an easy matter to say that the Catholic Church had been corrupt from the very beginning and that Purgatory was just another means through which men in power exploited the masses. But, as we already know, if one can imagine something being true in one's own mind, then it will become truth as long as he is concerned. So, accordingly, if Purgatory could be imagined in the minds of priests, bishops, and other Church members, then it could not have been just a simple matter of using indoctrination to tax the peasantry to death.

    The visions recorded by those monks who had claimed to have experienced Purgatory in dreams or in hallucinations all seemed to have been sincere and showed no regard for personal gain (this is a complex issue to discuss on a literary forum, but the accepted theory was that God would accept suffering in this life in return for a shorter term of torment in Purgatory, which was roughly equal to that of Hell). Historical records show that those who were haunted by the pain of Purgatory often took to sullen and reclusive behavior for the remainder of their lives. The dreams might have been false, but the terror was real, and this seems to me to be something profoundly human: We all have our ideas about what is 'real' and what isn't, so it is just a matter of seeing which ideas agree with the what we think is Truth (with a capital 'T'). This is known as a 'paradigm', and we all have them. Marx made the mistake of never really taking into account the fact that different cultures have different paradigms, so it is impossible to form one Grand Social Theory because cultures are always going to disagree on the issues. On a regional level though, it might work.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    16

    Marxist and Marxian thought

    I felt it might facilitate further discussion to make the observation that the terms Marxist and Marxism refer to the work of scholars and political leaders refining and critiquing Marx's ideas. Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Guevarra and many other were or are all Marxists, and their works are all Marxist, despite the vast difference that can be found within them. When referring to actual works of Marx's the proper term is Marxian.
    It might also be conducive to differentiate the different ideas that socialism represents, the only actual definition of socialism was given by Marx, and it was of the pre-communist post-revolution state run by the proletariat and agricultural laborers. All "communist" societies up to the current date have been socialist nations in Marx's definition, as there is no state in a communist society. Other ideas of socialism tend to more political and less philosophical; these ideas tend to be closely linked to the idea of the welfare state, public ownership, and highly regulated economics. Many western European nations have many of these characteristics and these tend to what most people think of when they think of socialism.
    Sinclair himself was a socialist in the model of Eugene V. Debs, the leader of the American Socialist party for a good long time, and its perennial presidential candidate. There are a few books about Debs, such as Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist by Nick Salvatore and the collection Debs: His Life, Writings and Speeches, that anyone speculative on Sinclair’s socialism might find interesting. Sinclair was a labor union socialist, rather than a Marxian one (thus much of the previous discussion about Marxian and Marxist thought is moot in relation to the initial question) and other sources of pertinent information could be found in books about the IWW, for example The Wobblies: The Story of IWW and Syndicalism in the United States by Patrick Renshaw. It is important to remember in dealing with Sinclair socialist leanings as portrayed in The Jungle that he was expounding a form of Americanized, political socialism that was more akin the modern welfare state (not only in Western and Northern Europe but even in America) than any Marxian, Marxist, or even Utopian idea of a socialist society.
    Finally, Jmark1949, that was point of More's book hence the actual meaning of "Utopia" which is translated to mean not "good place" or "ideal society" as is commonly done, but "no place." There are many other tricks of translation in More's book that drive home the point you were making and I would be happy to expound upon them at a later date if anyone so desires.

  13. #13

    Re: Marxist and Marxian thought

    Quote Originally Posted by MdaCruz
    I felt it might facilitate further discussion to make the observation that the terms Marxist and Marxism refer to the work of scholars and political leaders refining and critiquing Marx's ideas. Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Guevarra and many other were or are all Marxists, and their works are all Marxist, despite the vast difference that can be found within them. When referring to actual works of Marx's the proper term is Marxian.
    Yes, very good. Looks like we were just mindlessly bantering to each other back there (and in bad taste too--etiquette is etiquette). Nevertheless, I'm sorry to have to rain all over your parade, but it looks like 'Marxist' and 'Marxian' really are synonymous after all (regardless of whatever 'terms' the scholarly scholars desire to appropriate as tools in clarification).

    Marx·i·an (märks-n)
    n.
    One that studies, advocates, or makes use of Karl Marx's philosophical or socioeconomic concepts as a method of analysis and interpretation, as in political economy or historical or literary criticism.

    And there it is . . . [moving on]

    It might also be conducive to differentiate the different ideas that socialism represents, the only actual definition of socialism was given by Marx, and it was of the pre-communist post-revolution state run by the proletariat and agricultural laborers. All "communist" societies up to the current date have been socialist nations in Marx's definition, as there is no state in a communist society. Other ideas of socialism tend to more political and less philosophical; these ideas tend to be closely linked to the idea of the welfare state, public ownership, and highly regulated economics. Many western European nations have many of these characteristics and these tend to what most people think of when they think of socialism.
    Wow! you've conducively debunked as b-u-n-k: BUNK! the delusive differentiation BINK! of definititive BANK! doctrines BONK! concerning the fundamental misconceptions regarding what is falsity (BUNK!) and truth (BONK!).

    (Thus much of the previous discussion about Marxian and Marxist thought is moot [HA!] in relation to the initial question).
    Sorry, we almost lost all sight of what we were talking about.

    Alright, guys, time to get up, focus, get back to the point. Let's go to work!

    Heigho! Heigho!
    Heigho! Heigho!
    Heigho! Heigho!

  14. #14
    Grand Equal of Heaven
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    the great gig in the sky
    Posts
    290
    Okay, I'm up for it...let me just get my head together. I got to regain that motivation to slap some fundamentalist-capitalists over the head and piss them off with lefty talk. Give me a while to read again and think...I'll be with ya in a metaphorical minute.

  15. #15
    Heigho! Heigho!
    Heigho! Heigho!
    Heigho! Heigho!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Junge, Upton Sinclair
    By David A Domina in forum The Jungle
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
  2. The Jungle by Sinclair
    By BookWoRM091 in forum General Literature
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2005, 03:18 PM
  3. 1984 and the defense of socialism
    By earth in forum 1984
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2004, 09:45 PM
  4. upton sinclair
    By Admin in forum Book & Author Requests
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-17-2002, 06:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •