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?

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.

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.

[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 . . .

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

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. :)

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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]

Quote:

---

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!).

Quote:

---

(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!

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.

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

Sorry Abdo, thought I was reversed on Marxian and Marxist, they do remain two different terms.

And, yet, the only thing that has really remained here is your arrogance and trite, matter-of-fact display of 'intellectualism'. I kind of feel sorry for you, in a sense.

Anyway, this is going to hurt you more than it's going to hurt me:

Marx·ist (märksst)
n.
One that believes in or follows the ideas of Marx and Engels.
A Marxian.

There is no difference: live it, learn it, love it.

Marx·ian
Function: adjective
: of, developed by, or influenced by the doctrines of Marx

Marx·ism
Function: noun
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

Is it just me or are those different definitions?

Okay foolonthehill, we were discussing this on MSN the other evening, so let's resume it through the medium of this topic.

First of all, I studied The Communist Manifesto this year for my Modern History class, and while I had always been curious about Marxism before then (mainly I was seduced by the revolutionary glamour of figures such as Guevara, Lenin and Trotsky, as well as some RATM fuelled anger) I rejected what I read, despite finding it interesting, and agreeing with the intentions of the entire manifesto. I haven't read Das Kapital, which thus renders my opinions of Marxism fairly useless, but the system that Marx proposed is too susceptible to totalitarian regimes and exploitation. How can you possibly trust a human with so much power over the economy, the media, a small group in charge of administering so much to an entire population? It's a good framework for an oppressive oligarchy, I believe. A computer would be much better left in charge of a communist nation.

However, we have some strong supporters for the other, more prominent extreme here. Capitalism, they argue, improves the standard of living over a period of time. The reality is that in the United States from 1979 until now, the richest 1 per cent in your country have seen their wages increase by 157 per cent, while those of you in the bottom 20 per cent are actually making $100 less a year than you were at the beginning of Reagan's presidency. The capitalist system, as you will witness in the next decade or so, will result only in widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and the middle class to which you belong will sink into a cold, hungry sludge.

The system will benefit only a rich elite, and recent statistics show a glimpse of the future far more complex than simple high-school taught economic theory. The world's richest two hundred companies have seen their profits grow by 362.4 per cent since 1983; their combined sales are now higher than the combined GDP of all but ten nations on this planet. Bascially it's these corporations that are defining grounds over the earth, protected by the United States (always the great defender of what is true and fair - captialism, from the 'evils' of communism.)
Capitalism puts the power in the hands of corporations whose only intention is to make as much money as possible for themselves (with a disregard for anyone else in their country) and exploiting the populations if needs be to do so. How a person so vulnerable to the decisions of a corp. board meeting could be such a rampant supporter of them is beyond my understanding.

While New Yorkers and millions of other people faced an 'energy crisis' ensuing in chaos, your beloved and most trusted top four US oil companies profits soared by 146 per cent after their recent merger. Most of the top corporations don't even pay tax - I have statistics to refer to here if you want them.

To me, capitalism if merely the more prominent of two economic systems that result in the exploitation of the masses. The fact that you have been educated in a country that promotes it and embeds its success in your mind through a propagandist education makes sure you only recognise one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imthefoolonthehill

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.

---

And now, I'm not going to spend to much time refuting these little comments. All are unsupported rhetoric, what facts do you have to back them up? It's laughable that you speak so dissisdently of socialist countries in the context of some of the United States' biggest social problems: hate crime, drug use, suicide rates...and...are you serious?! Gun control?! HAHAHA!

Need I say more?

<sigh>

Alright, Mda, if you say so. My point was not to split hairs over a definition, it was just to point out your absurd attempt at trying to give off an aura of intellectual sophistication when, in reality, you're just trying to be part of that camp following known as the aristocracy of the 'politically correct left'. Your only purpose on this forum, it appears, is to make us think you're above the unenlightened rabble shuffling about in the heat of the sun. And it grows tiresome. You seem like a smart guy with a lot of knowledge to share, and I think it's a shame you're wasting it all on to benefit of your own snobbery instead of the greater sum of human knowledge.

Abdo, I wasn't splitting hairs or trying to be a smartass, I'm sorry if I came off that way. I just felt it was important to distinguish two commonly confused areas of political philosophy, i.e. the works of Marx himself, and the works of others who interpret him. The actual views of Marx are too often confused with those of others who have refined and manipulated his ideas to form their own distant ideologies.

Moving on, Munro, according to Marx in a truly communist society no one would have power over the economy as there would be no state. The arguments you made about totalitarianism is an argument against Marx's system of socialism, which he considered the pre-communist state that would arise after the fall of capitalism. According to his theories the socialist state should whither away after the conflicts that capitalism creates in society are removed. If you'd like to get a better feel for Marx's theories without subjecting to yourself to the mental bludgeoning of Das Capital, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 are a good choice, they're lighter, require a less in-depth understanding of classic economics, and tell more about Marx's theories as a philosophy than Das Capital which is almost entirely an economic argument.

Also, you're assault on capitalism is both interesting and informed, but rather one-sided. Speaking as a person with rather heavy leftist (socialist not liberal) sentiments Capitalism is as bad as you make it seem. The Economist's survey of Capitalism and democracy in the 160th anniversary issue (June 28th-July 4th 2003) provides a powerful defense of Capitalism and expounds the many virtues of the system. While it is unarguably true that Capitalism creates a serious stratification of wealth is has also vastly increased the wealth of just about every person on the planet, and has of late (the last 30 years) actually been creating a more equal distribution of wealth amongst the world's population. Many of the corporate problems you stated are, in truth, the effect of America's bred of business capitalism, which is almost as distasteful to true capitalists (liberal capitalists, hooray for competition, etc.) as it is to socialists. By practicing corporate welfare, creating tax exemptions for mega-corporations and pouring public money into them through subsidies and contracts, the government of America has long has am incredibly distorting effect on competition not only within American, but the world.

I haven't read Das Kapital. In fact, I think only 1 in a 100.000.000 readers have accoplished such a feat. It's huge in content and even bigger in complexity (and if I'm not mistaken, Marx never managed to actually complete it in the way he wanted). Nevertheless, I've read some samples from it and other papers from him, as well as many "marxist" authors. First of all, "marxist authors" is an oxymoron. I would never agree on a cathegorie that puts Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Marx, and Ernesto Guevara in the same bag. It just doesn't make sense. That being said, I think Marx is awesome. When I first came across some of his theories, I was very surprised. I've yet to see an analysis so deep and accurate of humanity socio-economic systems as his. Of course, Marx wasn't the first to expose some ideas (Moore has been mentioned already, Plato also comes to my mind right now), but he surpassed everyone in his works.
In my opinion, making a marxist-derived country is fruitless. I agree with Marx's diagnose, not with his remedy. Marx is criticism, not solution. Marx's views couldn't be applied (succesfully) in any country, because of human nature. Marx saw the occidental State as a mere instrument of the burgesy to force its will over the proletarian's (and some other things too). I believe that without a State, things would get much worse. I don't particularly apply to Rousseau's social contract theory, but some things are crystal. Somebody has to organise things. Otherwise, it's just chaos. And, there are examples of great societies, imperfect of course, but way better than that of most countries (think of places like Denmark, or Norway, just to name a few).

Denmark has the second highest suicide rate in the world, though. But this makes perfect sense because, when you look at their society, there's simply not enough competition there for the people who can't settle down into a quiet lifestyle and, themselves, want to succeed at something independently (just as we all want to succeed in life without the support of our parents). What, and--likewise--where, is the incentive for business owners and workers to move forward individually when the government will still take over half their income? The question concerning economic structure and doctrine (a question to which I believe there is no general answer) is far from being a simply 'economic' one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MdaCruz

The Economist's survey of Capitalism and democracy in the 160th anniversary issue (June 28th-July 4th 2003) provides a powerful defense of Capitalism and expounds the many virtues of the system.

---

Yeah, my dad has that issue of The Economist up in Brisbane so next time he comes down I'll ask him to bring it. Then I'll read it and tell you what I think about it.

Fool, you said you wanted to discuss your beliefs further with me. I'm still waiting for what you've got to say.

well ive actually read up on all the pre mentioned statistics and and guess what after reading it ive realized socialism is a million times better than capitalism, because if you cross reference the statistics to capitalist countries everything in a capitalist world is quite MUCH worse :,)

Not really, and in Denmark it may also be the weather (it is quite dark out there more often than not and not really warm, absence of sun over lon periods is quite dangerous and people can become depressed or ill, especially if there is also lack of vitamin D). Anyway, the problem with marxist countries was not so much the oppression (people were oppressed but they AS MASSES took only then to the streets when they run out of bananas i.e. when the economic situation became so dire and the plentiful impression by capitalist countries ever more seductive). It stands and falls, as always, with economics (and with human nature which is somehow really interested in material well being). A plan-controlled economy which, by defintion, cannot draw on market forces, will never create as much as a market driven economy would. Thus there is less to distribute. It would probably still be enough for everyone but it wouldn't be much more and it wouldn't be geared to meet individual needs. Another drawback is that science and technological progress are so much slower because the incentive to be a good worker and to be recognised by society as such is less powerful than the incentive to increase your material wealth. This works for competing companies just as it does for people. Greed is a very great force and is not always for the worst. And, by the way, nothing of Lenin's work or the Russian revolution itself were in accordance to Marx' theory. It is quite clear that a communist revolution can only occur on the basis of a fully developed capitalism, amongst others characterised by the fact the financial capital is hugely predominant in comparison to manufactuting or production capital. This is where we are going only now and will not be there yet for a long time to come, if ever.

I was going to tell my thoughts about this subject but since my English is not good enough to get into conversation about this kind of topic i'll just say something interesting about Upton Sinclair.

I went to Sahaf stores many times (it's called Sahaf here, they sells used books, for example in a Sahaf you can buy Bros Karamazov for 4-5 dollars and old publications are far better in using of language, therfore when i told about it an ex-girlfriend of mine she humiliated it and called it "a second hand life" :lol: Isn't "Sahaf" kinda Socialist?) i saw Upton Sinclair books every times because there's a lot. But i never bought an Upton Sinclair book and never read him, because i always thought he doesn't have a "Novelist Name". Upton and Sinclair. How he can write good? :lol: But if you recommend a book of him, i'll buy next time.

Oh yeah, about Marxism. It's really endless topic to talk, i know it from my past experiences with some Socialist and Communist people i talked. Marxists always says: "any country didn't apply true Marxism" and i tell "but many people tried to apply Marxism, but they couldn't apply it, if you say Lenin or Castro or Mao wasn'T enoguh communist i have nothing to say, but if they tried to apply Marxism and if it ended unsuccessful, then Marxism is cannot applicable" this is what i think about Marxism. It's not bad as a system, even true Socialism is far better than Capitalism as a SOCIAL SYSTEM but it's really cannot applicable, to apply Marxism you need a nation of angels. And truly greed and stupidity are biggest blocks on the way of Socialism. Since we can't destroy all stupids and greedy people (because they are almost %80 of world population:lol: ) we have to live with this system. And on the other hand situation is not bad as 1848, in 1848 proleterian class was living under really bad conditions, greedy English capitalist was using 9-10 years old workers in coal mines, proleterians was living like parya class of Indian cast system. But on the other hand Hegel's dialectic worked and today's European workers class is living under good conditions (they turned to emburgoueis-imbourgoeis [i don't know the word in English] by Capitalism). So a kinda synthesis materialized, capitalists are not wild as 19. century capitalists and proleterians are not in a bad situation today.

Returning to the original purpose of the topic which pertains to Upton Sinclair's personal views, I am currently writing a paper for AP H.O.A centered around the Progressive Era. For a topic i want to discuss the anti-capitalist views which The Jungle is centered around. If anyone cares to elaborate on ideas or strong points i can utilize in my paper, I am listening with open ears. I realize that The Jungle is a classic example of Muckraker style writing, and of course following Sinclair's style the story ends in a traditional propaganda style.
Thanks