Sorry Abdo, thought I was reversed on Marxian and Marxist, they do remain two different terms.
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.
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!Originally Posted by imthefoolonthehill
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.
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.
It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.
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"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?
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
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
I am nobody.
Nobody is perfect.
I am perfect.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote