Debates
13 Feb 11
16 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI will take this opportunity to remind you, ATY, that I am not a Marxist. Marxism and socialism are not synonymous. I am a strong proponent of what Marx and Engels derisively called "utopian socialism."
Hmm.
I'd love to chat with them. Who are they? Got a website I can contact them at? I thought it was the ghetto folks who live in my neighborhood who are full of rage and bitterness due to poverty and riot every 25 years or so, but I guess it must be someone else. Who?
EDIT -
Marx makes a clear distinction between proletariat as salarie e fight. Don't act self-righteous about the plight of the poor. You aren't one of them.
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHe'd have ripped you off without a second thought if you had anything he wanted and hurt you plenty in the process, and you're making him out to be a hero?
It has everything to do with class warfare. It's instinctive. None of this intellectual collectivist Communist crap that the elites use to snare gullible but angry "useful idiots".
This is American style. He is a career criminal. Early on he decided to say "F* YOU!!!" to "society" and "the Man". Like they say in East L.A., he don't fake it, h ...[text shortened]... oesn't deserve it.
I'm sure he has lots of connections with impoverished people.
It frightens me that you were once school teacher.
You need to be kept away from children and never allowed in a classroom.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's right, look at:
...
EDIT: Of course, this post is discussing the increase in income inequality in the last 30 years; the discussion was largely about the even sharper increase in wealth inequality.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
But that article suggest that there is another class, or subset of the upper class, that could be called the executive class, where income once again becomes important -- as a source of wealth.
16 Feb 11
6 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThen what do you mean by "proleteriat" if not what Marx meant? My mad Googling skills tell me that "proleteriat" is not a word used by utopian socialists. Of course I'm no expert on the topic. Edumacate me.
I will take this opportunity to remind you, ATY, that I am not a Marxist. Marxism and socialism are not synonymous. I am a strong proponent of what Marx and Engels derisively called "utopian socialism."
If you mean "proles" like in 1984, those are Marx's "Lumpenproleteriat". One of the basic themes in that book is that the revolution needs to come from the poor, not the middle class, because the upper class has too much control over the middle class. In contrast Communism is about the middle class overthrowing the upper class, manipulating the lower class as needed to get the job done.
One key difference between "utopian socialists" and other socialists (including most anarchists) is that utopian socialists generally don't feel class struggle or political revolutions are necessary to implement their ideas[dubious – discuss]. They feel their form of cooperative socialism can be established among like-minded people within the existing society...
Although the utopian socialists did not share many common political, social, or economic perspectives, Marx and Engels argued that certain intellectual characteristics of the Utopian socialists unified the disparate thinkers. In The Communist Manifesto[3], Marx and Engels wrote, "The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see it in the best possible plan of the best possible state of society? Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism
16 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIn his 20 year long career, I don't see any evidence that he's hurt anyone (based on the article).
He'd have ripped you off without a second thought if you had anything he wanted and hurt you plenty in the process, and you're making him out to be a hero?
It frightens me that you were once school teacher.
You need to be kept away from children and never allowed in a classroom.
I've been in this "dangerous" inner city all my life and neither I nor anybody I know has been hurt except for one man who refused to submit to a robber and fought him hand to hand, getting shot in the process. Yeah, if you attack a pistol armed robber, ok, you are likely to get hurt, sure.
16 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYou know this man started his criminal life at 17 or so right? High school age...
He'd have ripped you off without a second thought if you had anything he wanted and hurt you plenty in the process, and you're making him out to be a hero?
It frightens me that you were once school teacher.
You need to be kept away from children and never allowed in a classroom.
Or, dropout age. We have plenty of high school dropouts. I don't need to be involved for high school dropouts to become criminals.
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy use of the term "proletariat" was not intended to be taken seriously. I was having a hard time believing that your posts in this thread were meant to be taken seriously as well.
Then what do you mean by "proleteriat" if not what Marx meant? My mad Googling skills tell me that "proleteriat" is not a word used by utopian socialists. Of course I'm no expert on the topic. Edumacate me.
If you mean "proles" like in 1984, those are Marx's "Lumpenproleteriat". One of the basic themes in that book is that the revolution needs t ...[text shortened]... for the new social Gospel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism[/i]
The so called 'utopian' socialists were the ones who set about trying to build new socialist communities within existing capitalist society. There were many experiments during the 19th century along theses lines, such as the Owenites, the Fourierists, the Ruskin communities, and others. They were to build socialism one community at a time, from the bottom up. These were all practical and testable experiments. They all eventually failed, but many valuable lessons were learned along the way.
But Marx eschewed all that for the the fantastical notion of seizing political power and building socialism from the top down. His version required a hierarchical and regimented working class which led directly into Leninist vanguardism and then inexorably on to Stalinism. A century and a half after the publication of the Communist Manifesto, what do socialists have to show for all their Marxist inspired misadventures? Nothing. It was all a colossal waste of time and effort.
If Marx hadn't hijacked socialism and sent it careening into a Leninist dead end, the 'utopian' socialists would likely have built a sustainable network of communities by now. Socialists would certainly have more to show for their money than Marx has given them.
16 Feb 11
5 edits
Originally posted by JS357What do you think of this? "Financial wealth" seems to be the new jargon for "capital".
It may be too abstract for the impact to be fully appreciated, that much I'll grant, but publicly traded companies dominate the employment of, and provision of goods and services to, the common person. My attitude about the treatment of the common person by a company, may be compromised by the fact that I have a bundle invested in the company.
As to your s ...[text shortened]... nies that rent living space to common folks. Have you heard of publicly traded apartment REITs?
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."
All houses belong to their owners, but some belong to their owners more than others...because legal ownership is not the same as Property Rights ownership. Legal ownership without Property Rights ownership (a combination known in economics as "financial wealth" or "capital" ) is just parasitic paper shuffling based on the ability to game the system in such a way as to get the police to deny people who have no money access to resources.
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by rwingettNonsense. The "hierarchical and regimented working class" inspired by the searing critique of capitalism developed by Marx and Engels was able to wrest from the capitalist class major concessions in the late 19th and early 20th century which vastly improved the living standards in the Western world and ameliorated the pernacious effects of laissez faire capitalism. In the meantime, your utopian socialists were busy at play making communities that were an anarchonism in the modern world and usually rather quickly faded away.
My use of the term "proletariat" was not intended to be taken seriously. I was having a hard time believing that your posts in this thread were meant to be taken seriously as well.
The so called 'utopian' socialists were the ones who set about trying to build new socialist communities within existing capitalist society. There were many experiments during ...[text shortened]... w. Socialists would certainly have more to show for their money than Marx has given them.
One wonders how well a Russia comprised of utopian socialist communities would have fared when the Wehrmacht and SS came calling in June 1941.
16 Feb 11
Another nice selection from the above:
We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details
Wow, this is a great source.
One final general point before turning to the specifics. People who have looked at this document in the past often asked whether progressive taxation reduces some of the income inequality that exists before taxes are paid. The answer: not by much, if we count all of the taxes that people pay, from sales taxes to property taxes to payroll taxes (in other words, not just income taxes). And the top 1% of income earners, who average over $1 million a year, actually pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than the 9% just below them. These findings are discussed in detail near the end of this document.
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
16 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungblah blah talk, you are not addressing the issue.
You know this man started his criminal life at 17 or so right? High school age...
Or, dropout age. We have plenty of high school dropouts. I don't need to be involved for high school dropouts to become criminals.
You see this "man" as a hero?
Never, EVER should you be allowed in a classroom. There is something seriously wrong with you.
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThe utopian socialist communities were but a tentative beginning in the building of a just world. Several of them did work quite well for a while, but lack of institutional support, and their inability to weather crises, caused them to ultimately fail. My contention is, though, that if the full effort of the socialist movement had been put into furthering that cause, instead of chasing headlong after Marx's so called 'dictatorship of the proletariat', then the long term results would have been far, far better.
Nonsense. The "hierarchical and regimented working class" inspired by the searing critique of capitalism developed by Marx and Engels was able to wrest from the capitalist class major concessions in the late 19th and early 20th century which vastly improved the living standards in the Western world and ameliorated the pernacious effects of laissez faire ...[text shortened]... an socialist communities would have fared when the Wehrmacht and SS came calling in June 1941.
The fact remains that the socialist movement has almost nothing to show for its century and a half long dalliance with Marxism. Certainly nothing that couldn't have been accomplished without him. Indeed, the gains you mention are not victories for Marxism at all. They are victories for 'democratic socialism' and the labor unions. Their paradoxical effect has been to prolong the lifespan of capitalist society by making it more tolerable.
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by rwingettThe fact remains that while your utopian socialists were busy growing grass in LaLaLand, Marxists were spearheading the social movement which led to great gains for the working class in the West. If the "full effort" of progressives had been placed in pursuit of utopian socialist wet dreams, little six year old Johnny would probably still be working 12 hour days.
The utopian socialist communities were but a tentative beginning in the building of a just world. Several of them did work quite well for a while, but lack of institutional support, and their inability to weather crises, caused them to ultimately fail. My contention is, though, that if the full effort of the socialist movement had been put into furthering t ...[text shortened]... has been to prolong the lifespan of capitalist society by making it more tolerable.