Debates
13 Feb 11
16 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYes the Marxists made great gains for the working class.
The 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.
You really are nuts.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI guess the history of the working class under Stalin and Mao isn't your cup of tea either.
Stick to ignorant racism Sam; it's what you do best.
The history of working class struggle in the late 19th and early 20th Century ain't your cup of tea.
You just go on blabbering about how marxism helped humanity.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by Sam The ShamPretty pussy to send an abusive PM and then put the recipient on your "ignore list", Sam; grow a pair.
I guess the history of the working class under Stalin and Mao isn't your cup of tea either.
You just go on blabbering about how marxism helped humanity.
What Stalin and Mao did or didn't do has no relation to the topic Rwingett and I were discussing.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSocialists (many inspired by Marx) and labor unions did make great gains for the working class. The gains those people could have made, though, would have been greater, and longer lasting, if they hadn't listened to Marx at all. Here's why:
The 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.
Marx, in disdaining 'utopian' socialism, advocated the seizure of political power and the implementation of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' The working class was to be organized and militarized with this eventual goal in mind. By aiming for the top, he neglected any strategy for altering the basic building blocks of society in any fundamental way. Although certain gains were made, society was to remain strictly capitalist until such time as the workers could rise up and seize the reins of power for themselves. Essentially it was all or nothing.
It became an article of faith, like Christians waiting for the second coming of Christ. How do you maintain that level of dedication and drive when this prophesied, all-encompassing revolution never comes? You can't. Capitalism reformed itself by the minimum amount necessary to blunt any revolutionary tendencies the working class may have once had. So what was the end result? The power structures were never changed, so any gains that were made along the way have proven to have a foundation of sand. And with a vastly different political climate, one by one they are all being undone. Missouri state senator Jane Cunningham recently proposed legislation to do away with many of the state's child labor laws. So little Johnny just might be working 12 hour days once again.
The utopian socialists, by contrast, aimed not at changing the top, but at changing the very foundations of society. By building local socialist communities, they would be building a base for long lasting and fundamental change. Socialism would be something that these people lived daily, and not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy promised by evangelical Marxists. Even a small network of self sustaining communities would have given people a real world alternative to the capitalist drudgery and exploitation they otherwise faced. That's the type of change that could have been successfully sustained and normalized until it slowly worked its way up to the upper echelons of society. Then you truly would see the state 'wither away' of itself, rather than being appropriated in perpetuity by a statist vanguard party.
17 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettLabor unions ride in on the back of greater wealth they sure don't create it. Want to put it to the test let them go to any desperately third world country and 'gain' the workers there a 38 hour working week, paid parental leave, 5 weeks vacation etc. All those great conditions come about in spite of unions, doesn't stop them cashing in on them and sucking in a few sheep with claims about how they created them. I've been both sides of the fence, sitting around the smoko table whinging about being screwed over by the boss and as a independant contractor, with no paid vacation, no overtime rates, no stat holidays, no sick pay but a very nice flat hourly rate. There is a labour market, there is supply and demand, and all those knick knacky conditions the union claims kudos for come at a cost somewhere else.
Socialists (many inspired by Marx) and labor unions did make great gains for the working class. The gains those people could have made, though, would have been greater, and longer lasting, if they hadn't listened to Marx at all. Here's why:
Marx, in disdaining 'utopian' socialism, advocated the seizure of political power and the implementation of the 'di of itself, rather than being appropriated in perpetuity by a statist vanguard party.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by Sam The ShamRight, so because of Stalin and Mao, Marxism had nothing to do with the rise of social democracy and the associated gains in the standard of living in western countries?
I guess the history of the working class under Stalin and Mao isn't your cup of tea either.
You just go on blabbering about how marxism helped humanity.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by WajomaYes, it's so terrible that modern society has evolved to the point where we can afford long vacations and 38-hour working weeks. If only those five year olds would still be in the factories, right?
Labor unions ride in on the back of greater wealth they sure don't create it. Want to put it to the test let them go to any desperately third world country and 'gain' the workers there a 38 hour working week, paid parental leave, 5 weeks vacation etc. All those great conditions come about in spite of unions, doesn't stop them cashing in on them and sucking i ...[text shortened]... all those knick knacky conditions the union claims kudos for come at a cost somewhere else.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by rwingettSo with all this noise about 2nd amendment rights, that would make Karl Marx a founding member of the Tea Party movement?
Marx, in disdaining 'utopian' socialism, advocated the seizure of political power and the implementation of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' The working class was to be organized and militarized with this eventual goal in mind.....
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSeems quite tough to break through that magic 30 billion mark. Maybe the hardest part is making your first billion? However, getting back to this debate about who fits into the middle class.... Like is that missing a point?
Look at this. Forbes' list of the top billionaires has them ALL increasing their net worth as of this year!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires
17 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd they ALL decreased their net worth in 2009:
Look at this. Forbes' list of the top billionaires has them ALL increasing their net worth as of this year!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billionaires_(2009)
How the stock market does that year is probably the most relevant variable in determining these guys net worth.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not sure about the distinction between legal and property ownership, but it probably doesn't matter because I think all forms of ownership are social conventions or agreements, and of course, ownership is had by those who are prepared to enforce their agreement against those who would disagree. This is not a negative or positive statement about ownership per se. Ownership is an inevitable aspect of society, even if it is communal ownership. What things are can be owned, how ownership is determined, what powers and obligations ownership confers, and who is eligible to be an owner, can be judged against moral standards.
What do you think of this? "Financial wealth" seems to be the new jargon for "capital".
[i]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 ...[text shortened]... a way as to get the police to deny people who have no money access to resources.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by finneganI don't understand your last sentence.
Seems quite tough to break through that magic 30 billion mark. Maybe the hardest part is making your first billion? However, getting back to this debate about who fits into the middle class.... Like is that missing a point?