Hey dude, that guy publius was something else - another solar system - lol

White Fox, you are right, Marx didn't get everything right but his general insights are invaluable for people like me who are serious about their politcs. I have written frequently as to why I think Marx's thought has more relevance now as compared to the times in which he lived. Marx shouldn't be read as a deterministic set of beliefs set in stone but rather as a theoretical guide for action. Why is he still relevant?

I am reminded of an article published in 1997 which marked the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Communist Manifesto when New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy discovered "The Return of Karl Marx." Many of the contradictions that he saw in Victorian capitalism and that were subsequently addressed by reformist governments have begun reappearing in new guises, like mutant viruses," Cassidy wrote. He reported a conversation with an investment banker: "To my surprise he brought up Karl Marx."The longer I spend on Wall Street, the more convinced I am that Karl Marx was right," he said.

More recently, editorial writers at the Allentown, Pa; "Morning Call" dusted off their Marx in the wake of the Enron Scandal: "For several years, we have been told that Marxism is now a defunct doctrine. However, the apparent collusion of our 'democratically elected' leaders in the deceitful methods of the firm Enron should lead us to be less hasty in dismissing Marx as a total lunatic. At least one of the statements of Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto prompts renewed attention. "The executive of the modern state," they wrote in 1848, "is merely the committee for arranging the affairs of the (capitalist) bourgeoisie."

It's a telling statement about the continuing power of Marxism when supporters of the status quo feel the need to measure themselves and the society they champion against ideas that are supposed to be irrelevant. I agree with you, in the sense that it is not immedietly clear why Marxism SHOULD be relevant today. When the Communist Manifesto was written in 1847 capitalism as we recognise it today was confined to a few countries in northern europe. The number of industrial workers at the time was smaller than the number of industrial workers in South Korea today. Moreover, the technology that we take for granted today - and which Marxists believe can, if democratically controlled, be the basis for constructing a new society of abundance, instead of poverty and competition - was unimaginable 150 years ago.

Now bear these facts in mind while reading a few random passages from the Communist Manifesto:

"The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country...In place of old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands."

"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage labourers."

"In proportion as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinary and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinary, etc."

Reading these passages instantly brings to mind images of the world today - an internationally interconnected world dominated by corporate globalization; a world where the reign of profit reaches into and subordinates every area of society and every corner of culture; a world where the newest technological developments appear not as anything that will improve the lives of most people, but as a threat to our livlihoods and sometimes our very existence.

Karl Marx didn't have psychic powers. His writings of 150 years ago are directly related to the problems of today because he grasped essential dynamics of the emerging system of capitalism that remain central, despite the massive technological, economic, social and political changes of the last 150 years.

Marxism's relevance, as the "New Yorker's" Cassidy put it, lies in Marx's "riveting passages about globalization, inequality, political corruption, monopolization,technical progress, the decline of high culture, and the unervating nature of modern existence - issues that economists are now confronting anew, sometimes without realizing that they are walking in Marx's footsteps." The practical application of the principles of Marxism will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, "everywhere and at all times, on historical conditions for the time being existing."

So Marx's insights remain extremely relevant. But Marx's relevance depends not only on its usefulness in explaining how the current system works, but on whether it remains useful as a guide to the struggle to change capitalist society. Judging by this standpoint, two objections usually arise straight away by those who condemn Marx. First, that Marxism has been tried- and failed, a judgement passed by masses of people in Russia and Eastern Europe who rebelled against "socialism" and tore down the Berlin Wall in the hopes of gaining the prosperity and freedoms offered by capitalism. But the question depends, above all, whether these societies should be called socialist.

In fact, "the rule of Marxism" in the USSR and its satellite states in Eastern Europe, was diametrically opposed to basic principles of Marxism. If socialism is the "self-emancipation of the working class", as Marx put it, then how could any society in which workers exercised no power be called socialist? Moreover, how does a society that tolerated and encouraged hundreds of forms of oppression - based on race, religion, gender etc - square with Marx's vision of "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." If Marx and the Marxists who followed him, including the Russian revolutionaries in 1917, insisted on the centrality of internationalism, why was Stalin's rise to power associated most of all with the development of a concept utterly foreign to the Marxist tradition: the theory of "socialism in one country?"

The answer must be that Stalinism used the rhetoric of Marxism to justify a very different reality - an exploitative system, characterized by the rule of a minority, using forms of authority not that very different to capitalism in the West. In this context, the Russian revolution was doomed to degenerate into Stalinism because the revolution remained isolated in Russia, without the victory of socialism in more advanced countries. Marxists have always believed that the basis for socialism is abundance - having enough to go around. I could go on, but I'll leave the floor open to further questions.

In other words....Marx ideas weren't the problem. Many of them are very...very reasonable. But its the way that some misinterpreted them and varied from them that created the bad rep??

Im not really a fan of Socialism just because at its very core I think when you give govt TOO much control you are taking a hell of a risk. From a Psychological perspective look at your average person who runs for office. In order to have the mindset that you are the best person in your district, state, or entire country to tell the people under you what to do and how to live their lives, then you are at your very core an egotistical person. I dont care what party they belong to, they have a massive ego.

So to give people like that so much control over your life is a dangerous thing. Im not talking about Communist type of control mind you, im talking about it in the Socialist sense.

Socialism at its very core is very much a more modern version of a "tribe". Everyone works together for a common goal, you share the fruits of your labor for the most part, and for the decisions and the oversight of what you are doing you have a "counsel" and then a "chief".

It sounds great in theory. And when I first started studying Marx and Socialism I actually really liked it. However again, because I thought of it as a tribe it got me to thinking about the American Indians.....And look what happened to them.

So then I think to myself....What is the best way to have a Socialist society while still having the ability to defend yourself from a foreign aggressor??

Unfortunately it leads to Communism at that point. All that equality that you have then turns into working towards a military that of course most able bodied men HAVE to join. Then you have these giant ego's in office with all this power, and with all this military and it ends up leading to problems.

Im not saying that the Capitalist system is perfect. That is why I like the American system. We are actually more or less like 70% Capitalist and like 30% Socialist. I think it gives us a good balance and we have just enough of the Socialist mindset to balance out the greed that can come from Capitalism.

I would like to see it honestly be a bit more like 50/50, but compared to the rest of the world I like what we have. Socialism at its very core IS a good thing in my opinion. I just dont think its a realistic thing in a world where evil exists.

__________________
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"

--George Washington

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One man with courage is a majority."

--Thomas Jefferson

All attempts at socialism lead to crap.

High five!

The problem is marx said that socialism will lead to communism. It's at the end of his plan for destroying the world.

Good point!

True true..

(*)(*)(*)(*) straight.

America needs MOAR capitalism.

The inability of socialism to defend itself is the only problem with Marx's proletariat utopia that occurs after the government fades away. Communism has more problems when it comes to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the government tries to force people so give their property to the state and live off of the state.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

"The dictaorship of the proletariat" is probably the most misunderstood and mis-used of all Marxist statements used by his enemies in an attempt to undermine him. The word 'dictatorship' is problematic when used in the modern sense, but back in the mid 19th century the word was not 'loaded' like it is today. Marx used the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to describe the aftermath of the successful DEMOCRATIC socialist revolution of 1871 - The Paris Commune.

In his inspiring analysis of the Commune, Marx saw a vision of workers' power, the problems it faced, the limits it must overcome and the creativity it can show in its building of a new and different kind of order. A new power was born in the Paris Commune in March of 1871. What was new about it, as Marx himself commented upon in "The Civil War in France", was this:

"The Paris Commune" said Marx, "was essentially a working class government...the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labour."

Most importantly, it abolished the instruments of bourgeois domination - the standing army, replaced by a people's militia, an "armed people"; the institutions of bourgeois democracy replaced now by a direct democracy in which all delegates could be instantly removed from their positions and fresh elections called (a right reborn in the soviets of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917) and would receive no privileges as a result of their political duties - "the public services had to be done at workmen's wages.

This was a new state. The old one, resting always, as Lenin would say, "in the last instance on the violent repression of the majority", was replaced in Paris with a kind of rule that was NEITHER SEPARATE FROM NOR SET ABOVE THE MAJORITY BUT SUBJECT TO IT. THIS WAS THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AS MARX HAD IMAGINED IT SO MUCH EARLIER.

So following on from my last post, it is clear that there remains a complete misunderstanding of Marx born out of prejudice. The whole point about Marx that I was at pains to point out in my previous communication with KOD in this thread, was Marx's insistence that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class". So the previous post by The Chief is a misnomer because the idea that under socialism as understood by Marx, "you give the government too much control" does not apply. Why? Because for the reasons I have explained, both the government and the people, as Marx conceptualises them, are inseperable and one and the same. Equally, Marxism is not about the government "trying to force people to give their property to the state". Marxism is is the anthesis od coercion and force but rather its entire ethos rests on cooperation and abiding by the democratic will of the majority. This is what is meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat which is the exact opposite to the curent existing state of affairs where we live under a genuinelly oppressive capitalist system which might be reasonably called "The Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

Well, reading these makes me feel as though he was right, though these passages are the only knowledge I have of him. As crazy as this sounds, these seem to reflect the religion of Buddhism - suffering is universal, and we will always desire things. Buddhism, I find, is the polar opposite of capitalism. Both deal with how to satisfy wants. Buddhism says that we should suppress the feelings and urges; capitalism that we should pursue them, eternally. Communism, and this Karl Marx guy, seems to understand that we desire things, but denies the pursuit of them - which is why it reflects Buddhism.

Now the real question is whether or not this is right. I think communism will naturally resist change and progress. If we do not achieve our desires, we will never desire new desires, thus progress will never be achieved.

Marx assumed that a people would be motivated to improve the community and that this would serve to promote progress. Personally, I think Marx had a little too much faith in people. If progress is the goal, I believe the motivation to improve your own condition is usually the most effective force for progress, not some desire to improve the community around you.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

your dam right!