|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 3, 2023 6:43:35 GMT
Not sure I need to tell anyone that your claims are wrong - that is self evident. Of course they're wrong. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that working and living conditions for the ordinary worker in the mid 19th Century were exactly the same as they are today. Not sure what you think that has to do with Socialism. Working conditions in America are far better now than they were in the 19th Century - next uyou will be telling us that the US is Socialist paradise. Socialism has gone backwards in countries across the globe in the last 50 years - are you sure you have the foggiest about what Socialism really is? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 8:23:49 GMT
Of course they're wrong. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that working and living conditions for the ordinary worker in the mid 19th Century were exactly the same as they are today. Not sure what you think that has to do with Socialism. Working conditions in America are far better now than they were in the 19th Century - next uyou will be telling us that the US is Socialist paradise. Socialism has gone backwards in countries across the globe in the last 50 years - are you sure you have the foggiest about what Socialism really is? You can always be relied upon to misunderstand, Doc. Marx and Engels said that communism would occur with or without a revolution. They maintained that capitalism would become increasingly more socialist over time, until, eventually, a democratic communist state evolved. Maybe, you can't see that capitalism has become more socialist. Maybe it's not obvious to you that modern day workers have much better lifestyles in late capitalism than was the case in early capitalism. I really don't know. But I don't think it's controversial that capitalism has been on a socialist trajectory since its inception. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 3, 2023 8:33:29 GMT
Not sure what you think that has to do with Socialism. Working conditions in America are far better now than they were in the 19th Century - next uyou will be telling us that the US is Socialist paradise. Socialism has gone backwards in countries across the globe in the last 50 years - are you sure you have the foggiest about what Socialism really is? You can always be relied upon to misunderstand, Doc. Marx and Engels said that communism would occur with or without a revolution. They maintained that capitalism would become increasingly more socialist over time, until, eventually, a democratic communist state evolved. Maybe, you can't see that capitalism has become more socialist. Maybe it's not obvious to you that modern day workers have much better lifestyles in late capitalism than was the case in early capitalism. I really don't know. But I don't think it's controversial that capitalism has been on a socialist trajectory since its inception. A 'democratic Communist state' how does that work? The whole point of democracy is people are free to change those social structures upon which society rests. We see today that there is an inability to change anything as control is wrested away from people and policies are put in place and society is constructed in a way over which the electorate have no control. Design is a top down imposition which is the hallmark of a Communist state. One may have a say but one cannot change anything other than tinker at the edges even if the majority of the people so wish. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 8:38:33 GMT
You can always be relied upon to misunderstand, Doc. Marx and Engels said that communism would occur with or without a revolution. They maintained that capitalism would become increasingly more socialist over time, until, eventually, a democratic communist state evolved. Maybe, you can't see that capitalism has become more socialist. Maybe it's not obvious to you that modern day workers have much better lifestyles in late capitalism than was the case in early capitalism. I really don't know. But I don't think it's controversial that capitalism has been on a socialist trajectory since its inception. A 'democratic Communist state' how does that work? The whole point of democracy is people are free to change those social structures upon which society rests. We see today that there is an inability to change anything as control is wrested away from people and policies are put in place and society is constructed in a way over which the electorate have no control. Design is a top down imposition which is the hallmark of a Communist state. One may have a say but one cannot change anything other than tinker at the edges een if the majority of the people so wish. I suppose, it works on the basis that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Top down imposition was the hallmark of administration in Russia. I absolutely agree. But that wasn't Marxism. A Marxist state is populist, with all the decisions being democratically made by the workers. As has been pointed out, Marx was adamant that communism could never work in a country that had no tradition of democracy. He would never have thought that anyone would even attempt communism in a country like Russia, as that would be bound to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 3, 2023 8:44:56 GMT
...and, of course, Marx's model doesn't work and so there are essentially three options -
1) What Marx described as 'capitalistic' social organisation.
2) Top down (fascistic) social organisation
3) living hand-to-mouth in the woods
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 9:02:58 GMT
...and, of course, Marx's model doesn't work and so there are essentially three options - 1) What Marx described as 'capitalistic' social organisation. 2) Top down (fascistic) social organisation 3) living hand-to-mouth in the woods Marx didn't have a plan in the sense you seem to think. He was more of a sociologist, in that his claim that was communism would evolve from capitalism. He said that workers would accrue more and more rights as capitalism progressed until, eventually, communism existed. At the time Marx was writing, it wasn't clear that this would happen. Someone could have looked at the conditions workers endured in Marx's day and asked 'how do you know things won't get worse for workers under capitalism? How do you know that people won't be working 18 hour days in the future rather than 12 or 14 hour days like at the moment'. It turned out that Marx was right. Capitalism does become more socialist with time. People work far fewer hours now than back in Marx's day. They work for more pay and in better conditions. There has been a socialist trajectory. You would have to be blind to deny that. What Marx predicted is happening. If the trajectory continues, there is no reason to believe that capitalism won't lead to a communist state. Of course, that communist state would look nothing like 'communist' Russia, because that wasn't Marxism. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 9:05:43 GMT
...and, of course, Marx's model doesn't work and so there are essentially three options - 1) What Marx described as 'capitalistic' social organisation. 2) Top down (fascistic) social organisation 3) living hand-to-mouth in the woods Marx said that history is class struggle. How can you populists deny that when your movements are based on the premise of 'the people versus the elite'. You are a confirmation of Marx's theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 3, 2023 9:16:10 GMT
...and, of course, Marx's model doesn't work and so there are essentially three options - 1) What Marx described as 'capitalistic' social organisation. 2) Top down (fascistic) social organisation 3) living hand-to-mouth in the woods Marx didn't have a plan in the sense you seem to think. He was more of a sociologist, in that his claim that was communism would evolve from capitalism. He said that workers would accrue more and more rights as capitalism progressed until, eventually, communism existed. The only thing i said about Marx is that he described (pointed to) a 'capitalistic' social organisation model. My comment is really about the reality, rather than Marx's feelings or predictions. I understand you want to make a point about Marx, but sometimes this point isn't pertinent. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 9:19:04 GMT
Marx didn't have a plan in the sense you seem to think. He was more of a sociologist, in that his claim that was communism would evolve from capitalism. He said that workers would accrue more and more rights as capitalism progressed until, eventually, communism existed. The only thing i said about Marx is that he described (pointed to) a 'capitalistic' social organisation model. My comment is really about the reality, rather than Marx's feelings or predictions. I understand you want to make a point about Marx, but sometimes this point isn't pertinent. In fairness, you said that Marxism doesn't work. Marx's predictions are coming true. It's undeniable that workers are accruing more and more rights. It's not unrealistic to assume that the current trajectory will be maintained. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 3, 2023 9:29:17 GMT
Monte thinks that there are black gammons 😁 Can we call black people monkeys if they tend to look like Gorillas? Gorillas are apes not monkeys. Gammons can be any race. Both gorrilla and gammon are racial slurs when used as an insult. Both are unacceptable terms, but casual racism is ok in the minds of cultist remoaners. Attack arguments and views, not people's racial characteristics. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 3, 2023 9:30:50 GMT
...and, of course, Marx's model doesn't work and so there are essentially three options - 1) What Marx described as 'capitalistic' social organisation. 2) Top down (fascistic) social organisation 3) living hand-to-mouth in the woods Marx said that history is class struggle. How can you populists deny that when your movements are based on the premise of 'the people versus the elite'. You are a confirmation of Marx's theory. Populism is a name given to the opinion that the elites or powerful have become so corrupt/dysfunctional/oppressive/unworthy and they need to be cleared changed out. It is not in itself a theory of social organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 3, 2023 9:33:29 GMT
...and, of course, Marx's model doesn't work and so there are essentially three options - 1) What Marx described as 'capitalistic' social organisation. 2) Top down (fascistic) social organisation 3) living hand-to-mouth in the woods Marx didn't have a plan in the sense you seem to think. He was more of a sociologist, in that his claim that was communism would evolve from capitalism. He said that workers would accrue more and more rights as capitalism progressed until, eventually, communism existed. At the time Marx was writing, it wasn't clear that this would happen. Someone could have looked at the conditions workers endured in Marx's day and asked 'how do you know things won't get worse for workers under capitalism? How do you know that people won't be working 18 hour days in the future rather than 12 or 14 hour days like at the moment'. It turned out that Marx was right. Capitalism does become more socialist with time. People work far fewer hours now than back in Marx's day. They work for more pay and in better conditions. There has been a socialist trajectory. You would have to be blind to deny that. What Marx predicted is happening. If the trajectory continues, there is no reason to believe that capitalism won't lead to a communist state. Of course, that communist state would look nothing like 'communist' Russia, because that wasn't Marxism. You're conflating Marx's vision with 21st capitalism and claiming Marx was right. lol Capitalism is still the dominant economic system that has evolved throughout the decades and rid itself of the worst aspects that Marx would have witnessed. Improvement on labour standards, child laws, work and safety standards, minimum wage et al. Aren't thanks to Karl Marx like you believe. Lol. That is an evolutionary process of refining and retuning a system where a balance is found and is ongoing. Nothing about Marxism has come to fruition. There's been no 'destruction' of capitalism but merely an evolution of it. There will still be private property, money, profit and competition. The Soviet Union which tested his theory in the real world failed. China, well that is now a hybrid model where capitalism is a key functional component of China's economic success. You seem to be saying that for Marxism to be achieved as per Marx believed, it needed capitalism in the first place to make money and wealth for that system to then eat itself in order for Marxism to achieve its aim? Lol. Not a very good system - sounds more parasitic than systemic. The Soviets tried as best they could with what they had and it utterly and miserably failed, and like I said, China has lurched more and more to capitalism leaving Marx's theory as failed in practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 9:33:41 GMT
Marx said that history is class struggle. How can you populists deny that when your movements are based on the premise of 'the people versus the elite'. You are a confirmation of Marx's theory. Populism is a name given to the opinion that the elites or powerful have become so corrupt/dysfunctional/oppressive/unworthy and they need to be cleared changed out. It is not in itself a theory of social organisation. Populism is Marx's observation that all history is the history of class struggle writ large. It is one class versus another - the people versus the elite. It is beyond ironic that those who deny that Marx was right are themselves the strongest evidence that he was right. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 3, 2023 9:35:30 GMT
Marx didn't have a plan in the sense you seem to think. He was more of a sociologist, in that his claim that was communism would evolve from capitalism. He said that workers would accrue more and more rights as capitalism progressed until, eventually, communism existed. At the time Marx was writing, it wasn't clear that this would happen. Someone could have looked at the conditions workers endured in Marx's day and asked 'how do you know things won't get worse for workers under capitalism? How do you know that people won't be working 18 hour days in the future rather than 12 or 14 hour days like at the moment'. It turned out that Marx was right. Capitalism does become more socialist with time. People work far fewer hours now than back in Marx's day. They work for more pay and in better conditions. There has been a socialist trajectory. You would have to be blind to deny that. What Marx predicted is happening. If the trajectory continues, there is no reason to believe that capitalism won't lead to a communist state. Of course, that communist state would look nothing like 'communist' Russia, because that wasn't Marxism. You're conflating Marx's vision with 21st capitalism and claiming Marx was right. lol Capitalism is still the dominant economic system that has evolved throughout the decades and rid itself of the worst aspects that Marx would have witnessed. Improvement on labour standards, child laws, work and safety standards, minimum wage et al. Aren't thanks to Karl Marx like you believe. Lol. That is an evolutionary process that of refining and retuning a system where a balance is found and ongoing. Nothing about Marxism has come to fruition. There's been no 'destruction' of capitalism but merely an evolution of it. There will still be private property, money, profit and competition. The Soviet Union which tested his theory in the real world failed. China, well that is now a hybrid model where capitalism is a key functional component of China's economic success. You seem to be saying that for Marxism to be achieved as per Marx believed, it needed capitalism in the first place to make money and wealth then for that system to eat itself in order for Marxism to achieve its aim? Lol. Not a very good system - sounds more parasitic than systemic. The Soviets tried as best they could with what they had and it utterly and miserably failed, and like I said, China has lurched more and more to capitalism leaving Marx's theory as failed in practice. Sigh! I stopped reading when you said that the changes in labour conditions are not 'thanks to Karl Marx.' That's like saying that evolution isn't thanks to Darwin, or gravity isn't thanks to Newton. It's pointless trying to explain anything to people like you, Bubbles. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 3, 2023 9:38:54 GMT
The only thing i said about Marx is that he described (pointed to) a 'capitalistic' social organisation model. My comment is really about the reality, rather than Marx's feelings or predictions. I understand you want to make a point about Marx, but sometimes this point isn't pertinent. In fairness, you said that Marxism doesn't work. Marx's predictions are coming true. It's undeniable that workers are accruing more and more rights. It's not unrealistic to assume that the current trajectory will be maintained. Marx did note that 'capitalism' does work. However, it's a self-evident reality that's pretty hard to deny if you want to be taken seriously. My claim is that the alternative model (you outlined) doesn't work |
|
