Sympo
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marcos wrote:
Do you think Marx and Engels were socialists during the writing of the manifesto, or did they confuse state capitalism with socialism?
It's an odd paragraph because it's the only part of the manifesto where the parental exploitation of children is mentioned.If you're right about what is meant with this quote, I'm not sure I agree with their idea that parents are economically exploiting their kids by forcing them to work. Then again, I haven't really thought much about it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, Labour got 8 million votes in 1929, they got 13 million ths year, so empirically thee has been froward movement.Yeah but we have to keep in mind the population growth at the same time
Young Master Smeet wrote:Sympo wrote:Are you referring to people who vote on social democratic and leninist parties?Yes.
Are there really more workers who would have voted on socdem/leninist parties today than a hundred years ago?
Young Master Smeet wrote:"People who are not themselves personally capitalists, but who benefit through inflated salaries from the largess of capitalists and through corruption."Why does concentration of wealth lead to a larger amound of "hangers on"?"Class consciousness developed through people identifying, and importantly, voting as working class: many do(…)"Are you referring to people who vote on social democratic and leninist parties?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Living standards have risen, largely ebcause of the fall in the cost of the means of living (production is more efficient), i.e. our share of the wealth has hardly improved. But it's not just that cronyism rises (that happens with every boom since the dawn of time), it is that wealth has become even more conentrated (which icnreases the volume of hangers on), and has changed into les personal, in some aspects, forms of capitalism.What do you mean with "hangers on"?In what way has class consioussness developed?
Young Master Smeet wrote:"Class consciousness has developed"Has it though? In what way?"For example, worker's unions drove forward the existence of the wage relation, using market forces to destroy the restrictive feudal practices of bonded labour"What do you mean with "wage relation"?"(…)when political power is frustrated, we will have to overturn the system."What happens if we don't?"There's nothing special or partcularly progressive about capitalism, except the working class itself."I think a system that gives us the chance of establishing socialism is kind of progressive (not saying capitalism is a good system)."(…)compared to 1914, the world is a very different place, the raw stuff of capitalism remains, that's true, but there is widespread cronyism and corruption added to that now. The state has become more and more essential to capitalism, etc."Do you mean to suggest that the longer capitalism remains, the more corrupt and cronyist it becomes?This view would contrast with a common view that, in the beginning of the industrial revolution, things were worse for most people than it is now. Things like healthcare, wages, living conditions etc are alledgedly much better than they were back then. But perhaps this view ignores that a large part of the world have conditions that are much worse than in the USA and Western Europe (for example, India)?I apologize for asking so many questions, but it's an interesting topic
Young Master Smeet wrote:"[T]hese things could occur, but the logic of capitalism(…)is the development of a working class movement capable of abolishing capitalism, and in whose interest it is to create socialism. "Sure, it's the interest of the working class to create socialism, but most workers today aren't socialists. Most of their parents weren't socialists. Most of their grandparents weren't socialists. I don't know if it is your opinion I'm arguing against right now, but why would class consciousness have to develop?"Capitalism is not interesting except for the category of the propertyless working class who could realise socialism."What does this mean?"Arguably, it was the discovery of the Americas, and the huge surpluses of gold and people that lead to capitalism, not feualism itself (although we can look at the years preceeding the Black Death for a former occasion that feudalism nearly burst its bounds."What you've written here appears to me as a rejection of the idea that there exists a law that says that less developed societies eventually turn into more developed ones. Would that be contrary to historical materialism?"That is a good question, i'd say yes, that antagonism is inherently unstable, and so eventually it must lead to a crisis and dramatic change: that change is not teleological leading from one thing to the next, and i can swing back and forth many times, per my black death example above, feualism re-asserted itself very strongly after that."But we can see in modern history that there is class conflict, and then nothing happens. The inherent conflict remains yet the system remains aswell.I kind of see it as a matador and a bull for the moment. The bull might kill the matador eventually in a bullfighting session but it is not certain.
gnome wrote:You'd better ask LBird that question, Sympo.I guess, but I could also ask people who debate LBird on this particular thread. It takes two to tango (no offence to anyone)
LBird wrote:So, Sympo, are you interested in humans and their changing socio-historical production, or how 'matter' determines human activity?I'm interested inwhether or not capitalism will inevitably lead to socialismwhether or not there are several "roads" to take when humans create history (for example, would it be possible that feudalism would be succeeded by a system other than capitalism?)whether or not a class-based society (and therefore a society of class antagonisms) must develop into a new society
No offence people but why does every thread have to turn into a debate about the validity of "idealism-materialism"Is this stuff really relevant to the thread?
ALB wrote:"the whole of the past evolution of human society points in this direction. Why would it stop now, at capitalism?"I guess that's a fair point. Capitalism appears to suffer from class antagonisms that become visible when economic recession comes along. But why should we assume socialism is the next step in the stairs of history? The material basis for socialism exists, but how do we know that the material basis for another type of society doesn't exist at the same time?I can easily see how non-socialists would see Marx view that socialism is gonna happen sooner or later as a form of wishful thinking. Marx was, after all, a socialist. And wasn't he a socialist prior to "discovering" this societal evolution that would lead to socialism?"Ah yes, the old one about is socialism inevitable, i.e. is it inevitable that humanity will come to want socialism? Personally, I think it is."Is that a personal view or is the idea of inevitability integral to marxist though?
twc wrote:I can see how the actions of the Bolsheviks were limited because of the material and social conditions (Russia was semi-feudal and badly developed, most people weren't socialists, it was not an international revolution etc). They could not establish Socialism because of these reasons.But didn't they have a choice when they decided to make Russia state capitalist?Would it not have been possible for them to embrace a more "traditional" model of capitalism?
ALB wrote:"Yes."Is there any way to prove this? Why can't something be delayed forever? I mean, most people haven't become socialists yet.
ALB wrote:All political action, as the exercise of political power, can do is slow down or speed up the direction determined by economic conditions.Isn't it a type of historical determinism to suggest that history must go forward?In what way is apartheid an example of politics not being able to stop something?
