Communist swine execute general with a mortar round

[Jester]

And one of his most important predictions, that America would rise as the largest empire out of the industrial revolution, ultimately came true.

No marks for that. By the time of Marx's first writings, the United States was a rich, powerful country expanding across an entire continent. By the time of his death, it was the world's largest economy, and with a continent still to fill up with people and productive capacity. If this seems to be "one of his most important predictions," then he was a pretty banal prophet. Everyone thought the US would be big and powerful. Everyone was right.

As far as DM goes, of course it is going to be adjusted over time - to keep it as a rigid, stale way of analysis would be in error, because we live in a world whose material processes are constantly changing. All science should be flex
ible. DM isn't a theory anyway, its a method and mode of analysis.

Except that Marx "scientifically" applied this "method" to obtain a series of predictions about the progress of society that he considered to be scientific fact. Those predictions have turned out to be rubbish, not only about the future, but even about the past, as we learn more about the so-called "slavery" and "feudal" eras.

No. This is EXACTLY what has taken place. Patriarchy, racism, and poverty still exist, and very strongly so, in both developed and undeveloped nations - this is indisputable, and you don't have to be a Marxist to know this. And these things will exist so long as class society exists.

I say: Conditions (freedom, education, equality of rights, standard of living) are indisputably better than they were.

You say: There are still bad things! This is indisputable!

In what way is this an adequate response? It ignores the point. Nobody would dispute that racism, poverty, sexism, inequality, and so forth still exist. And only a fool who believes in utopias would tell you that they'll ever stop *entirely*, beyond any trace.

The fact people live better now has NOTHING to do with capitalism or capitalists becoming more humane, moral, or better - and everything to do with that such improvements came through struggle, worker movements, solidarity, and of course, labor unions - which eliminated child labor, shortened the work day some, and gave them weekends. These achievements have no relationship or relevance to capitalism as a process, or capitalists. They were grudging concessions made by them so the workers didn't become radicalized - to discourage and prevent revolution. The capitalists didn't make these concessions out of the kindness of their hearts (though to be fair, this is kind of hard to do when you lack that organ hehe) - they did it so capitalism would stay intact.

One of the stronger aspects of Marxian theory is its de-emphasis on motive. In that analysis, it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether capitalists (mostly managers, in real life, but we'll run with it) have good intentions or bad, whether they're Robert Owens or John Rockefellers. To Marx, their class interests are objective, and the structures they create will ultimately serve those interests, whatever their individual beliefs.

So, what matter that they didn't make those concessions out of the bottom of their hearts? Workers didn't concede to labour-replacing technology out of altruism either, but it still improved productivity. Collective bargaining between labour and management is a fundamental aspect of modern economies (capitalism, if you must.) The results of that bargain are not intended by either side, but are still the products of the system - including the good ones.

Capitalism is a very unpredictable and corrupt system, a lot of the gains that were made in the past are now in grave danger of being rolled back - austerity right now is bad, and getting worse by the day in the global system. And it is completely ludicrous to think that changing policies can ultimately save these things - if that were the case the gains made in the past wouldn't be threatened now.

How ludicrous, to think that a system created by policies, and in danger because of policies, might be saved by ... policies! What a crazy concept. Surely the correct response must be to overthrow the entire social order.

Class antagonisms ARE the reason politics exist. If there is no classes, there is no such thing as politics, period.

Is this an empirical matter? Or simply an assertion? Certainly politics reflect much *more* than just class relations, as you indicate yourself below. So why then be restrictive about it?

And the reason they have been put on the back burner or neglected altogether is because it is the capitalist class that determines how political discourse takes place - Gramsci was/is right. The entire debate must take place in their framework, and theirs alone. The ruling class knows this very well, which is why anytime class is brought up in even the slightest hint, you are labeled a Marxist or socialist or some other thing that capitalists and their apologists hate. You can see it in all our institutions, whether its education, political, or media, they are all controlled by capitalist hegemony, so naturally class politics is marginalized at best.

How very American. All over Europe, there are plenty of parties that openly declare themselves as socialist, Marxist, communist, and a dozen other far left labels. (Whether they make it into your small-tent communism is another question, but their self-identification is secure.) They have governed countries.

All other politics, especially identity politics, are the organic result of the preceding class politics, and they overlap with one another. You want to abolish racism? Awesome. Get rid of class society first, and racism will very likely be abolished. But if you want to keep capitalism - forget it. You CANNOT have it both ways. Why? Because the economic and social laws of capitalism say so, that's why.

Very boldly asserted. We are supposed to believe it why? Because some dead German expat said so 150 years ago?

Life has gotten much better for capitalists than it has for workers over the last 30+ years. Worker wages have been stagnant at best, while income for the top 1% has increased exorbitantly in that same time frame. I forget the exact numbers, but prior to around 1980, the average capitalist made about 40 x more than the average worker. Today, that number is like 350 x more.

Mostly, I agree with you here. I would only say that this is not new - it is the postwar period which was unusually equal in the US. Levels of inequality have only now returned to the level of the early 20th century. And there is no capitalist alive today -not Gates, not Buffet, nobody - who commands as large a share of national wealth as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, or Vanderbilt did in their day.

This is why whenever I see anyone waving a flag, I want to vomit (unless its a red one, hehe).

But not any of those historical red flags, which were all just aberrations of the one true Marxism? The ones under which enormous armies marched? The ones under which tens of millions of people were killed, exiled, enslaved, or tortured, and billions brainwashed and oppressed?

And again, those reforms came through struggle, movements, strikes, and yes, revolution. Not because capitalism and capitalists all the sudden became nicer. They are still just as sinister, cunning, indifferent, and exploitative as ever, and so is the system they rule.

And again, no Marxist can coherently argue that motive is what matters.

And capitalist wars, neo-colonialism and fascist dictatorships havent left a drop of blood or the bodies of hundreds of millions anywhere? Come on now.

Fascism has crimes every bit as great to answer for. And if a fascist ever pokes his head on these boards telling me about her promised land, where every bad thing will disappear, I'll treat them just the same. Nationalism and colonialism are the same. But those two things are not synonymous with, or even particularly related to, capitalism and market economies.

Not to mention, Capitalism itself, the very system you defend so fervently, CAME INTO THIS WORLD THROUGH REVOLUTION, soaked in blood, fire and ash. LOL, how ironic.

Could you please enlighten me as to what on earth you're talking about in ALL CAPS? I have no idea.

And more than likely, it will exit in a very similar manner when and if it does. Revolutions are never a peaceful and bloodless process, but they are, and have been proven to be, often necessary. The ruling class never just gives up their power, they will fight to the death to keep it, and much of the violence in revolutions come from them just as well as the revolutionaries. But the ends justifies the means. Wars and competition for resources and power, on the other hand, are NOT necessary, and absolutely have nothing to show for themselves - the ultimate result was that a bunch of people died unnecessarily, and a bunch of plutocrats and politicians got richer. You are real quick to denounce the violence of revolution (even though the system we currently live in came through such means), yet wars between nation states competing for power and resources that result in a multitude of other social ills, are just a necessary, if tragic, part of the current system, right?

I denounce the use of violence in all but the most urgent of circumstances. It never ends well, and even when justified, it is only as the lesser of many evils.

What I find absurd is the suggestion that you, Karl Marx, or anyone else has a solution to the perennial human problem of conflict. Nothing I have seen or read has indicated anything more than a fevered dream, or a LOUD ASSERTION IN ALL CAPS THAT COMMUNISM MEANS THE END OF WAR LOL OBVIOUSLY. This is not a fact, it's not even an argument. At best, it's an article of faith.

It is very observable - the rhetoric of capitalism, consumerism/commodity fetishism, individualism, private property, and so forth can be seen literally everywhere - the work place for starters, along with the media, tv commercials, political debates, social institutions like education, and in the behavior and culture of people that is embedded in the fabric of our current society. You'd almost have to be living on another planet I think not to see it.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Every fanatic of every stripe finds their ideology confirmed everywhere - that's what makes an ideology successful: totalizing claims and impermeability to contrary evidence.

-Jester