Unemployment, and so on

[FireIceTalon]

All that stuff looks great, but it aint going to happen. Do you think politicians are going to pass laws that strip them of their own power, or deals they have with special interests that keep them in office or get paid?? Not a chance.

[DeeBye]

All that stuff looks great, but it aint going to happen. Do you think politicians are going to pass laws that strip them of their own power, or deals they have with special interests that keep them in office or get paid?? Not a chance.

Perhaps not, but we can still discuss it like adults instead of insisting there is only one way to change how society functions.

[FireIceTalon]

Thanks. I know many of them have very large endowments, but I was unaware that Princeton was virtually free.

Harvard, your new example, totally subsidizes any student from a household earning under $60,000, and offers huge sliding scale subsidies for quite a few tiers above that.

At the very highest tier of schools, they have little to no need to charge high fees. The gains they make in reputation from selecting the best of the best, regardless of ability to pay, more than outweigh the lost tuition fees. They'll let the phenomenally rich pay their way, but for students attending on merit, it's almost always free, or at least very cheap.

-Jester

I have a sneaking suspicion that they have regrets about admitting George W. Bush, who wasn't exactly a model student.

[LavCat]

Thanks. I know many of them have very large endowments, but I was unaware that Princeton was virtually free.

Harvard, your new example, totally subsidizes any student from a household earning under $60,000, and offers huge sliding scale subsidies for quite a few tiers above that.

At the very highest tier of schools, they have little to no need to charge high fees. The gains they make in reputation from selecting the best of the best, regardless of ability to pay, more than outweigh the lost tuition fees. They'll let the phenomenally rich pay their way, but for students attending on merit, it's almost always free, or at least very cheap.

-Jester

I have a sneaking suspicion that they have regrets about admitting George W. Bush, who wasn't exactly a model student

Jester was speaking of the very highest tier of schools. George W. went to Yale.

[kandrathe]

I have a sneaking suspicion that they have regrets about admitting George W. Bush, who wasn't exactly a model student

I bet Yale is happy to have been his Alma Matter.

His Yale record is pretty average, but then again it is Yale and not Occidental college. He's never really claimed to be a scholar either.

Obama's degree at Columbia, after transferring from Occidental was without honors, meaning his GPA was less than 3.3. Harvard Law School is not easy to get into, even if you have affirmative action on your side. They get about 7,000 applications a year, for about 500 seats. The applicants LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and their GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95. We don't know his LSAT, or SAT scores -- and if they were stellar, we'd know about them. His GPA at Columbia was not stellar. At Harvard Law, he graduated Magna Cum Laude, so in the top 10%. So, suddenly he got serious about his studies. I'd be interested in seeing his transcripts. We can guess that someone pulled some strings for him to get into Harvard, and it was probably (Donald Warden) Khalid al-Mansour (according to Percy Sutton) who probably met and befriended Obama at Columbia. Which just goes to show... With success in life, it's usually who you know, more than what you know.

It's hard to measure a person, let alone a leader, only by their scholastic abilities, or even by standardized tests.

[FireIceTalon]

Bush attended Harvard Law School as well. But yes, social capital is a larger asset than knowledge, sadly, when it comes to moving up the ranks in life.

[kandrathe]

Bush attended Harvard Law Business School as well. But yes, social capital is a larger asset than knowledge, sadly, when it comes to moving up the ranks in life.

Fixed that for you.

[eppie]

• You make it a crime to bribe, or accept a bribe.
• Lobbying is no longer a profession, and you democratize access to legislators.
• Put limits on governments ability to selectively hand out money, or tax corporations or industries (e.g. tax breaks and loopholes).
• Enforce and strengthen the existing laws and make our politicians more accountable to the laws governing all citizens (e.g. insider trading).
• If you donate to a political campaign, you are ineligible to enter into government contracts.
• Find constitutional (i.e. not violating free speech) ways to make elections fair, and not require millions or billions to finance. Look hard at how to constitutionally keep big money out of financing veiled "issue ads".
• Take a hard look at fund raising and the practice of bundling (almost all bundlers represent corporate lawyers, corporate law firms, and the financial industry).

Haha, yes I also agree with this. But lets just take one of your points. ''''If you donate to a political campaign, you are ineligible to enter into government contracts.''''''
But let's be realistic. In the US FITs armed revolution will happen before this will happen.
It has been said many times here, in the US there is socialism for the rich and it will take an armed conflict to end this.
It is the same as in Italy....Ok Berlusconi will quit now, but I doubt a lot will change. A proposal to bring down the salaries and pension schemes of parlementarians (they have the highest compensations and work the least in the whole of europe) only got support from a few people from the party (Italia dei Valori) that filed this proposal (not even everybody from that party agreed). So even the (ex) communists voted against this proposal.......and I can tell you.....politicians in Italy make a lot of money......slicing their salaries in half would still be really nice for them.

Can you imagine....the population is being extortioned by the political class and even are brainwashed so much they can't even vote them away!! Well brainwashing plus of course 'the Italian dream' which says that if you support people higher up on the social ladder than you some money will flow your way eventually. I think the American political class is very much comparable with the only difference that in the US they are already rich when the go into politics while in Italy people usually get rich once they go into politics.

As long as you start magnifying the difference between the political parties people wont pay attention to politicians as a whole.

[Jester]

All legitimate questions, for which I do not have perfect answers and be-all/end all solutions for. And that is one thing most Marxists will acknowledge, is that he didnt leave behind any sort of work which laid out how such a society would be constructed or function.

Yes. Which is why I put my skeptic's hat on whenever a Marxist tells me they know a better system for society. I know I can dream of perfect worlds too - the question is, can I get from here to there? Politics is the art of the possible.

Keep in mind, all the failed attempts at communism, came through militias and vanguard parties, which inevitably lead to problems. I can't recall any of the revolutions truly coming from the bottom up, meaning from the workers themselves. They were all from parties or individuals who either subscribed to a heavy-handed state, or they were opportunists seeking a power grab (Stalin).

If you're waiting for the virgin birth of a Communist society, you'll probably be waiting forever.

As far as popular dissenting goes, I'm going to suppose there should be no reason for the majority to want to, since everyone is working together on equal terms, and what you put in, is what you get in return. Those who are very productive will receive more than those who are not. A guess there would be a few people who will hate seeing others they do not like for whatever reason having equal power to them, but this is not a good enough reason to overturn the system in my opinion, especially if such views are held by a few greedy individuals. If the majority felt this way, it would be a different matter, but if everyone is doing fine, I see no reason people would want to dissent in the first place, other than a desire to overturn the system for their own personal gains at the expense of everyone else, which would be counter-productive for the common good of course.

It's very easy to label dissenters as self-interested counter-revolutionaries, deluded by false consciousness or greed. I suggest that it is with such labels that the suppression of dissent usually begins. False consciousness reeks of authoritarian paternalism: I know what's best for you, you poor deluded fool. If only you knew the real truth, you'd agree with me, so I can ignore the fact that you disagree.

I like the idea of a direct democracy in the government structure of a communist society. And yes, there would be some separation of powers in government. I agree that you cannot have policy makers also be judges. For conflicting interests, I would suggest some sort of rule of law based on compromise and pragmatism so that the rights of the minority in a particular issue have a safety net. Admittedly, I do not know exactly how this would be implemented. But something of that nature would be needed for sure, as direct democracy without such a component would lead to majority rule all the time, and thus instability and another revolution (but from the minority this time). And then everything was in vain.

Well, good to know you're engaging with the problem. But it is a tricky one, and not something that solves itself. It doesn't take an oppressive majority very long to strip minorities of their power. And from there, a majority-within-the-majority to accumulate yet more power, and so on, until you have a Stalin. You can't just hand-wave the problem away.

The idea though is that conflict of interest would be kept to the minimum possible, yet when it does arise, decision in favor of the majority or minority would be based purely on circumstances and context on a case by case basis.

Very nice to say, but again, these are general objectives, not solutions. Everyone wants to keep conflict of interest to a minimum. The question is how? The framers of your current constitution wrestled with these issues for decades. Doing better will require at least that much effort.

I guess the question is what is the purpose of government in such a society? I would say to protect the rights and liberties of all individuals, and make sure both ends of all contracts are upheld. And a judicial branch of course, to solve disputes. Anymore power than this is too much if you ask me.

A society organized by collective ownership, direct democracy and unrestricted access is going to conflict almost instantly with a contractarian society that enforces agreements and liberties, and nothing more. What happens when the people start voting to break contracts?

As far as any user using any machine and such, not necessarily. It would be based on each persons talents and abilities. For example, I would never be able to do what a NASA engineer does, as I do not have that ability. Mobility is possible of course, as people gain training, knowledge and experience.

Will every worker have access to the highest education? Human capital is still capital - how do you distribute scarce teaching resources, if you've promised unlimited access to all workers? Or, if you're capping it based on "talents and abilities," how to you measure those things?

Again, I do not have all the answers. No one does.

Every society in existence has answers to these questions. If you're telling us you have a better way, that Marxism offers a real alternative, you need better answers. Simply waving vaguely in the direction of a "better" world that will be achieved by overturning this one is exactly the kind of woolly thinking that's caused so much damage in the past.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Simply waving vaguely in the direction of a "better" world that will be achieved by overturning this one is exactly the kind of woolly thinking that's caused so much damage in the past.

Which was my impression too. Taking us to a precipice, and encouraging "jump" still leaves the landing, and organizing things in that new place for the survivors. I don't have any issues with our form of government, or the structure of our society (e.g. the role of capitalism, employment, and the rights of ownership). I have some issues with details of how the government has intruded/colluded giving favor to some (the special interests) over others (the people).

Power corrupts and is misused under all forms of government. My observation and grief is that it is the nature of many in positions of power to "Lord" over us, and that some people know what's better for us. Just give me some, or most, or all of your money/effort and I will direct you on the best way to apply it. And, then the corollary... You (consumers) are too naive or stupid to understand what you are doing when you engage in transaction or contracts with corporations, and so we need to protect you from your own ignorance. Certainly there needs to be a balance of some protections from the most egregious of offenses against the most vulnerable of consumers.

But, in the cases of student loans for example... Are they vulnerable or too naive? Is it unethical for the government to offer students a loan to pay for their education? Should we just do away with student loans, and let those students choose something else to do with their lives?

Or... Should the government just put a cap on the price per credit they will subsidize?

[FireIceTalon]

I think you are viewing "false consciousness" from a elitist perspective, which implies that the proletariat is viewed as being dumb and they need someone who knows better to guide them. I am an elitist myself (but not in the sense that I support it, but in the sense that is how I think our society is currently ran). But false consciousness itself is derived from other Marxist concepts such as "alienation of labor" and non-Marxist concepts as well, like idealism (religion being the primary example). They are tools used by the capitalist class to not only exploit the proletariat, but also to misrepresent the nature of society so that they do not rebel, such as possibility of moving up the class ladder, charity being superior to social security, personal autonomy at the expense of social justice (even though it is perfectly possible to have both), and religious morality and salvation. Marxism is based on dialectical materialism: Only the world around us matters, man is subject to the forces of nature and nature only, and it is what drives the quote in my signature, which is the scientific component (motion) of Marxist theory. Religion for instance, is a form of idealism that is used to undermine materialism, so that the proletariat is distracted or otherwise made unaware about what is really happening to him. He is told that being a man of faith will bring him salvation, and that if he suffers in this life by being the subject of an authoritarian sky policeman, he will be rewarded in the next life (which of course, there is no empirical evidence to support this). This is why almost all Marxists are atheist. Some proletariat may not be too intelligent, but this is unrelated to false consciousness, in general. Many of them are in fact intelligent and know what is best for themselves, but structural forces around them that they cannot see (AND that they can see, literal structural forces meaning corporate buildings, lol) prevent them from understanding the true nature of their circumstances. Others, such as myself, ARE aware of the circumstances, but are powerless to do anything about it, and are reduced to trying to make the best of a bad situation any way they can, just like everyone else. But my point is, false consciousness isn't a "you are dumb, listen to me I know whats best for you" arrogant proposition that assumes the worker is a mindless hamster. Rather, it is a methodology used by the bourgeoisie to mislead the proletariat into being an indentured servant.

I can understand you being skeptical of Marxism, given its shaky history. But I hope people can also understand the perspective of the Marxist, and their skepticism of our current system and why we greatly dislike it. I will be the first person to say all authority should be questioned. Given that, I think your views that Marx was some authoritarian, undemocratic douche bag are hostile, and a bit unfairly grounded. It almost seems like you view an authoritarian government as being necessary to maintain a communist society, that there is no other way such a system can operate. I think that is where we disagree at.

[kandrathe]

Haha, yes I also agree with this. But lets just take one of your points. ''''If you donate to a political campaign, you are ineligible to enter into government contracts.''''''
But let's be realistic. In the US FITs armed revolution will happen before this will happen.

The beginning of change is for people to have a common vision of what that change would look like. So long as people don't believe the change is possible, it will be undermined by that type of pessimism. There is a role for pragmatism in assessing whether a certain reform is possible, or whether we are merely tilting at windmills. Generally, with all these reforms, what is needed is to separate out the enforcement and oversight of these conflicts of interest from the oversight of those committing them. The beautiful part of the US system lies in its separation of powers, and not just at the federal level, but also as a republic in sharing power with States. So, I'm suggesting that the federal government branches need to be more accountable to the States. The federal Attorney General, who is charged with upholding the law, needs to have the power to root out corruption in the Congress, and the Congress has the power to write the law. But, also the states can adopt laws governing the corruption of people and corporation in their states.

It has been said many times here, in the US there is socialism for the rich and it will take an armed conflict to end this.

I don't believe that. But, I would predict the continued flight of capital toward places that are less restrictive. So... the problem really is "How to make the US less imperialistic?" I was struck by a quote recently in discussing our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and looking at our policy toward Iran developing nuclear weapons; "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells." - Flynn, John T. (1944) As We Go Marching. p.240

It is the same as in Italy....Ok Berlusconi will quit now, but I doubt a lot will change. A proposal to bring down the salaries and pension schemes of parlementarians (they have the highest compensations and work the least in the whole of europe) only got support from a few people from the party (Italia dei Valori) that filed this proposal (not even everybody from that party agreed). So even the (ex) communists voted against this proposal.......and I can tell you.....politicians in Italy make a lot of money......slicing their salaries in half would still be really nice for them.

Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Ireland stand out with very high debt to GDP ratios, made worse by a struggling economy. Our politicians are not necessarily over paid (they are well paid, and have great benefits). For awhile, until the trend is reversed, I would favor term limits to return government to a more service focus (like serving in the military). It would help to disrupt the potential for decades of corruption and favoritism. You would see more exposure of influence peddling (e.g. Blago, Delay, Rangel, or Abramoff), since there would need to be collusion to transfer arrangements from one black sheep to the next.

Can you imagine....the population is being extortioned by the political class and even are brainwashed so much they can't even vote them away!! Well brainwashing plus of course 'the Italian dream' which says that if you support people higher up on the social ladder than you some money will flow your way eventually. I think the American political class is very much comparable with the only difference that in the US they are already rich when the go into politics while in Italy people usually get rich once they go into politics.

Brainwashed? No. Deceived, and propagandized, yes. We all need to scrutinize how "these" people are getting elected, and change what "we" are doing. Unless they are stuffing the ballot boxes (which I wouldn't put past them), they still require us to elect them into office.

The suffering of the people (in the US, Greece, Italy, wherever) will force them to participate in higher numbers. The Tea Party, the Occupy movement, the protests in Greece, and Italy, are a reflection of that pain. Hungry children create revolutionaries, not new ideologies. Abused citizens will eventually take to the streets, and contribute their money and effort to defeating the incumbents. Sometimes incumbents like Rangel, or Berlusconi, are not ousted when they've been caught abusing their power.

Generally, I like to have a vision of how it could be, then figure out what prevents that vision from becoming a reality. Political parties are a part of the problem in that they tend to put forward a candidate who is best for the party's interests, and not one that is best for the people.

[kandrathe]

Given that, I think your views that Marx was some authoritarian, undemocratic douche bag are hostile, and a bit unfairly grounded.

Until recently, I was in the petit bourgeoisie, as a self employed consultant. Now, I am a class traitor. I am a worker with privileges in the proletariat based on my skills, and I am an owner (through my retirement funds stock holdings).

Those labels feel kind of hostile, and were I in a place like Cuba, I'd be afraid of being expunged, or at the very least sent off to a re-education camp (prison).

According to Frances Fox Piven (Jan 2011, The Nation), "Local protests have to accumulate and spread—and become more disruptive— to create serious pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees. "

I guess you'd call that the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is either prophetic, or a clarion call by her to the left to begin radicalizing the disenfranchised.

[Jester]

But my point is, false consciousness isn't a "you are dumb, listen to me I know whats best for you" arrogant proposition that assumes the worker is a mindless hamster. Rather, it is a methodology used by the bourgeoisie to mislead the proletariat into being an indentured servant.

It's a belief that the Proles clearly don't know what their best interests are, because they believe someone who isn't a Marxist. A priest. A politician. The "bourgeoisie," whatever that means anymore. Marxists, though, they know what's really best, because what they know is based on what passed for solid social science, back in the 1840s. If the proles don't see it, it's not because it isn't true, but because they're being deceived somehow.

It privileges one viewpoint over others, for no solid reason. Marx thought he was in possession of capital-T Truth. (Also, about Capital-C-Capital!) Surely we do not believe this anymore, that dialectical materialism is objectively true?

Given that, I think your views that Marx was some authoritarian, undemocratic douche bag are hostile, and a bit unfairly grounded. It almost seems like you view an authoritarian government as being necessary to maintain a communist society, that there is no other way such a system can operate. I think that is where we disagree at.

You have no examples of communism being created or maintained without authoritarian violence, because you disown all "communist" societies to date as not really communist, because they are authoritarian and violent.

Thus, you have neither historical examples of what you are claiming, nor (as far as I have heard) any convincing model for how such a society would operate - when pressed, you claim to "not have all the answers." If you have no historical evidence, and no plausible theory, then what do you have?

I can tell you exactly why I believe as I do, that Marxism is outdated at best, and dangerous at worst. Why should we believe you? On what grounds do you believe what you do?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

"Marxism is outdated at best". Wrong. As long as there is class struggle, poverty, social injustice, and a capitalistic war machine, Marxist theory WILL be relevant and discussed. This is a fact, I dont see how its even up for debate. Dialectical Materialism, like it or not, is a legitimate philosophy that deserves attention and consideration. *Edit* If we can believe in some authoritarian sky wizard as creating the earth and that we are his subjects, something which has ZERO evidence to support it, than yes, we can objectively believe in Materialism. Materialism only concerns itself with what actually IS and can be proven, meaning the world around us. If anything, Marx's idea of Materialism is far more rational and makes much more sense than most forms of idealism, especially religion.

But I'll tell you what. Let us keep the status quo intact for the sake of proving me wrong. Lets stay on the same course we currently are, and keep making the corporations more powerful, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and start up as many wars on so-called terrorism as we can. And continue to keep hoping and praying for change to come. When humanity is done wiping itself out in the process, and the environment is all but wrecked, I can sit back, laugh, and say "told you so" from the grave. I just hope the elites know that eventually, they will run out of proletariat labor to maximize utility off of after we are all thrown away like a bunch of inkless ball point pens, and put in the ground. That assembly line conveyor belt will stop eventually though, and they will join us soon enough. Guess it matters not, we all gotta go one day anyway. Cheers.

[Jester]

"Marxism is outdated at best". Wrong. As long as there is class struggle, poverty, social injustice, and a capitalistic war machine, Marxist theory WILL be relevant and discussed. This is a fact, I dont see how its even up for debate. Dialectical Materialism, like it or not, is a legitimate philosophy that deserves attention and consideration.

(You declare your opinion as fact quite often. I'm not sure that word means what you think it does.)

I am more than happy to discuss Marxism. I am also more than happy to discuss the divine right of kings. But simply because something is discussed, doesn't mean we should be taking it seriously as a political program. There is a substantial group interested in Theocracy as a mode of governance. Should we spend our days taking seriously their belief that the power of Christ (or, Allah, or whatever deity) will solve our social ills? I think not.

Dialectical materialism is Marxism's worst mistake, the part that turns a vague but plausible analysis of history and social conditions into a pseudoscience. With a century and a half of new social science, archaeology, anthropology, economics, and history, we know far more than Marx did. His view of the past, while sweeping and interesting for its time, is wrong in all sorts of ways. Class is a remarkably poor predictor of historical change, and what little we do see, is surprisingly unrelated to the objective relationship to the means of production. The history of society is, by and large, not the history of class struggle. Societies do not progress through neat stages, and even if they did, Marx's view is Eurocentric to the extreme. Other cultures do not share European organizational principles, or European social norms; Marxist historians must therefore either abandon or compromise the framework, or shoehorn everything into an outdated model. History did not happen the way he said it did, and if he can't even manage predicting the past, what chance does he have of the future?

But I'll tell you what. Let us keep the status quo intact for the sake of proving me wrong. Lets stay on the same course we currently are, and keep making the corporations more powerful, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and start up as many wars on so-called terrorism as we can. And continue to keep hoping and praying for change to come. When humanity is done wiping itself out in the process, and the environment is all but wrecked, I can sit back, laugh, and say "told you so" from the grave. I just hope the elites know that eventually, they will run out of proletariat labor to maximize utility off of after we are all thrown away like a bunch of inkless ball point pens, and put in the ground. That assembly line conveyor belt will stop eventually though, and they will join us soon enough. Guess it matters not, we all gotta go one day anyway. Cheers.

No, I'll tell you what. Let's not bother discussing actual ideas or evidence. Instead, let's cackle maniacally about how those who disagree with us are leading the world to an inevitable apocalypse, and fantasize about ourselves laughing ironically from beyond the grave.

That's much better.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This is a fact, and I won't even bother debating with you on it, because it's so blatantly obvious.

And, other than your claims that it to be so, where is the evidence to show that "Marxism" remains relevant for today's class struggle. There is more evidence to show that over time, with limited amounts of "socialism", class has become more and more irrelevant. In those countries that embrace capitalism, and limited socialism, the standards of living are well above those who have attempted the more radical Marxian path. It is not self evident, and that is why he asked you to defend it. Your defense of Marxism's relevance to the workers of today is that "it is a fact", and a fact that is "blatantly obvious". Although, the actual evidence is that Marxism, in your own definition, is a completely failed ideology, because wherever it has been attempted it has been subverted into something not Marxist.

As for class struggle.... As I've said, it's not so bad being poor in America. It's not great, but better than being poor in Africa, India, or many other places. We can talk about wealth disparity between the 1% and the 99%, but to me, this is a minuscule problem compared to the disparity between the US/Canada, and Africa. It's not so much that we want to be comfortable, like Bill Gates, but rather we don't want to be uncomfortable, like dirt poor starving in Sub-Saharan Africa.

[attachment=90]

The Real 99%

Dialectical Materialism, like it or not, is a legitimate philosophy that deserves attention and consideration.

"Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it." -- Max Eastman, Marx and Lenin (1926)

But I'll tell you what. Let us keep the status quo intact for the sake of proving me wrong. Lets stay on the same course we currently are, and keep making the corporations more powerful, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and start up as many wars on so-called terrorism as we can.

As if we had any power to make that happen.

And continue to keep hoping and praying for change to come. When humanity is done wiping itself out in the process, and the environment is all but wrecked, I can sit back, laugh, and say "told you so" from the grave. Cheers.

So, you are spiritual after all.

[FireIceTalon]

"Marxism is outdated at best". Wrong. As long as there is class struggle, poverty, social injustice, and a capitalistic war machine, Marxist theory WILL be relevant and discussed. This is a fact, I dont see how its even up for debate. Dialectical Materialism, like it or not, is a legitimate philosophy that deserves attention and consideration.

(You declare your opinion as fact quite often. I'm not sure that word means what you think it does.)

I am more than happy to discuss Marxism. I am also more than happy to discuss the divine right of kings. But simply because something is discussed, doesn't mean we should be taking it seriously as a political program. There is a substantial group interested in Theocracy as a mode of governance. Should we spend our days taking seriously their belief that the power of Christ (or, Allah, or whatever deity) will solve our social ills? I think not.

Dialectical materialism is Marxism's worst mistake, the part that turns a vague but plausible analysis of history and social conditions into a pseudoscience. With a century and a half of new social science, archaeology, anthropology, economics, and history, we know far more than Marx did. His view of the past, while sweeping and interesting for its time, is wrong in all sorts of ways. Class is a remarkably poor predictor of historical change, and what little we do see, is surprisingly unrelated to the objective relationship to the means of production. The history of society is, by and large, not the history of class struggle. Societies do not progress through neat stages, and even if they did, Marx's view is Eurocentric to the extreme. Other cultures do not share European organizational principles, or European social norms; Marxist historians must therefore either abandon or compromise the framework, or shoehorn everything into an outdated model. History did not happen the way he said it did, and if he can't even manage predicting the past, what chance does he have of the future?

But I'll tell you what. Let us keep the status quo intact for the sake of proving me wrong. Lets stay on the same course we currently are, and keep making the corporations more powerful, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and start up as many wars on so-called terrorism as we can. And continue to keep hoping and praying for change to come. When humanity is done wiping itself out in the process, and the environment is all but wrecked, I can sit back, laugh, and say "told you so" from the grave. I just hope the elites know that eventually, they will run out of proletariat labor to maximize utility off of after we are all thrown away like a bunch of inkless ball point pens, and put in the ground. That assembly line conveyor belt will stop eventually though, and they will join us soon enough. Guess it matters not, we all gotta go one day anyway. Cheers.

No, I'll tell you what. Let's not bother discussing actual ideas or evidence. Instead, let's cackle maniacally about how those who disagree with us are leading the world to an inevitable apocalypse, and fantasize about ourselves laughing ironically from beyond the grave.

That's much better.

-Jester

Yea, I completely disagree.

If class struggle, or the struggle between those with power and those without hasn't been the central theme of our history, then WHAT HAS been? The struggle of those with power to retain it over those without it is the source of almost all conflict in history. I do not see how this can be denied. And the relationship between power is almost always between classes, whether its kings and aristocrats, lords and serfs, masters and slaves, and capitalists and workers...sure, there are other social divisions in society such as cultures, religion, race and ethnicity, but these sweep across the much larger spectrum of class as I see it. Many of these things are used to justify the condition of those on the lower rungs of society. It works the same on the international level too: colonialism and imperialism are products of capitalism. Powerful nations exploit the plant resources and labor of weaker ones.

---

Simply waving vaguely in the direction of a "better" world that will be achieved by overturning this one is exactly the kind of woolly thinking that's caused so much damage in the past.

Which was my impression too. Taking us to a precipice, and encouraging "jump" still leaves the landing, and organizing things in that new place for the survivors. I don't have any issues with our form of government, or the structure of our society (e.g. the role of capitalism, employment, and the rights of ownership). I have some issues with details of how the government has intruded/colluded giving favor to some (the special interests) over others (the people).

Power corrupts and is misused under all forms of government. My observation and grief is that it is the nature of many in positions of power to "Lord" over us, and that some people know what's better for us. Just give me some, or most, or all of your money/effort and I will direct you on the best way to apply it. And, then the corollary... You (consumers) are too naive or stupid to understand what you are doing when you engage in transaction or contracts with corporations, and so we need to protect you from your own ignorance. Certainly there needs to be a balance of some protections from the most egregious of offenses against the most vulnerable of consumers.

But, in the cases of student loans for example... Are they vulnerable or too naive? Is it unethical for the government to offer students a loan to pay for their education? Should we just do away with student loans, and let those students choose something else to do with their lives?

Or... Should the government just put a cap on the price per credit they will subsidize?

Or, they could stop letting corporations outsource jobs to maximize profits, that way the jobs stay here and students will have more incentive to take out a loan that will have more assurance they will be able to pay it back, since there would be many more jobs and careers available. In general, I hate student loans and I think they are a ponzi-scheme, but since we will never have a free education system sadly, they are probably a necessity for most. But when you outsource all the jobs to China so the corporations can exploit the pennies-on-the-dollar slave labor over there to increase their profit margin, and at the same time take away all the jobs here, it does not bode well. The price for an education is sadly probably not worth the return anymore. Not that I think an education should solely be to equip and prepare graduates for job, the original purpose of education is to learn. But it isn't the 50's anymore. Having a degree now is a requirement now to even move up at Mcdonalds. Its become a really fucked up catch-22 situation. I'm in the middle of my education right now, and hope to have my B.A. in Political Science sometime in 2013. I'm scared shitless right now about the job market and where this economy is going, and if me and my girlfriend will be able to afford to have children (and we aren't getting any younger, she's 35 right now, I'm 33) in time before she passes childbearing age, cause right now we arent even close to being ready. Not to mention the effect the evils of capitalism have had on other people I hold dear. All this corporate welfare is having a much larger impact on peoples lives than you and Jester would like to think. Yes, this is partly why I am an raging, unapologetic Marxist. My anger toward the system is growing and my patience is reaching paper-thin levels, and as Im sure you are well aware, I'm not alone. Disgust and contempt is turning into rage. When you take peoples jobs, retirement savings, foreclose their homes, give them student loans so they can get a job at Wal-Mart selling products for minimum wage just to pay the interest that were made by child labor slaves in China, cut their pay if they DO keep their job and not give them a raise in 6 years to match the rise in cost of living expenses. Then you add insult to injury and bailout the corporate and banker scum that was responsible for it all, instead of inditing them for fraud and treason...yes...you turn normal, hard-working law abiding citizens into dangerous radicals. And I make no fucking apologies about it. Shit, now I need an excedrin with some decaf coffee or something.

[kandrathe]

Or, they could stop letting corporations outsource jobs to maximize profits, that way the jobs stay here and students will have more incentive to take out a loan that will have more assurance they will be able to pay it back, since there would be many more jobs and careers available.

I don't think this is possible without somewhat draconian means. How do you stop GM from importing transmissions built in Mexico? I believe all flat screens are built by 5 manufacturers in Asia. How do you prevent IBM, or Oracle from using computer programmers from Hyderbad in the development of their software solutions? Where my wife works, the DB (and it's support) is actually in India, and they just sign on and use applications from the US.

In general, I hate student loans and I think they are a ponzi-scheme, but since we will never have a free education system sadly, they are probably a necessity for most.

Well, not remotely like a Ponzi scheme. The student takes out a loan, and pays back the principle with a lower than market interest rate. Now, the Feds have taken over the student loan business, so most loans are direct student loans.

But... Are we that much out of norm? OECD -Education at a glance (note: only the OECD or the UN could publish a ~500 page document and call it "At a glance" )

But when you outsource all the jobs to China so the corporations can exploit the pennies-on-the-dollar slave labor over there to increase their profit margin, and at the same time take away all the jobs here, it does not bode well.

Slave labor? Really?

The price for an education is sadly probably not worth the return anymore. Not that I think an education should solely be to equip and prepare graduates for job, the original purpose of education is to learn. But it isn't the 50's anymore. Having a degree now is a requirement now to even move up at Mcdonalds. Its become a really forked up catch-22 situation. I'm in the middle of my education right now, and hope to have my B.A. in Political Science sometime in 2013.

"The Hamilton Project, an economic policy program sponsored by the Brookings Institution, put the average value of a college degree at $570,000 on an average $102,000 investment." -- UPI story But, then again, you are going for political science... which is more in the liberal arts, not so much a vocational type degree, like economics or accounting. And, your Marxist idealism is sort of going against the grain for becoming highly employable even within the US political establishment. So, I guess you should be scared. Most of the Marxists I know are in academia with advanced degrees, or in the "social democratic" closet working for groups like the former ACORN. Have you thought about "Community Organizer"?

I'm scared shirtless right now about the job market and where this economy is going, and if me and my girlfriend will be able to be able to afford to have children (and we aren't getting any younger, she's 35 right now) in time before she passes childbearing age, cause right now we aren't even close to being ready.

There are always adoptable children, and parenting (while rewarding) is also very challenging. You are smart to not jump into it, but having jumped I'd say no one is ever ready. My wife and I waited for 17 years before jumping, and daily we discover that we are not ready.

As for the rest... Sometimes you just need to HOWL.

[DeeBye]

In those countries that embrace capitalism, and limited socialism, the standards of living are well above those who have attempted the more radical Marxian path.

I had a discussion with a friend about this sort of thing today. Living in a pure capitalist society is not very appealing to me. Living in a pure socialist society is not appealing either. I've said it before, but we need a measure of balance between the two. A purely socialistic society that says "screw you" to people that work a little harder, or are a little smarter, or are a little luckier than the rest and then takes all of their wealth and redistributes it is unfair. A purely capitalist society that says "screw you" to people that are not as smart as others, lose employment, suffer from a catastrophic medical condition, or generally down on their luck and lets them go homeless or dead is also unfair.

CAPITALISM [----I------] SOCIALISM

It's a slider, much like how you select the quality of your graphics in a video game. Frames Per Second vs Image Quality. There is a tolerable balance between the two, but it is up to each society to decide that for themselves.