Communist swine execute general with a mortar round

[Jester]

Marx's theory is much harder to test, because after all, we can't travel back in time and change the course of history. Sociology, economics, and Marxism are soft sciences, where as Biology is a hard(er) science so its not really a fair comparison in that sense. And even if we could go back in time, it would still be difficult to test because sociological and economic processes are constantly changing in a material sense. The process of evolution takes place much slower and over a very long period of time compared to human social development.

And yet, we have about 150 years of history that have passed since Marx formulated dialectical materialism. They do not bear the scarcest resemblance to the process he predicted. One can try to patch up the theory to fit the facts, as many (Gramsci included) have done, or one can reject the theory. But the basic problem must be dealt with - almost none of Marx's predictions about the evolution of society, which he considered to be established scientific fact, have come true.

It is pure fantasy to think that racism, poverty, patriarchy or other reactionary conditions can be reformed out of capitalism. If it were possible, it would have likely happened by now.

Except that this isn't even close to what has actually taken place. Throughout the industrialized world, workers are richer, better educated, and live longer by not just a little bit, but by enormous margins, than they were in Marx's day. Class antagonism, far from defining politics, has largely receded into the background as a driving social force. Bit by bit, life gets better, richer, fuller, freer. Some years or even decades are better or worse than others, but the overall trend is clear across basically all indicators.

Reform has a long record of successes in promoting rights and freedoms, an in improving lives. Life in the first world is good, by historical standards, and life in the developing world is getting better by the day. Revolution, by contrast, has left a trail of blood a hundred million people long, and scarcely anything to show for it. Only by persistently denying the first, and disowning the second, could anyone seriously still believe in revolution as a solution to anything.

You should look at some of Gramsci's works if you haven't, I find much of it very relevant to the current state of capitalism right now. Cultural hegemony at this point has moved from beyond "theory" status, into the "objective sociological process" category since 1991.

With all due respect to Gramsci, who I find far more insightful than Marx or Engels, "cultural hegemony" is not and never could be an objective phenomenon, since it describes an intangible and mutable set of relations, not an observable fact. (Why 1991, exactly?)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Class antagonism, far from defining politics, has largely receded into the background as a driving social force.

I would add that individuals in Western capitalist countries experience class mobility. I have in-laws that struggled, grabbed the brass ring, got it, became millionaires, (briefly) before they returned to their former station due to greed, and their own demons. Children leaving the nest are in one class, while their parents now successful in their careers may be in another class. To me, this is a fundamental flaw in Marxism, the very definition of the struggle is not class. There are no more aristocrats and peasants. We are all aristocrats, and we are all peasants. The struggle is internal. Should I be money focused? Or, should I just endeavor to be happy? What about all the other unhappy people? These are values. These are individuals values.

More food for thought regarding the "religion" of Marxism;

"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need." (Acts 2:44-45)

It sounds a lot like "From each according to their abilities, and to each according to their need," The difference between the early apostle's communal living, and the expressions of communism we've seen have been the use of guns in the latter case to compel the "converts" to surrender property and possessions. Or, as the Marxists describe it; the capitalist class will not agree to their own liquidation, such that a cooperative commonwealth is not likely to be attained without violence. This is the legacy of Marxism -- a trail of murder, misery, and destruction.

It makes me wonder why the early pacifist apostle approach worked so well. I think it worked because the underlying Christian philosophy views the attachment to "worldly" *real* objects as not only unnecessary, but often as sinful (when they are exhibited as the 7 deadly for example). Their view is that we are provided for (by God), no more, and no less than we need. This is the antithesis of materialism (hey, dialectics! The synthesis? Hypocrite televangelists like Jim Baker). Put another way, the Christians don't surrender their riches, or care (have love) for others because men tell them to do it, they do it because "God" tells them to do it. It is still their choice whether to follow or not.

FIT keeps talking about stateless bliss. Which, then I'm pretty sure quickly devolves into anarchy -- where some group, like the Holnists from "The Postman" (or another example would be warlords in Somalia. or tribal groups in Afghanistan) would use force to take whatever they wanted.

Beyond the careful deconstruction of history, we can look at the other "sciences" Marx actually believed in to gain insight to his propagandistic charlatanism. Such as phrenology; Harold Laski wrote, "A chosen band of helpers, all fellow-exiles used to accompany him and aid in the researches he conducted; though it should perhaps be added that they were not admitted as assistants until they had shown their agreement with Marx and passed certain cranialogical tests.”

[shoju]

Comrade, capitalism or class antagonist societies in general.... the rest of a pro-marxist post that is essentially the same drivel that I've been hearing for months, wrapped up in a new bow for all the lounge to see

So.... You're saying that

Muslim Extremists
Racist Africans warring with other Racist Africans
Warring African Tribes
Gross Poverty in Africa
Underdeveloped Countries

and on and on and on is all a result of capitalism?

I'll give you that there is a great point of greed and capitalism ruining the lives of people, and that it does leave a wake of destruction, but it's not the cause of all the world's evil, and starvation. The conditions in Africa aren't purely because of being exploited. That is disingenuous to the real struggles that are happening there, and the people who spend their lifetimes working to improve it. The conditions in the middle east aren't purely capitalist wrought either. There is a healthy dose of extremist religious views, and a power struggle of politics there. That isn't Capitalism.

I'm sure you find calling people comrade to be a hoot. I'm not your Comrade, but keep on keeping on I guess? Just another way to scream out


I'M A MARXIST WHO THINKS I'M BETTER THAN YOU BECAUSE I THINK THAT MY SYSTEM THAT I READ ABOUT IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE!
IF IT IS EVIL, BLAME IT ON CAPITALISM!
IF IT IS SOMEONE OR SOME PART IN/OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, CALL THEM FACIST!
IF IT IS RELIGION CALL IT A FAIRY TALE!
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT BEFORE CLASS SOCIETIES, WE ALL HAD A PSEUDO COMMUNIST LIFE!*
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT WHEN THEY CALL THEMSELVES COMMUNIST, THEY AREN'T!**
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT MARXISM IS SCIENCE!***


* Even though we have evidence that even ancient groups of people had "leaders" and "chiefs" and Despot societies, which would at least make for 2 classes. The ruler (and family) and everyone else.

** I love it when you use this argument. It's the "perfect" rebuttal so that Communism can't be critiqued. No one has ever done it right, they aren't really communist. That's not how it works. It doesn't matter what they say.

That reminds me of what a professor once said in college. Communism is fantastic as a theory. But it fails in implementation, because it requires a society devoid so many things that are inherent in a society in the modern world.

*** This also made me laugh, out loud, quite loud, for some time. The only people who believe that marxism is a science, are marxists. Almost everyone else is going to call it an economic and sociopolitical worldview, pioneered by a pair of Philosophers

Sorry man, I tire of seeing the same things all things all the time, and your arguments are so close to the same thing about everything that it's just boring me. I read stuff that you posted for a while, because I hadn't met a Marxist since I was in college, about 12 years ago.

It's an old tired act now. Sort of like that show you watched on TV that was interesting and kept your attention for a season or two, but then in the 3rd season, you realized that there was no "push" to keep moving forward about anything, it was the same things, with new packaging.

[FireIceTalon]

[quote='FireIceTalon' pid='203034' dateline='1351543139']
Comrade, capitalism or class antagonist societies in general.... the rest of a pro-marxist post that is essentially the same drivel that I've been hearing for months, wrapped up in a new bow for all the lounge to see

So.... You're saying that

Muslim Extremists
Racist Africans warring with other Racist Africans
Warring African Tribes
Gross Poverty in Africa
Underdeveloped Countries

and on and on and on is all a result of capitalism?

Many of them are, and the ones that aren't, involve other class based systems, whether its the theocracy of Iran or the military dictatorship of Afghanistan. All class base systems suck. We focus primarily on capitalism, because again, most of the world is capitalist and thus it is the most relevant class system in the systemic processes of the world. It is in the most advanced capitalist nations, not the third world or a backwards theocracy, were socialist revolution must occur first.

I'll give you that there is a great point of greed and capitalism ruining the lives of people, and that it does leave a wake of destruction, but it's not the cause of all the world's evil, and starvation. The conditions in Africa aren't purely because of being exploited. That is disingenuous to the real struggles that are happening there, and the people who spend their lifetimes working to improve it. The conditions in the middle east aren't purely capitalist wrought either. There is a healthy dose of extremist religious views, and a power struggle of politics there. That isn't Capitalism.

It is a cause of the great majority of it. They haven't developed yet because again, we colonized them centuries ago, and continue to exploit their resources - that is due to capitalism man. The extremist religious views in the middle east may not be related to capitalism, but it is a class system nonetheless: those who have power subjugating those who do not have it, and I'm pretty sure most of us were supportive of the Libyan and Egyptian revolutions, and there will be more to come likely. Struggle, movements, solidarity, and revolution are what bring about the fundamental change in society, not the ballot box (if the country even has one). So, capitalism or otherwise, my point still stands: class societies do not work.

I'm sure you find calling people comrade to be a hoot. I'm not your Comrade, but keep on keeping on I guess? Just another way to scream out


I'M A MARXIST WHO THINKS I'M BETTER THAN YOU BECAUSE I THINK THAT MY SYSTEM THAT I READ ABOUT IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE!
IF IT IS EVIL, BLAME IT ON CAPITALISM!
IF IT IS SOMEONE OR SOME PART IN/OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, CALL THEM FACIST!
IF IT IS RELIGION CALL IT A FAIRY TALE!
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT BEFORE CLASS SOCIETIES, WE ALL HAD A PSEUDO COMMUNIST LIFE!*
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT WHEN THEY CALL THEMSELVES COMMUNIST, THEY AREN'T!**
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT MARXISM IS SCIENCE!***

Irrelevant rhetoric and dogmatism that doesn't add to the conversation, so I won't merit it a response.

* Even though we have evidence that even ancient groups of people had "leaders" and "chiefs" and Despot societies, which would at least make for 2 classes. The ruler (and family) and everyone else.

And what group of people do you speak of, from what era? Evidence? Your claim is pretty vague, link me a specific. Also, this doesn't seem to indicate a class society - before the Agricultural Revolution, there is no evidence that private property, a state, money, or markets existed, therefore there would be no classes. Communism is defined by a classless, stateless society, so yes, technically ancient peoples lived a very communitarian lifestyle. People lived by and for one another, not against each other. There was no capitalist class to produce surplus value for, thus most resources were used or consumed rather quickly - and resources used to make longer term, personal items like clothing and shelter were communally shared. A "leader" in a hunter/gatherer community does NOT constitute a class society, sorry. The means of production is a social relationship that determines how that society is organized. In every society, classless or not, there are rules and a code of standards that are in place to help that society function. I think you are under the impression that communists and anarchists just want a complete free-for-all society with no rules, and where anyone can do whatever the hell they want. This is very, very fundamentally wrong - and your logic grossly vulgarizes communism by incorrectly reducing it to nihilism. As a communist, I have an intense hatred of fascism, but even I recognize that fascism does have its purposes, however ill intended they may be, and that it isn't nihilist.

** I love it when you use this argument. It's the "perfect" rebuttal so that Communism can't be critiqued. No one has ever done it right, they aren't really communist. That's not how it works. It doesn't matter what they say.

There are no real arguments against modern communism, because it hasn't materialized. How can you criticize that which does not exist? It doesn't make much sense to me. But most of the so-called common arguments made against communism, are indeed pretty easy to beat if you have even a decent knowledge of political and economic relationships, and some background in history, sociology, and anthropology. The hardest one to argue against would be the Soviet Union/Stalinism I suppose, because it requires a deeper knowledge of historical circumstances and often takes awhile to explain, so in person it can be tougher to debunk. This argument too, however, is very beatable, given you have enough time and knowledge. But I am more interested in critiquing the system we have now, capitalism, than defending a system that hasn't materialized yet. The problems of communism, when and if it materializes, will be dealt with and critiqued then, but I am concerned about the NOW - capitalism.

That reminds me of what a professor once said in college. Communism is fantastic as a theory. But it fails in implementation, because it requires a society devoid so many things that are inherent in a society in the modern world.

And thus we see the poverty of the modern education system in action, but the fact that 'cold war' rhetoric is moving from high schools (which is a compulsory pure indoctrination and historical revisionism session to keep kids pro-capitalist and bleeding heart patriots - yuck) to college is a bit unnerving. Just demonstrates that Gramsci was indeed right, unfortunately. Your professor oversimplifies material and political conditions that have no bearing on revolutionary politics with a sweeping generalization at best, commits intellectual dishonesty at worst. Or maybe, he is just parroting what he heard some liberal media pundit say.

Another thing - I find bourgeois reasoning really puzzling today. They seem to have forgotten who they are, and where they came from. In the ashes of capitalism's triumph over feudalism, which was definitely a good thing I will add, the bourgeois was a revolutionary class saying that things don't stay the same forever, humans change over time, and that it was time for a new society, yada, yada yada. Now that THEY are the ruling class, they switched all that up, saying humans are a certain way and we can't change (to justify their continued privileged positions), capitalism is the natural order of things and 'common sense', etc. Go figure....but it isn't the bourgeois that is the final revolutionary class of history, though they seem to think so. They are no longer a revolutionary class, but a reactionary one, and it is the proletariat only that can end class conflict.

*** This also made me laugh, out loud, quite loud, for some time. The only people who believe that marxism is a science, are marxists. Almost everyone else is going to call it an economic and sociopolitical worldview, pioneered by a pair of Philosophers

I don't really find anything funny - there is a lot of suffering and ills in the world today, and Marxism is at least a serious attempt to make sense of these problems, and frankly, it does a better job than most mainstream views do. Most of the world is capitalist and ran by a small elite. Anything that puts to question their little system must be pseudoscience, inaccurate, and unnatural . this closely relates to what I said above about the poverty of education, we want our kids to be good little patriotic consumers and puppets, instead of free and critical thinkers. Gee, I guess economics and sociology, both of which Marxism had an incalculable impact on, aren't sciences either. Marx and Engels were indeed philosophers. They were also economists, sociologists, and humanitarians. What is your point?

Sorry man, I tire of seeing the same things all things all the time, and your arguments are so close to the same thing about everything that it's just boring me. I read stuff that you posted for a while, because I hadn't met a Marxist since I was in college, about 12 years ago.

No one is forcing you to read my posts? But you engaged me, and I happily responded so we could have intelligent discourse on the subject. If you don't like my views and are tired of reading them, again, no one is forcing you to read them or engage them. *shrugs*

It's an old tired act now. Sort of like that show you watched on TV that was interesting and kept your attention for a season or two, but then in the 3rd season, you realized that there was no "push" to keep moving forward about anything, it was the same things, with new packaging.

No act going on here. Just an objective observation and analysis of the material problems in the world, and how they function. But if you want to stay in your comfort zone, well, there is always Fox News or MSNBC.

I will reply to you later, Jester, when I have more time.

[FireIceTalon]

And yet, we have about 150 years of history that have passed since Marx formulated dialectical materialism. They do not bear the scarcest resemblance to the process he predicted. One can try to patch up the theory to fit the facts, as many (Gramsci included) have done, or one can reject the theory. But the basic problem must be dealt with - almost none of Marx's predictions about the evolution of society, which he considered to be established scientific fact, have come true.

Again, Marx probably underestimated capitalism ability to re-invent itself, but he was fundamentally correct about its internal contradictions, flaws and operations. And one of his most important predictions, that America would rise as the largest empire out of the industrial revolution, ultimately came true. 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 flexible. DM isn't a theory anyway, its a method and mode of analysis.

Except that this isn't even close to what has actually taken place. Throughout the industrialized world, workers are richer, better educated, and live longer by not just a little bit, but by enormous margins, than they were in Marx's day. Class antagonism, far from defining politics, has largely receded into the background as a driving social force. Bit by bit, life gets better, richer, fuller, freer. Some years or even decades are better or worse than others, but the overall trend is clear across basically all indicators.

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. 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. 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. Even the capitalists can't control their own system anymore, and politicians are no better at doing so - the beast is way too wild and far gone now.

Class antagonisms ARE the reason politics exist. If there is no classes, there is no such thing as politics, period. 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. But I reiterate, politics exist because classes exist - class is the driving force: those who have power, status and privilege, and those who are subservient to it. That is how it has been in every class society, whether a theocracy, a feudal society, or capitalism/fascism. 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.

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. But what is worse, is that they don't have to lift a finger to do it, since they have an army of wage slaves that do all the work for them. Then when the workers make a tiny bit of ground or start getting too many scraps from the table, the capitalists close up shop and go to another country where labor laws are less strict and they dont have to throw as many scraps off the table. And then, workers are told that other (and less well-off) workers from other nations are stealing their jobs, fed a healthy dose of patriotism and xenophobia, and foreign workers and immigrants become scapegoats as blame for all the domestic workers problems. But hey, those capitalists aren't the problem, they are just doing what they are supposed to do: maximizing profits. Nationalism is a pre-cursor to racism and xenophobia, and it has done a marvelous job of keeping workers divided and powerless. More austerity and cuts follow. Nationalism becomes stronger and a stronger racist element becomes very prominent within the fabric of society - and usually toward a very specific group, the state becomes more heavy handed, military spending and action is increased, rights against workers, dissenters, women and minorities come under attack, and then we begin to enter the lovely realm of FASCISM. Lenin once called fascism "capitalism in decay", but I think "capitalism on steroids" is a much more accurate depiction.

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

Reform has a long record of successes in promoting rights and freedoms, an in improving lives. Life in the first world is good, by historical standards, and life in the developing world is getting better by the day. Revolution, by contrast, has left a trail of blood a hundred million people long, and scarcely anything to show for it. Only by persistently denying the first, and disowning the second, could anyone seriously still believe in revolution as a solution to anything.

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

With all due respect to Gramsci, who I find far more insightful than Marx or Engels, "cultural hegemony" is not and never could be an objective phenomenon, since it describes an intangible and mutable set of relations, not an observable fact. (Why 1991, exactly?)

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.

1991 was my reference to the fall of the SU. Gramsci's analysis was relevant well before then of course, but I think it was at this time when cultural hegemony became really strengthened, exasperated, and prominent in the western world. But who knows, regardless it is very much there.

[Hammerskjold]

I'M A MARXIST WHO THINKS I'M BETTER THAN YOU BECAUSE I THINK THAT MY SYSTEM THAT I READ ABOUT IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE!
IF IT IS EVIL, BLAME IT ON CAPITALISM!
IF IT IS SOMEONE OR SOME PART IN/OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, CALL THEM FACIST!
IF IT IS RELIGION CALL IT A FAIRY TALE!
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT BEFORE CLASS SOCIETIES, WE ALL HAD A PSEUDO COMMUNIST LIFE!*
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT WHEN THEY CALL THEMSELVES COMMUNIST, THEY AREN'T!**
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT MARXISM IS SCIENCE!***

Aw c'mon! At least a spoiler tag warning please?! ;P Also, pass the popcorn, I want to see if this beaten dead horse carcass will rise as a zombie horse. It is one day before Haloween after all.

Speaking of which, here's a totally NSFW article about haloween. But IMO high-larious and truer than any commie-nifesto I've read so far. (In before 'that's not True Commie-ism'.)

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-9-stages...hout-life/

[kandrathe]

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.

The word "Fact" must have a different definition in your dictionary.

Marxism is not "labor unions" and vice versa. As the son of a Teamster, let me tell you about the thrashing I received the day I suggested to my father that it might be better to be red, than dead. The DFL is not the CPUSA (which has fallen to about 2000 members).

I just familiarized myself with the origins of the National Child Labor Committee and while there was prominent mention of clergy, social reformers and abolitionists, I saw little mention of it being driven by labor unions. Even Mother Jones, after fighting on behalf of better wages for the children in the mills, sent them back after their strike demands were met. Sure, they fought for the working conditions of all workers, even the children. But, they wanted them on the payrolls as much as the employers.

If you look at Child Labor around the world today, it is aligned solidly with family poverty. Spend some time in a border town, south of the Mexican border and see how the children live there. Lifting people out of poverty ends many evils of society including child labor. Next, you'll claim labor unions ended slavery in the US.

Here is the government's historical perspective; http://www.bls.gov/opub/rylf/pdf/chapter2.pdf

The eight hour day movement began in England, however in the US; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour...ted_States

The limit to a ten hour day began decades before Marx wrote anything. The socialist movement in the US didn't gather political momentum until the 1910's to 1920's. It was well after the labor unrest in the US of the late 1800's dominated by The Knights of Labor; "The Knights promoted the social and cultural uplift of the workingman, rejected Socialism and radicalism, demanded the eight-hour day, and promoted the producers ethic of republicanism."

So, let's just respect my father's wishes here and not try to convolute what you are, with what he fought for his entire life. He was dedicated to his union and his employers, and the two concepts are not incompatible.

[FireIceTalon]

The word "Fact" must have a different definition in your dictionary.

Marxism is not "labor unions" and vice versa. As the son of a Teamster, let me tell you about the thrashing I received the day I suggested to my father that it might be better to be red, than dead. The DFL is not the CPUSA (which has fallen to about 2000 members).

Never said they were. It is you implying or imagining that, in that hot empty space between your shoulders, and I don't care to read the rest of your tripe. Nor do I care one bit about that Third International/Comintern revisionist, joke of a party that calls itself the CPUSA - they are bunch of idiotic bourgeois liberals that think they are Marxists, but haven't a single clue. Now go the hell away, and argue with yourself some more. Perhaps you will be right for once.

[kandrathe]

Nor do I care one bit about that Third International/Comintern revisionist, joke of a party that calls itself the CPUSA - they are bunch of idiotic bourgeois liberals that think they are Marxists, but haven't a single clue.

I have this vision of you, and a small cadre of your fellow angry students in berets and black t-shirts, standing alone -- yelling at the darkness. Rather pathetic. Where is this taking you? Perhaps down the same road as Marx? Maybe it will be badly articulated ramblings, mooching off friends, and infrequent drunken stupor?

[FireIceTalon]

You know something, perhaps the capitalists should take their own advice/philosophy of "better dead, than red", and follow it . Would certainly save us the trouble of revolution, and there certainly would be no guilt for us afterward, hehe. If we can be of any assistance, let us know

[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

[kandrathe]

You know something, perhaps the capitalists should take their own advice/philosophy of "better dead, than red", and follow it . Would certainly save us the trouble of revolution, and there certainly would be no guilt for us afterward, hehe. If we can be of any assistance, let us know

Haha. Ya. Thanks. You are as twisted as your buddy Pol Potts. Good luck with the mass graves. haha. roflcopters.

[FireIceTalon]

Well Jester, I'm going to end the discussion here mate. There are quite a few things in your last replies that I don't agree with, but I see no point to take it any farther, just because I think this debate would go on forever lol, and neither of us are going to ultimately change our views, so you get the last word. But it was a pleasure nonetheless, and it restored some of my confidence that mutual respect and civil discourse on very controversial and political topics is possible here. Cheers.

[kandrathe]

In other words; "In the face of logic, facts and reasoned debate, I have no response".

Well done Jester.

P.S. You didn't quite strike the jugular and get to the juvenile status of the ignored list, which has been the other outcome of these unending tirades. "I don't agree and you make me angry, so I'm going to ignore you." >>>> I'm not listening! I'm not listening! Lalalalala! <<<<<

[kandrathe]

As my poetically challenged friend always used to tell me when asked similar questions; because east is east, and west is west, and never the trains will meet.

The Ballad of East and West by Rudyard Kipling.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the two shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth.