Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[Banditbandit]

Okay, I'll bite - how so?

Oh God - do you really want me to repeat all of Das Capital? Do you want the high school or Marx101 version ..

I'll try to keep it simple .. first of all Communism was NOT Marx's ideal or his utopia, nor the end-point of his process.

Marx was writing about massive change in society - which in his day was moving from a feudal structure to a capitalist industrialized structure - a shift in power from those who held their position by force and hierarchy (Divine right to rule shit) to those who held position and ruled society by Capital - Money - invested in industrialization.

Marx said the resulting industrialized society would form naturally into three groups - the Capitalists (bourgeoisie) the Middle Class (petti-bourgeoisie) and the Working Class (proletariat). The Middle class would be the people appointed by the capitalists to oversee the working class. They would see that their interested lie with the capitalists - and would be largely irrelevant.

The capitalists would oppress the workers - who, bonded by their mutual oppression, would resist . The Capitalists had no bonding mechanism and would remain a disparate group - while the middle classes would be eased by their position as bosses and their immediate rewards of more money than the workers, would probably oppose the workers, who threatened their position. The working class would be the largest group in such a society.

Eventually the workers would rise up in revolution and overthrow the Capitalists .. and set up a socialist state, which would move naturally to a communist state, and then the state would wither and die - leaving a society very similar to the Anarchist ideals.

To Marx this is the natural progression of history ... so people 'trying' to bring about communism fail 1) to realize that you do not 'try' communism, it occurs as a progression of history or not at all, and 2) the resulting communist state is NOT Marx's utopia ...

So you do not TRY communism ... any attempt will fail - as history has proven. Which was the point of my comment.

Since Marx, Stalin thought that a strong leader (a dictator) could overcome the objection that it was a natural progression, and a strong leader could impose Communism - wrong - it cant be imposed - communism is not the end result. Stalin was Lenin's book-keeper -so Russia got a dictatorship of a book-keeper ..

Mao is an interesting one - he certainly had peasant backing - he became a dictator - China was not an industrialized country at the time .. very small working class ... does not fulfill Marx's conditions for revolution and the path the Utopia either.

Others, like Guevara, thought that if the working class was not "mature" in the sense that they were ready to revolt, then a "revolutionary vanguard" (read intellectuals) had a moral right to assume that position and start the revolution - wrong. If you do not have the working class with you, the revolution will fail - and will become a dictatorship run by intellectuals.

History has proven Marx's politics to be wrong. He was in London because he expected the revolution in either England or Germany - the most industrialized countries in the world at that time. The revolution occurred in Russia - and was essentially a peasant revolution, not a working class revolution .. Lenin and co stepped in after the revolt had started - they did not start it.

There has been no revolution in the largely industrialized countries .. and, interestingly, there has been no revolution in a Protestant country - France, catholic; Russia, Eastern Orthodox; Cuba, Catholic; China and Asia - not even Christian.

That's enough - I share Marx's sociology and his structuralist analysis - I do not share his politics ..

[TheDemonLord]

Oh God - do you really want me to repeat all of Das Capital?

Tempting to say yes...

I'll try to keep it simple .. first of all Communism was NOT Marx's ideal or his utopia, nor the end-point of his process.

For me, Marx's projection of societal change (and I'll take your interpretation of it - there's a few areas that I disagree with - see below) is foundationally wrong because it made several assumptions about Humans as a species.

And just like in maths - if your initial calculation is wrong, then any additional equations that use that erroneous result will also be wrong (often in orders of Magnitude from the correct answer)

Marx was writing about massive change in society - which in his day was moving from a feudal structure to a capitalist industrialized structure - a shift in power from those who held their position by force and hierarchy (Divine right to rule shit) to those who held position and ruled society by Capital - Money - invested in industrialization.

This is probably the part of Marx where I give him most credit - which capitalism and industrialization at the time was causing massive changes and there were a LOT of issues.

But even here he makes a fundamental mistake: He doesn't take into account competence or human Ability. His system does account that some of those who 'rule' - do so because they are good at it, that they were able to make wise decisions.

Marx said the resulting industrialized society would form naturally into three groups - the Capitalists (bourgeoisie) the Middle Class (petti-bourgeoisie) and the Working Class (proletariat). The Middle class would be the people appointed by the capitalists to oversee the working class. They would see that their interested lie with the capitalists - and would be largely irrelevant.

Again Marx is wrong here - It's spoiled little rich kids at university who are the ardent Marxists

The capitalists would oppress the workers - who, bonded by their mutual oppression, would resist . The Capitalists had no bonding mechanism and would remain a disparate group - while the middle classes would be eased by their position as bosses and their immediate rewards of more money than the workers, would probably oppose the workers, who threatened their position. The working class would be the largest group in such a society.

What Marx failed to account for here is two-fold: Legislation (aka workers rights) and that something happened as a result of Industrialization and Capitalism - The quality of life for the Working Class started to get better.

This is perhaps the biggest failing of Marx - he saw it as a pure power dynamic - it's more symbiotic. This is not to say that there is not a difference between the influence that a Billionaire can muster and the influence that someone on the street can muster - however, History has shown that the best companies are the ones that not only make good decisions and have good leadership, but also incentivize their works (through salary or other means) to work hard.

When the company wins, the workers also win. When the Workers win, the Company Wins.

Eventually the workers would rise up in revolution and overthrow the Capitalists .. and set up a socialist state, which would move naturally to a communist state, and then the state would wither and die - leaving a society very similar to the Anarchist ideals.

To Marx this is the natural progression of history ... so people 'trying' to bring about communism fail 1) to realize that you do not 'try' communism, it occurs as a progression of history or not at all, and 2) the resulting communist state is NOT Marx's utopia ...

So you do not TRY communism ... any attempt will fail - as history has proven. Which was the point of my comment.

So, I've got to first nitpick these series of statements (I wouldn't be me otherwise...)

You say that the workers would rise up, revolt and setup a socialist state - I'd argue that this is exactly what happened - People tried something new - now, you'll counter nitpick that you said that people will try socialism and this then changes into Communism - What is the agent of change if not the people trying for something? I know what your meaning is, but functionally it doesn't happen like that - First there is a societal change (shift in attitudes, better argumentation etc.) which then escalates to the point where governmental and legislative changes occur - this is the point where there is a conscious choice (both in the zeitgeist of the people and in the leadership of the country) to enact legal change to TRY something better.

Then you've got Marx's idea that this is a natural progression of Society - I think he is foundationally wrong on this point - which is why every time it was attempted, it was through the use of Force.

Even Marx indicates that the working class need to rise up and Revolt, which is where my critique was more aimed at, Marx effectively mandates the use of force - that it is right for the workers to rise up against the 'evil' capitalists - once you give people a virtuous reason AND moral authority to commit violence - that's when we see rivers of blood and anguish.

Whilst it may not have been Marx's intention - his permitting of an entire class of people to use violence against those they self-identify as oppressing them leads exactly to the 'Communist utopia' I sarcastically refer to.

Since Marx, Stalin thought that a strong leader (a dictator) could overcome the objection that it was a natural progression, and a strong leader could impose Communism - wrong - it cant be imposed - communism is not the end result. Stalin was Lenin's book-keeper -so Russia got a dictatorship of a book-keeper ..

Mao is an interesting one - he certainly had peasant backing - he became a dictator - China was not an industrialized country at the time .. very small working class ... does not fulfill Marx's conditions for revolution and the path the Utopia either.

Others, like Guevara, thought that if the working class was not "mature" in the sense that they were ready to revolt, then a "revolutionary vanguard" (read intellectuals) had a moral right to assume that position and start the revolution - wrong. If you do not have the working class with you, the revolution will fail - and will become a dictatorship run by intellectuals.

History has proven Marx's politics to be wrong. He was in London because he expected the revolution in either England or Germany - the most industrialized countries in the world at that time. The revolution occurred in Russia - and was essentially a peasant revolution, not a working class revolution .. Lenin and co stepped in after the revolt had started - they did not start it.

He was wrong because of his underlying a priori assumptions about humans and human nature. It's why Communism had to be tried, at the barrel of a gun. It's also why it fails. Whether or not you see it as a stepping stone to the an AnCom type existence to me is largely irrelevant - at every step of Marx proposed progression, it fails.

There has been no revolution in the largely industrialized countries .. and, interestingly, there has been no revolution in a Protestant country - France, catholic; Russia, Eastern Orthodox; Cuba, Catholic; China and Asia - not even Christian.

I suspect, that this has something to do with the protestant interpretation of the Bible - something along the lines that the individual has an element of divinity that should not be tampered with.

I also suspect (at least with the Catholic countries) that if you have a working mass who venerate the Pope (who is a Man) as some form of divine figure, it's not an entire leap to replace a Man with another Man as the target of the veneration (the Cult of Personality for a Dictator).

I think it was Hitchens who made this point - "I'd argue that North Korea is the most religious country on earth, only their deity is their Dear Leader"

That's enough - I share Marx's sociology and his structuralist analysis - I do not share his politics ..

I think his critique of 19th Century Capitalism has some merits when taken in Historical context. The rest is resentment masquerading as compassion - which interestingly enough describes the current crop of Marxists....

[Graystone]

How many corpses are piling up in the name of Democracy?

You mean capitalism?

Capitalism is to Communism as Dictatorship is to Democracy, we* can have democratic communism.




*I mean, not me, but...

[sugilite:Me]

I did not think much about chem trails until I got to the West Coast. Every fine day it seemed a few appeared. I noticed some stayed around literally all day long, getting wider and wider, until it was kilometers wide, that sure is a lot of vapor I found myself thinking. So I started watching closer, and I saw planes go by leaving the trail that I just described, yet ones going by a very short time later where the trails disappeared in seconds. I know, I know, different altitudes blah blah.
I used to get up a bit late as I often worked late at night, and there they would be. So I got up really early for a week and watched for where and when these things turned up. And what I saw was quite curious, a lone plane really early each fine morning of that week would go by leaving one of the trails that would take up to 10 hours or longer to grow ever wider. The puzzling thing, it would turn around, without landing and just head back from the direction it came - all the while leaving a trail. Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise. But I sure as fuck wonder who is paying to have a plane got on a morning tiki tour clearly not delivering any freight and or passengers to a destination. An aircraft is not cheap to run - so WTF?

[Laava]

I did not think much about chem trails until I got to the West Coast. Every fine day it seemed a few appeared. I noticed some stayed around literally all day long, getting wider and wider, until it was kilometers wide, that sure is a lot of vapor I found myself thinking. So I started watching closer, and I saw planes go by leaving the trail that I just described, yet ones going by a very short time later where the trails disappeared in seconds. I know, I know, different altitudes blah blah.
I used to get up a bit late as I often worked late at night, and there they would be. So I got up really early for a week and watched for where and when these things turned up. And what I saw was quite curious, a lone plane really early each fine morning of that week would go by leaving one of the trails that would take up to 10 hours or longer to grow ever wider. The puzzling thing, it would turn around, without landing and just head back from the direction it came - all the while leaving a trail. Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise. But I sure as fuck wonder who is paying to have a plane got on a morning tiki tour clearly not delivering any freight and or passengers to a destination. An aircraft is not cheap to run - so WTF?

I think you'll find that, the earth being flat, the pilots have reached the edge and rather than just "fly off into space" they turned around to dust over to the other edge. I think they are releasing an agent that prevents "grassy knolls"!

[mashman]

Oooooooo, my fave is the conspiracy that the vast majority of the population literally buy into. Everything is ok, keep creating business, keep working, keep paying taxes, we need more jobs, just keep it going coz it's bad for the economy otherwise and nothing else will work.

Somewhat ironically, we have also destroyed the economy pursuing business in such a way. As a friend of mine points out, how can you call what we have an Economy when it doesn't implement the "2. careful management of available resources"? The conspiracy that everything is ok, despite the very opposite being true.

As such, ya'll are Conspiracy Theorists. Maybe you should do some more research

[mashman]

You mean capitalism?

Well it does kill an estimated 18 million people each year via Structural Violence.

[Katman]

But hey, what would John Brennan know?

[Banditbandit]

For me, Marx's projection of societal change (and I'll take your interpretation of it - there's a few areas that I disagree with - see below) is foundationally wrong because it made several assumptions about Humans as a species.

And just like in maths - if your initial calculation is wrong, then any additional equations that use that erroneous result will also be wrong (often in orders of Magnitude from the correct answer)

Exactly ....

This is probably the part of Marx where I give him most credit - which capitalism and industrialization at the time was causing massive changes and there were a LOT of issues.

But even here he makes a fundamental mistake: He doesn't take into account competence or human Ability. His system does account that some of those who 'rule' - do so because they are good at it, that they were able to make wise decisions.

In Marx's Utopia (he never used the word - but it does fit) there are no rulers. His mistake is that once you have gone through the historically necessary stages and reached Communism, the rulers of this state will never give up their power and allow the final stage to occur. History shows it has never happened.

I disagree that they are good at it. History shows the majority are complete fuck ups.

Again Marx is wrong here - It's spoiled little rich kids at university who are the ardent Marxists

Not completely true. A large number of ardent Marxists are not university -educated - and the real working class ones look down n those who are. Marx has a role for the intellectuals - it is NOT as the leaders.

What Marx failed to account for here is two-fold: Legislation (aka workers rights) and that something happened as a result of Industrialization and Capitalism - The quality of life for the Working Class started to get better.

Workers rights became an issue after Marx wrote Das Capital. Yes - you are right. There are two ways to go to oppose the oppressors - revolution and negotiation (I Use negotiation i it's wider sense here - and include putting pressure on the Government). New Zealand and many other countries went down the negotiation path- to the benefit of the workers. This is what occurred in most industrialized societies. The revolutions happened in non-industrialized societies ... these were not the revolutions that Marx predicted.

It is also important to note that workers rights came to the fore largely after the Russian revolutions - an event that scared the hell out of the capitalist overlords. You only have to look back at the history of the Labour Party in New Zealand (which was originally socialist). Formed in 1916, by the trade unions) it became active and effective in the next two decades as the workers realized their position in society and their power. This is what Marx predicted - but instead of revolution, the workers used Democracy to effect change. There were also battles with police, running fights in the streets - but not actual revolution.

This is perhaps the biggest failing of Marx - he saw it as a pure power dynamic - it's more symbiotic. This is not to say that there is not a difference between the influence that a Billionaire can muster and the influence that someone on the street can muster - however, History has shown that the best companies are the ones that not only make good decisions and have good leadership, but also incentivize their works (through salary or other means) to work hard.

When the company wins, the workers also win. When the Workers win, the Company Wins.

Yes - the capitalist owners worked out that happy workers work hard - are more productive - and therefore the capitalists make more money.

But that is not a universal - and there is still a school of thought that allows capitalists to abuse workers and try to keep them suppressed. We can still see that in the resistance to workers' strikes - it's a bad thing. The statement 'it is a bad thing is a way of suppressing the workers by undermining their support'.

So, I've got to first nitpick these series of statements (I wouldn't be me otherwise...)

It's not nitpicking - it's good discussion.

You say that the workers would rise up, revolt and setup a socialist state

Be careful - Marx says that - not me. History has proven him wrong. Gramsci gives us a good explanation of why it happened the way it did.

I'd argue that this is exactly what happened - People tried something new

I don't entirely agree (note the word 'entirely') the intellectuals tried something new - they tried a dictatorship (not new) with left aspirations (new) .. but a Dictatorship is NEVER left ..

now, you'll counter nitpick that you said that people will try socialism and this then changes into Communism - What is the agent of change if not the people trying for something?

I see what you mean - the central point of Marx is that it is not people who try something new - it is the working class - the united group. The people who tried something new were not he working class - they were the intellectuals - and thus they screwed it up

They screwed up because they did not have the support of the majority of the people. (Remember, the working class, the proletariat would be the biggest group - the majority)

A Marxian revolution is a wide revolution with mass support which the revolutionaries have never achieved - they have never realised that the historic moment for revolution had not arisen, so they were forced to impose their will on the people - a position Marx would have opposed. Their revolutions were doomed to fail - doomed to become dictatorships because they never saw that the moment was wrong.

I know what your meaning is, but functionally it doesn't happen like that - First there is a societal change (shift in attitudes, better argumentation etc.) which then escalates to the point where governmental and legislative changes occur - this is the point where there is a conscious choice (both in the zeitgeist of the people and in the leadership of the country) to enact legal change to TRY something better.

Yes - Marx was writing in a time where societal change as you describe it, was NOT happening. Marx was part of the ground that caused the social change - but the changes were not as he expected. He was wrong. But at the time the capitalists promoted active and violent resistance to social change. Plenty examples int eh past of union organizers being killed - legally and illegally. There was active and violent resistance to social change.

Then you've got Marx's idea that this is a natural progression of Society - I think he is foundationally wrong on this point - which is why every time it was attempted, it was through the use of Force.

Maybe. Marx certainly saw the violent resistance to social change, and thought a violent response was the natural way it would occur. He certainly promoted violent revolution as the first stage.

There have been plenty of times when the use of force has achieved its objectives - The Magna Carta, WWII (opposing Hitler and the nazis) WWII, the fight against ISIS, the overthrow of South Africa's apartheid Government ... I would suggest, was certainly a virtuous reason and had moral authority.

Even Marx indicates that the working class need to rise up and Revolt, which is where my critique was more aimed at, Marx effectively mandates the use of force - that it is right for the workers to rise up against the 'evil' capitalists - once you give people a virtuous reason AND moral authority to commit violence - that's when we see rivers of blood and anguish.

At the time he was writing Marx certainly saw a violent reaction as the only response to the violent resistance of the capitalists ... You have to remember he was writing more than 100 years ago - history has shown us that it does not have to happen that way ....

Also, with the above examples, I think you are selectively applying virtue and moral authority. There can be virtuous reasons for violence - and therefore moral authority for violence.

Whilst it may not have been Marx's intention - his permitting of an entire class of people to use violence against those they self-identify as oppressing them leads exactly to the 'Communist utopia' I sarcastically refer to.

Hmm .. I still think the violent response is justified - it depends on the context. There is certainly no need for a violent response in New Zealand at this historical time. However, a violent response to the violent oppression of the people is always justified.

He was wrong because of his underlying a priori assumptions about humans and human nature.

Yes - major issue.

It's why Communism had to be tried, at the barrel of a gun. It's also why it fails. Whether or not you see it as a stepping stone to the an AnCom type existence to me is largely irrelevant - at every step of Marx proposed progression, it fails.

Communism had to be tried -as you put it - at the barrel of a gun BECAUSE the revolutionary vanguard - the intellectuals - did not have the support of the people - and they tried to force the people into Communism at gunpoint - that is why it failed. People cannot be forced into ANY system at gunpoint - human nature,as you referred to.

Communism had to be tried at the point of a gun because the idiot revolutionary vanguard (the intellectuals) failed to notice that the working class was no behind them (in all cases it was a peasant revolution, not a working class revolution), did not support them, was not ready for revolution - and therefore it was not the historically appropriate time for revolution.

It also failed in Russia, for example, because the state - the intellectuals - took away all property rights.

Under the feudal system the people could survive - just - and were pissed off at the rulers. The communist rulers took away everything - it all belonged to the state. The people passively resisted this - it gave them no reason to work. Secondly, the centralized economic system (set up by the intellectuals) fell over as it was unable to supply basic needs to people - because it was still the people running the system - they had no reason to be efficient and make the system work - so the system had passive resistance built into it. This is human nature.

The workers on the collective farms watched the state take away all that they produced - and replaced it with nothing. So a collective farm growing wheat could not trade for goods they needed - they relied on the state mechanisms, incomplete and inefficient - to supply their needs. The system could not do that. It was a system doomed to failure.

Human nature again ...

I suspect, that this has something to do with the protestant interpretation of the Bible - something along the lines that the individual has an element of divinity that should not be tampered with.

The Protestant Work Ethic (full name - I'm amused when people talk about a work ethic - not realizing it is a religious idea.) It is a person's religious duty to work hard ... Catholicism never had it. John Wesley is the best known proponent of this idea - The Methodist Church - the method to get to heaven is to work hard. Of course Wesley influenced Protestantism wider than the Methodist Churches ..

I also suspect (at least with the Catholic countries) that if you have a working mass who venerate the Pope (who is a Man) as some form of divine figure, it's not an entire leap to replace a Man with another Man as the target of the veneration (the Cult of Personality for a Dictator).

Maybe - what about the revolutions in non-Christian countries.

I think it was Hitchens who made this point - "I'd argue that North Korea is the most religious country on earth, only their deity is their Dear Leader"

Interesting concept - the Divinity of Mao ...

I think his critique of 19th Century Capitalism has some merits when taken in Historical context. The rest is resentment masquerading as compassion - which interestingly enough describes the current crop of Marxists....

Yes - revolutions have always been promoted by the sons and daughters of the ruling classes (they were the ones who could afford the time to go to university and become intellectuals) who are not getting to the top fast enough to suit them ..

The critique of capitalism is still relevant - if you read Marx's description of later period capitalism (remember he wrote over 100 years ago) he is describing our contemporary societies. It's uncanny how right his descriptions are.

There is still a dynamic tension between the workers and the rulers - and exploitation. Unemployment, homelessness, poverty are all the results of the accumulation of wealth in the capitalist hands.

Marx's prediction of economic cycles of boom and bust and war are still with us - the results of capitalism - still true. High unemployment is predicted by Marx.

The demands to stop worker strikes, and the fear of strikes, is part of the system of oppression - this point of view is promoted by the capitalist because it is "bad for the economy" - but if the economy is not working for us then what good is it? The economy needs to work for all the people of New Zealand - currently the economy is providing the capitalists the opportunity to accumulate wealth - at the expense of the workers ..

Enough - I am sure you will come back at me.

Please remember, I am not a socialist or a communist ... I think Marx was wrong - for some of the reasons you state, and for other reasons as well.

One of them is education. The workers became educated - which made a fundamental change.

Education is necessary in a capitalist society - the workers need to be able to read - basic instruction manuals, etc (primary school) The middle classes need a higher level of education (high school) and the ruling class get higher again (universities). Universities were set up to serve the needs of the ruling classes - not the needs of the general population. It remains so today - look at the ease the rich get into universities and the barriers put int eh way of the working classes.

But education had unintended consequences - as the workers became educated they began to see how to change the system through democracy rather than violence. Remember, Marx was writing before the wider spread of education and universal franchise - in fact women only got the vote in the 1893 - well after Marx. I think education was one of the major reasons the industrialized countries did not revolt. Many communists would disagree and say ti was the propaganda system - which taught people to think what the capitalist system wants them to think.

It's hard to disagree with that theory - but the reality shows something a little different - the education system does not universally teach people what to think - too many resist it so it is not as effective as the communists think it is.



Also remember that communism in the modern world is not all Marx - it was perverted by Stalin and others ..

[Banditbandit]

Shit - that's long ... sorry .. I understand if people don't want to read it ..

[Grumph]

Shit - that's long ... sorry .. I understand if people don't want to read it ..

Good. How do I call in a drone strike on your multi-quote button ?

[TheDemonLord]

I'm going to preface this with there is lots I'm not going to quote (mainly cause we agree) - it's not to take out of context.

I disagree that they are good at it. History shows the majority are complete fuck ups.

I think to an extent this shows how complex and difficult the task is - If you have something that is incredibly difficult and only 10% of people are capable of doing it and even they can achieve success 10% of the time - it's not that those 10% are incompetent. Then in the question of ruling - who would you rather lord over you (yes, I know you've got anarchistic leanings) - Someone who can't achieve the requirements at any point in time or someone who can only achieve it 10% of the time.

I should caveat that I'm referring to leaders who earnt their positions, not those that inherited it.

Not completely true. A large number of ardent Marxists are not university -educated - and the real working class ones look down n those who are. Marx has a role for the intellectuals - it is NOT as the leaders.

Most of the Marxists I've seen are ex-university. Granted I don't spend a whole lot of time with them or with the working class. I'm also not sure if you are drawing a distinction between Working Class who have left-leanings (the stereotypical Labour supporter) vs someone who has read Marx and understands him.

Workers rights became an issue after Marx wrote Das Capital. Yes - you are right. There are two ways to go to oppose the oppressors - revolution and negotiation (I Use negotiation i it's wider sense here - and include putting pressure on the Government). New Zealand and many other countries went down the negotiation path- to the benefit of the workers. This is what occurred in most industrialized societies. The revolutions happened in non-industrialized societies ... these were not the revolutions that Marx predicted.

It is also important to note that workers rights came to the fore largely after the Russian revolutions - an event that scared the hell out of the capitalist overlords. You only have to look back at the history of the Labour Party in New Zealand (which was originally socialist). Formed in 1916, by the trade unions) it became active and effective in the next two decades as the workers realized their position in society and their power. This is what Marx predicted - but instead of revolution, the workers used Democracy to effect change. There were also battles with police, running fights in the streets - but not actual revolution.

I'm not sure I entirely agree - Child Labour laws (in the UK at least) were 1833 and 1842 - Das Kapital was much later, I'd consider this the start of Workers Rights. I should concede though that Marx was an opponent of Child labour and it's likely he was influential within the social circles that eventually generated the change.

I'm not saying that poltical revolution wasn't a factor in the legal change - but I from my PoV of History, there was a trend of improvement that IMO traces it's lineage back as far as the enlightenment.

In fact, I'd even go so far to say that the Abolitionist movement could really be consider the first Workers Rights movement - and that definitely predated Marx.

But that is not a universal - and there is still a school of thought that allows capitalists to abuse workers and try to keep them suppressed. We can still see that in the resistance to workers' strikes - it's a bad thing. The statement 'it is a bad thing is a way of suppressing the workers by undermining their support'.

I agree with your link, but when I think of striking workers, there are a few common elements that spring to mind:

1: They are often universal services
2: They are often Government regulated (either because it's provided by the Govt or that the Govt has set restrictions)
3: They are often inefficient
4: Taking all of the above into account - they are services that have to be provided at a price point where they can be consumed and that they are services that are believed to be good for society. Because they can't charge adequately for true cost of providing the service (as this would price the service out of reach of those who use it) they are constantly under financial pressure, which results in low wages.

I don't entirely agree (note the word 'entirely') the intellectuals tried something new - they tried a dictatorship (not new) with left aspirations (new) .. but a Dictatorship is NEVER left ..

There's been a few far-right dictators, but all of the times a Far-left doctrine was implemented - it was via a Dictratorship.

I don't think I can agree with the hand waive that a Dictatorship is never Left. I posit that there is something intrinsic within the doctrine that requires Dictatorship - this isn't aimed at you, but I think this is causal due to the Lefts notions of inclusivity and general reluctance to set borders/boundaries - Which means you might have a group of 100 Marxists - and let's assume that 99 of them are driven by genuine desire and compassion. 1 of them is driven by absolute resentment and jealousy. The 99 are reluctant to exclude that 1 person, through an excess of Compassion. If that 1 person is eloquent and speaks the words that the 99 want to hear - they end up with that 1 person as their leader. I don't think I can let that statement slide.

I see what you mean - the central point of Marx is that it is not people who try something new - it is the working class - the united group. The people who tried something new were not he working class - they were the intellectuals - and thus they screwed it up

This speaks to the whole 'group identity' component of Marxism that I don't like - Such a happening would require an exceptionally tight alignment of ideals, across an entire spectrum of people - that's simply unrealistic.

They screwed up because they did not have the support of the majority of the people. (Remember, the working class, the proletariat would be the biggest group - the majority)

I think it's deeper than that - even with the support of everyone (via favour or via force) I posit it would be doomed to fail.

A Marxian revolution is a wide revolution with mass support which the revolutionaries have never achieved - they have never realised that the historic moment for revolution had not arisen, so they were forced to impose their will on the people - a position Marx would have opposed. Their revolutions were doomed to fail - doomed to become dictatorships because they never saw that the moment was wrong.

I'm not sure Marx would have opposed it, I think he would have believed he was doing the righteous and necessary thing for the greater good - Maybe he would have seen the light before it was too late, but I suspect the realisation would be too late, he would have been the Old Guard that Stalin executed.

Yes - Marx was writing in a time where societal change as you describe it, was NOT happening. Marx was part of the ground that caused the social change - but the changes were not as he expected. He was wrong. But at the time the capitalists promoted active and violent resistance to social change. Plenty examples int eh past of union organizers being killed - legally and illegally. There was active and violent resistance to social change.

It's certainly hard to gain a true historical perspective when reading Marx - but as above, I think the seeds of change were much older and stem back to Enlightenment values and changes in attitude - probably even as far back as the discover of the scientific method as a means of testing an idea reliably, which IMO set a groundwork of methodology that had a ripple effect into other areas.

Maybe. Marx certainly saw the violent resistance to social change, and thought a violent response was the natural way it would occur. He certainly promoted violent revolution as the first stage.

There have been plenty of times when the use of force has achieved its objectives - The Magna Carta, WWII (opposing Hitler and the nazis) WWII, the fight against ISIS, the overthrow of South Africa's apartheid Government ... I would suggest, was certainly a virtuous reason and had moral authority.

At the time he was writing Marx certainly saw a violent reaction as the only response to the violent resistance of the capitalists ... You have to remember he was writing more than 100 years ago - history has shown us that it does not have to happen that way ....

Also, with the above examples, I think you are selectively applying virtue and moral authority. There can be virtuous reasons for violence - and therefore moral authority for violence.

I'm clumping these together cause it's a meaty issue: When is Violence acceptable? For social and Political change? We call that either Terrorism or Freedom Fighting. I've espoused on numerous occasions (much to Katmans chagrin) that I believe there is a time when Violence is not only necessary but mandated.

How do we know when that is? Well, in the case of Marx - it's certainly not when it stems from Jealousy and Resentment. This is perhaps the big failure. I think I could expand that to say that Violence for Selfish means is never the answer. But even then - you could rip me to shreds on that Philosophical point and on who gets to be the arbiter of such a standard. This is where I've really enjoyed JBPs commentary on God as an Ideal (as opposed to a supernatural being) - perhaps the bracelet WWJD has some merit - we know from the Bible that Jesus was happy to put foot to ass against the money lenders in the temple - and perhaps that is the standard - that Violence when you expect to loose everything for yourself and expect to gain nothing for yourself is the time when it is right.

the TL;DR version is I don't know when that is - but I'm fairly convinced I know when it isn't.

Hmm .. I still think the violent response is justified - it depends on the context. There is certainly no need for a violent response in New Zealand at this historical time. However, a violent response to the violent oppression of the people is always justified.

And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.

Communism had to be tried

Truncating - I agree it's good to try, once maybe twice and at a stretch, a third time. There are still people who insist Communism (or various sleight-of-hand variants of it) can work.

Although there's a quote by Nietzsche I think - where he predicts the outcome of Communism - that it would be a total Failure.

The Protestant Work Ethic (full name - I'm amused when people talk about a work ethic - not realizing it is a religious idea.) It is a person's religious duty to work hard ... Catholicism never had it. John Wesley is the best known proponent of this idea - The Methodist Church - the method to get to heaven is to work hard. Of course Wesley influenced Protestantism wider than the Methodist Churches ..

Maybe - what about the revolutions in non-Christian countries.

As I said, I'm not sure I think in the Asian countries the practice of Ancestor worship (so venerating a Human who is percieved as an Elder) might have something to do with it. Japan (for all it's evils in the mid-point of the 20th century) had the code of Bushido - which I think was definitely causal in their ability to bounce back after WW2, I think there is some link between a personal code of work and honor that acts as a shield against Communist revolution. I think it might be because such a code tend to place a premium on accepting your cross to bear and not to become resentful

Interesting concept - the Divinity of Mao ...

There's certainly a lot of fun to be had in that one - especially when a Christian Apologist tries to have a go at Atheists and you play that card.

Yes - revolutions have always been promoted by the sons and daughters of the ruling classes (they were the ones who could afford the time to go to university and become intellectuals) who are not getting to the top fast enough to suit them ..

And to me - that should be a clue that something is rotten at the core of the Theory.

The critique of capitalism is still relevant - if you read Marx's description of later period capitalism (remember he wrote over 100 years ago) he is describing our contemporary societies. It's uncanny how right his descriptions are.

To Quote MegaDave: If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. But it'd better work this time.

Capitalism has it's faults (and lord knows, there are enough of them to write a post 10 times longer than this) but for all of them, it currently provides the most freedom and the most satisfaction to the most people.

There is still a dynamic tension between the workers and the rulers - and exploitation. Unemployment, homelessness, poverty are all the results of the accumulation of wealth in the capitalist hands.

Some of those aren't helped by capitalism, but some of them are also not helped by individual choices.

Marx's prediction of economic cycles of boom and bust and war are still with us - the results of capitalism - still true. High unemployment is predicted by Marx.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but Marx predicted much higher levels of Unemployment - his analysis of Cycles was spot on

The demands to stop worker strikes, and the fear of strikes, is part of the system of oppression - this point of view is promoted by the capitalist because it is "bad for the economy" - but if the economy is not working for us then what good is it? The economy needs to work for all the people of New Zealand - currently the economy is providing the capitalists the opportunity to accumulate wealth - at the expense of the workers ..

See above for my critique on worker strikes - but for the other half - those that have accumulated wealth have earned it (I'm sure you and I have different opinions here -but go with my definition for the moment) - how would you see that Wealth redistributed? We have a Tax system and those in the top 20% pay about 80% of the Tax take. In NZ it's something like at $55k a year salary you break even for Tax (ie you are paying as much into the system as you are consuming on average from the system). To reference JBP again - he makes reference to a book called "The great Leveller" as to which strategy was most effective at stopping disparate accumalation of Wealth - The conclusion was that it isn't right or left wing politics: It's War, Famine, Plague or Natural Disaster. The only way in history to get 'equality' is to reset everyone to Zero.

So whilst I hear your concern - None of the solutions we have tried worked - and it's not like this is problem unique to Western Capitalist culture - Christians Tithed, Muslims and Jews have something similar - other cultures have ceremonies whereby excess are distributed to the poor to try and alleviate the disparity.

Enough - I am sure you will come back at me.

Would I? Moir? Are you sure?

Education is necessary in a capitalist society - the workers need to be able to read - basic instruction manuals, etc (primary school) The middle classes need a higher level of education (high school) and the ruling class get higher again (universities). Universities were set up to serve the needs of the ruling classes - not the needs of the general population. It remains so today - look at the ease the rich get into universities and the barriers put int eh way of the working classes.

I don't think that can be laid at the feet of just the Rich, I think there are Genetic reasons (IQ inheritability), there are temperamental reasons (Successful people often know HOW to be successful and so pass that on).

I'm also not sure what Barriers you are referring to? Do you mean Student Loans? Do you mean Entrance Exams? Could you elaborate?

But education had unintended consequences - as the workers became educated they began to see how to change the system through democracy rather than violence. Remember, Marx was writing before the wider spread of education and universal franchise - in fact women only got the vote in the 1893 - well after Marx. I think education was one of the major reasons the industrialized countries did not revolt. Many communists would disagree and say ti was the propaganda system - which taught people to think what the capitalist system wants them to think.

The great irony being that Teaching is an overwhelming left-wing dominated profession. But apart from that - yes, I do believe that universal education has been key to many good things.

Also remember that communism in the modern world is not all Marx - it was perverted by Stalin and others ..

I agree it's not all Marx, but my abridged reasoning is thus:

Every implementation of Marxist inspired system has degenerated, this tells me that even within Marx, there is something very wrong.

[TheDemonLord]

Shit - that's long

that's what She said...

[pritch]

Y'all got there from chemtrails in just six pages?

When I first saw the thread I recalled that there was already a chemtrail discussion (if I may use that word loosely) hereabout.

[Banditbandit]

Good. How do I call in a drone strike on your multi-quote button ?

Look Look - see the violence inherent in the system - I' being oppressed.