So I'm a Marxist

[AllentownJake]

I choose to affiliate with the democratic party because of the two capitalist parties it is the lesser of two evils.

However, I'm living in the age where capitalism is failing as predicted. What to do, what to do. The conversations I have at bars and other places you converse with strangers is that people are more increasingly unsatisfied with what the current system has provided them. More and more people are beginning to wake up to what the system has done as their economic security has been pulled out from under them.

I'm also a student of finance, I can read the tea leaves and understand macro-economics. I see little chance of economic improvement in the coming two years under the current system.

What to do with my time and energy, what to do?

[vadawg]

1. get ready for the war and the revolution, start making lists of enemies of the people

start increasing the lists to include the clergy, intelligensia etc etc incase the revolution wins, then prepare to be put against the wall at the end when the new peoples government decides you are a liability also. power to the people comrade..

[armyowalgreens]

3. We don't need a violent revolution.

[vadawg]

7. you honestly dont think that any revolution in america wont be violent

neither side will go quietly into the night, also it depends on what the wackos on the left and right want for their revolution whether its a theocrasy or the marxist leninist.

[armyowalgreens]

9. The revolution will be painfully slow. US citizens are way to marginalized to put up a fight...

Especially the other side. They whine and moan. But in the end, the vast majority of right-wingers are all talk.

They probably won't even notice the transition.

[AllentownJake]

10. As a nation we are bankrupt

A very few have done well in the process of changing us from the world's most prosperous nation to biggest creditor. We have little chance of improving that without some very dramatic change.

[RadicalGeek]

33. It May Come To It

History has shown that when people are marginalized, or think they are, and feel that the Government has failed them that they reach a critical mass.

That or a populist leader emerges.

[AllentownJake]

4. The same could be said for Capitalism

:-)

How many have died in the name of free markets, security, etc.

[LostInAnomie]

2. If you're really a Marxist you know there's not much to do.

Capitalism has to run its natural course until it collapses. You can't really speed up the collapse. You can really only make sure people know it's collapsing and why.

[Oregone]

5. What to do?

Move. Leave. Its not worth the effort to fight against a brick wall with morons for mortar. Find your paradise and live your life.

[armyowalgreens]

6. Can we come live with you?

[Oregone]

22. Haha. No room!

We are renting meager quarters in a wonderful city. My money is wrapped up in a home in the states thats a victim of drive by capitalism

[Taverner]

8. If you truly are Marxist, then you'd know Capitalism's collapse is inevitable...

And the next stage is State Socialism

Marx seemed to think it would be a relatively smooth transition

But I'm not to sure about that...

[Odin2005]

14. And the Fundies "know" that GAWD is gonna come rapture them tomorrow, too.

Marxism is just secularized Judeo-Christian end-times theology.

[Odin2005]

11. Marxism is a secular religion.

[armyowalgreens]

13. No.

[Odin2005]

15. Read "The Open Society and It's Enemies" by Karl Popper.

I'm sure your university library has it.

[armyowalgreens]

19. Well short of me having to read the entire book right now...

I would like it if you explained your stance.

[Odin2005]

23. Marx's theory of history is flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism#Karl_Popper

Essentially, it is based on flawed assumptions of the purposes of the social sciences and those assumptions lead inevitably to totalitarian view-points.

"Karl Popper used the term historicism in his influential books The Poverty of Historicism and The Open Society and Its Enemies, to mean: "an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their primary aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the 'rhythms' or the 'patterns', the 'laws' or the 'trends' that underlie the evolution of history".<3> Karl Popper wrote with reference to Hegel's theory of history, which he criticized extensively. However, there is wide dispute whether Popper's description of "historicism" is an accurate description of Hegel, or more a reflection of his own philosophical antagonists, including Marxist-Leninist thought, then widely held as posing a challenge to the philosophical basis of the West, as well as theories such as Spengler's which drew predictions about the future course of events from the past.

In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper attacks "historicism" and its proponents, among whom (as well as Hegel) he identifies and singles out Plato and Marx — calling them all "enemies of the open society". The objection he makes is that historicist positions, by claiming that there is an inevitable and deterministic pattern to history, abrogate the democratic responsibility of each one of us to make our own free contributions to the evolution of society, and hence lead to totalitarianism.

Another of his targets is what he calls "moral historicism", the attempt to infer moral values from the course of history. This may take the form of conservatism (former might is right), positivism (might is right) or futurism (coming might is right). Futurism must be distinguished from prophecies that the right will prevail: these attempt to infer history from ethics, rather than ethics from history, and are therefore historicism in the normal sense rather than moral historicism.

He also attacks what he calls "Historism", which he regards as distinct from historicism. By historism, he means the tendency to regard every argument or idea as completely accounted for by its historical context, as opposed to assessing it by its merits. In Popperian terms, the "New Historicism" is an example of historism rather than of historicism proper."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Political_philosophy

"In a 1992 lecture, Popper explained the connection between his political philosophy and his philosophy of science. As he stated, he was in his early years impressed by communism and also active in the Austrian Communist party. What had a profound effect on him was an event that happened in 1918: during a riot, caused by the Communists, the police shot several people, including some of Popper's friends. When Popper later told the leaders of the Communist party about this, they responded by stating that this loss of life was necessary in working towards the inevitable workers' revolution. This statement did not convince Popper and he started to think about what kind of reasoning would justify such a statement. He later concluded that there could not be any justification for it, and this was the start of his later criticism of historicism."


Marx's reasoning also leads to a justification of dogmatic adherence to ideology, all criticism of Marxism is seen as "confirmation" and "proof" of "bourgeois ideology", a bit of circular reasoning immune to falsification. In this way Popper refutes Marxism's claim of being "scientific".

[Hannah Bell]

32. Popper's theory of Marx is flawed.

"Given Popper's reputation for having buried Marxism, it is
disappointing to read the books and find that most of his
arguments are targetted against helpful rhetorical flourishes
which Marx tended to write in prefaces.

If I were writing a learned book which examines the empirical evidence
that a train is coming, I might add a preface which says 'GET OFF THE
LINE!'. But Popper would say, '"Get off the line!" is not a
scientific statement', and be run over by the oncoming train."

http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/cafe/etc/burgess95.txt


According to the preface, The Poverty of Historicism shows that
historicism is a poor method but does not refute it. Popper then
gives, in five steps, his refutation - which is simply that the
future course of human history cannot be predicted. Popper's
historicism, however, is not Marx's method.

In The Open Society and its Enemies he goes to town on another of
Marx's phrases as if it were the embodiment of Marx's method. In
a preface to 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy' Marx had written 'It is not the consciousness of man
that determines his existence--rather, it is his social existence
that determines his consciousness'.15

In the context of the rest of Marx's work this epigram can be seen
to be a little one sided. Man's consciousness also, to some extent,
determines his existence. Marx can be seen to have emphasised one side
of the equation in opposition to idealism. Popper however goes
bull-headed into the human nature debate citing Mill, Hegel, and
Rousseau in what he claims to be a development of Marx's view in
a debate against Mill.

When he looks at Marx's theory of the state, Popper infers that
politics is therefore impotent. But of course bourgeois politics
are not revolutionary - so of course they are impotent as far as
goes the emancipation of the working class, because its interests
are antagonistic to those of the ruling class. Popper, however
chooses to find a paradox in the way Marxist movements have
stimulated an interest in politics.

Here again, Popper's apparently academic arguments say nothing
further than his own dislike for revolution. He doesn't see the
need, given that the circumstances of the working class would
appear to have improved so much since Marx's time17. But Popper
was writing in a time when trade unionism in Britain and America
was a force to be reckoned with, and the ruling classes of those
countries were competing with the USSR to deliver their own
approximation of a fair and just society...

Despite his pretension for intellectual rigour, Popper's
economics is rooted in the clouds. Given the tendency for the
rate of profit to fall, he admits that 'Those capitalists who
speculate on the assumption of a constant or rising rate of
profit may get into trouble; and things such as these may indeed
contribute to the trade cycle, accentuating the depression. But
this has little to do with the sweeping consequences which Marx
prophesied.' This hardly resembles a scientific appreciation of
the behaviour of international capital. It is little more than
wishful thinking...

Marx has been dead for 113 years: Popper for nearly
two. Marx had an idiosyncratic definition of history that remains
influential today. Popper and a circle of Popperian positivists
shared a view of science which is already obscure.

In a mere half century Popper's confident refutation already has
a threadbare parochial look. His post war optimism appears to
lack a material base. His faith in intervention is as quaint as a
Bakelite wireless. Despite the fall of the USSR, and despite the
organised working class being in an appalling condition, anybody
persuaded away from Marxism by Popper, was never really a Marxist
in the first place."

http://elm.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/cafe/etc/burgess95.txt

[Ozymanithrax]

12. I am not a Marxist or a Capitalist

I am a consumer.

The vast majority of Americans are not Capitalists, though they don't know that. They are consumers who buy products they don't need made by capitalists to transfer wealth from the middle class and the poor to the affluent to wealthy Capitalist class. A good 70% of everything we own is unnecessary and exists only to facilitate the movement of wealth into capitalist hands.

The socialist/capitalist paradigm was never reality. But what do we do about that. Even though 5% of American's control 95% of the money and property there aren't enough people willing to change the system. Most of the people I know who want to revolutionize the system are right wing Christofactists who prefer Corporatism and are willing to use their guns and the tons of ammunition they bought to remove what they falsely see as a socialist state.

Kind of funny of you think about it.

[AllentownJake]

16. Intersting

I had two republicans that were complaining to me that too few people control all the assets today.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. Whom did they see as controlling the assets?

There is a strong belief among us liberals that Republicans are a wealth led party. It is curious that some may see the Democratic party as wealth led.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. My condolences...Marxism is at least as screwed up as raw capitalism

[AllentownJake]

20. You need a mixture I will agree

However, I lean more towards the marxist side to the capitalist side.

[Lagomorph]

18. We're not capitalist anymore

We have a government/corporate oligarchy.

Corporate-Statism. Capitalism stopped working when it stopped being capitalism.

Two thirds of our budget goes straight to big business, the public has been circumvented.

The people in power found a way around all the checks and balances that were put in place.

The government's checkbook took the market away from the consumer to serve it's own interests.

We have neither the government nor the corporations looking after our interests, just their own agendas.

[Selatius]

24. Stock up on canned food and maybe start a victory garden with good canning equipment.

If the economy continues its downward slide, you'll at least be secure on the food front. An army cannot fight on an empty stomach.

In the meantime, continue to talk to people and ask them what their financial problems are and then highlight for them what the system could be doing to aggravate their problem. When you get their ear like that, you're more likely to reshape their way of thinking.

[vadawg]

25. you may as well get guns and learn how to use them,

as if your the only person in your neighbourhood with food your gonna need to protect it or your victory garden aint gonna last long..

[Selatius]

28. Yeah, I experienced that first hand post-Katrina. The situation was deadly desperate.

I couldn't feed more than a few people at most, but that's all there were when Katrina came through in my part of the neighborhood. Many others evacuated. Of course, I wasn't going to advertise to everybody I had a stockpile of canned food because I couldn't handle a bum-rush of several hundred hungry survivors. It was like a preview of what the world would look like after civilization collapses.

[vadawg]

29. yup you will have to come together in family groups to survive

and become totally ruthless when it comes to dealing with outsiders, if you live in the city or urban areas you are going to be totally screwed unless you can amass overwhelming firepower and have the ability to use it on the people who used to be neighbours, survival is messy but it can be done..

[anonymous171]

26. Just don't become a communist. Communists are the only "leftists" that I cannot stand

Socialists/Anarchists/Liberals are all good and righteous, but communists are fucking scum.

[Bjorn Against]

31. Stalinists are scum, but I respect a lot of Marxists

I think the Communist Manifesto is a book that should be read by everyone whether they agree or disagree with it because it does a great job of articulating the injustices of capitalism. I don't agree with Marx on everything, but he is a very important historical figure that is very misunderstood. Stalin, Mao and their followers were absolute scum, but I think Marx did honestly want a more just society so I can have a lot of respect for the movement he tried to start I just can't respect the people who abused that movement.

[Yavin4]

27. History Is Rhyming Again

What will happen is that we'll do these half-hearted reforms and temporary stop-gap measures which won't alter a thing. Then, the Republicans may get back into power promising that giving rich people tax cuts will fix everything, and when that fails miserably, we will finally enact reforms such as a true progressive tax system, anti-trust regulation, single-payer healthcare, global trade reform, and campaign finance reforms.


All of these reforms will rebuild the middle class, giving people the false notion that capitalism did this, and the cycle will start anew.

[obliviously]

30. Hey there is always CubaI

Row row row your boat.Gently out to sea...

[Nikki Stone1]

34. Failing as predicted? Did Marx predict widespread theft and corruption?

I thought Marx predicted that the paradox of wanting the cheapest labor possible but selling products at the highest price possible would be capitalism's undoing.

But then I didn't study a lot of Marx.

[ConsAreLiars]

35. Your short characterisation of what Marx said would be the natural end of capitalisim

is accurate. Widespread theft and corruption is just a secondary and natural feature of that system, as it was of previous class systems.