Marxism and contemporary society.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
the jokes on me really because today I'm just about the biggest insider and pillar of the establishment that you can be without disappearing up your own arse

Judging by resemblances, that would be Henry Kissinger.

[jsorense]

Hmmm, you are under the dillusion that Henry Kissenger has any kind of a social conscience.

[Sandman]

In addition to what has already been said:

Marx thought that the bourgeoisie would have to constantly appeal to the proletariat in order to fight its battles with other bourgeoisie or the old aristocracy. By dragging the proletariat into politics, the bourgeoisie paves the way for its own downfall, because workers parties and things like that will start to appear.

But things have turned out somewhat differently. Marx didn't forsee the development of social welfare and so on which allowed the bourgeoisie to appeal to the proletariat without encouraging revolution at all- even when fighting communism. Also, the bourgeosie have managed to keep their own conflicts under control through a variety of methods - the ending of colonialism, international organisations, etc.

The system works both ways, as well. Sometimes, the proletariat is forced to appeal to the bourgeois to fight its battles, often against economic hardship or mismanagement. You see this when you look at all the left-wing parties that have taken the bourgeois on board in order to keep the money flowing - New Labour, Lula, China. The proletariat never really conquered nationalism either, so inter-proletarian conflicts also arise.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by jsorense
Hmmm, you are under the dillusion that Henry Kissenger has any kind of a social conscience.

Oh no, but he does look as though his head may be somewhere in Colonia.

[jsorense]

:giggle:

[Az]

Alexander's Horse' And Sandman's posts are very interesting, and I agree with them 100%, but I also think there are other factors that classical Marxism hasn't accounted for: the varying strength and influence of "local cultures" on the development of class relations, the new surge of religion, in later industrial stages - These can be explained in Marxist terms, but don't give a a good prediction on the outcome of these events ( unlike the Marxist 'endgame' prediction, which is going strong to this very day)

[JohnT]

Look, Marxism is a religion. Believe as you wish, it doesn't matter.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
Look, Marxism is a religion. Believe as you wish, it doesn't matter.

Just like all forms of economics.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by JohnT
Look, Marxism is a religion. Believe as you wish, it doesn't matter.

It shares some of the same aspects- holy books, prophets, rituals, mass orgies, special foods, mortification of the flesh, poor dress sense...

[VetLegion]

mass orgies?

*looks up local communist party phone number*

[Az]

How come did I miss all the mass orgies?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
How come did I miss all the mass orgies?

They were only for the red hot commies.

[Az]

they weren't very "mass", then.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
they weren't very "mass", then.

Oh , there were enough of them. Like fishes in water...

[chequita guevara]

AH pretty well elaborated on a lot of stuff. Also consider that both The German Ideology and The Communist Manifesto are his earlier, less mature works.

Marx failed to foresee several developments in the ecnoomy which allowed the bourgeoisie to buy off the working class.

#1, imperialism (in all its capitalist forms). Imperialism allows capitalists to pay their workers more in the first world by hyper-exploiting workers in the 3rd world. Maoists would say this means that 1st world workers are sharing in the exploitation of 3rd world workers, but it's more accurate to say that 3rd world exploitation means its not as necessary to crush the working class of the 1st world.

#2 Monopoly capitalism. MC isn't as viciously competitive as free market capitalism. Capitalists don't compete by prices, but instead by innovation and advertizing. This stabilizes the market and means that workers have a bit more security.

#3 Social Democracy, Keynes, & the USSR. We are victims of our own success. The existence of the USSR was a nasty shock to the capitalists. Despite its horrors, it showed that the working class could seize power and run a country. This meant that the capitalists had to come to terms with their workers. Labor peace began (and ended) with the existence of the USSR. Social democracy offered itself as an alternative to the USSR and the capitalists grudgingly accepted, and their reforms, and the use of Keynesian ecnomic management reduced the necessity of revolution in the West. Now that the USSR is gone, there is no need of a social democratic alternative, which is why all those parties have more or less become econimic liberals.

Despite all this, the truth is, the proletariet in the U.S., at least, still leads a rather precarious existence. I highly suggest reading Nickle and Dimed to see how a large segment of our society lives. Even those who manage to get good paying jobs live with insecurity. If you lose your job, you lose everything. Look at the devestation in the American rust belt.