Marxism and contemporary society.

[Odin]

I think Marx's major shortcoming was that he didn't expect the rise of the modern welfare state and a large middle class . I don't think Marxism can work in modern industrialized countries. The best thing we socialists can do now is to work to change how companies are run. Nationalize only the vital industries (like healthcare and pharmacuticals, air travel, etc.) and leave the rest to worker-run enterprises, with capital coming from specialized investment banks instead of shareholders.

[Kidlicious]

But the middle class has been shrinking since the 80s.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But the middle class has been shrinking since the 80s.

That was because of the dismantling of the welfare state since Reagan, sooner or later, people will get POed enough and will elect someone to put the Welfare state back in. Social Democracy is quite stable, just replace the corporations with co-ops and we'll be set.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin


That was because of the dismantling of the welfare state since Reagan, sooner or later, people will get POed enough and will elect someone to put the Welfare state back in. Social Democracy is quite stable, just replace the corporations with co-ops and we'll be set.

People on welfare were never middle class. How would dismantling the welfare state (which actually never happened) affect the middle class?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


People on welfare were never middle class. How would dismantling the welfare state (which actually never happened) affect the middle class?

No saftey net for you if your job gets outsourced?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
No saftey net for you if your job gets outsourced?

Of course Odin. But I mean how does the welfare system, I assume you are talking about AFDC and that sort of thing, increase the size of the middle class relative to the poor and the rich classes? You don't actually think that people get off welfare and ever make more than say $25k a year do you?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
the problem manifiests itself in sustainability

Consider that the first bourgeois governments in England and France (not to mention the Italian city states) both fell and in both cases it was a long time before capitalism was able to assert itself again. Only the Dutch managed to hold on, and they were built on the backs of a slave empire and Indonesian genocide.

In other words, we may have lost this round, but there will be another, and another. Eventually, we will win and stay victorious.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Maybe the point is that industrialization doesn't just always happen. Sometimes it happens in certain places because of the conditions that exist there, and sometimes it happens because it's planned.

Yes and that was the last sentence/point of my original post on this particular subject.

Regardless it is my point that in order for change to occurr there has to be a will for change whether that will is because of the revolutionary spirit or entrepenurial spirit. My point being that the revolutionary spirit cannot be maintained.

You OTOH seem skeptical of the entrepenurial spirit being a long term engine of change.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No, Hockey stick gorwht has accompanied most every nations move from nonindustrial to industrial. To say then that the effect seen by communist nations during this time period is purely a function of communism and not industrialization is fallacy.

But lots of capitalist countries haven't seen that curve. Most, in fact, have not. Most are stuggling just to keep their head above water.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
That was because of the dismantling of the welfare state since Reagan, sooner or later, people will get POed enough and will elect someone to put the Welfare state back in. Social Democracy is quite stable, just replace the corporations with co-ops and we'll be set.

Social democracy could only be successful when the workers had the threat of revolution to frighten the capitalists with. Without the USSR, there will be no social democracy.

The middle class didn't take a hit because of the dismantling of welfare. It took a hit because of the decline in militancy in the American working class. They were too willing to make deals and not ready to fight. So when push came to shove, when the capitalists declared war with General Reagan, labor was lead by quislings who gave away the store without a fight.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Consider that the first bourgeois governments in England and France (not to mention the Italian city states) both fell and in both cases it was a long time before capitalism was able to assert itself again. Only the Dutch managed to hold on, and they were built on the backs of a slave empire and Indonesian genocide.

In other words, we may have lost this round, but there will be another, and another. Eventually, we will win and stay victorious.

Perhaps but perhaps not. The long term viability is determined primarily by the systems ability to adapt and change. As many here have noted the capitialistic systems have adapted incorporating societal safety nets. Communism 'cepting China's adoption of free Market concepts has been by and large too rigid to adapt.

The question you may wish to pose is which system has longer term flexibility and capacity for change?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Regardless it is my point that in order for change to occurr there has to be a will for change whether that will is because of the revolutionary spirit or entrepenurial spirit. My point being that the revolutionary spirit cannot be maintained.

You OTOH seem skeptical of the entrepenurial spirit being a long term engine of change.

I'm not skeptical about entrepreneurial spirit, just that there may not be other fundamental changes in the way goods are produced such as machines, computers and robots. I doubt if there will be replicators on line anytime soon. Maybe there will, but eventually society will reach a stage where capitalism can not progress any further, or at least not significantly.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Of course Odin. But I mean how does the welfare system, I assume you are talking about AFDC and that sort of thing, increase the size of the middle class relative to the poor and the rich classes? You don't actually think that people get off welfare and ever make more than say $25k a year do you?

DOH! I was meaning ALL the social programs, not just for the poor, my bad.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The question you may wish to pose is which system has longer term flexibility and capacity for change?

I'd argue that capitalism isn't as flexible as you'd like to believe. I'd also argue that once Stalinism gripped the throat of communism, we lost what flexibility we had. Pre-Stalin, the USSR was exceedingly flexible. Castro's Cuba is extremely flexible. The Sandanistas were among the most flexible.

Some things to consider, flexibility isn't necessarily a good thing when you are under seige, and all communist states have been under seige from birth to death. This hasn't been true of capitalist states. When you have to circle the wagons, dissention = death to the whole group.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


But lots of capitalist countries haven't seen that curve. Most, in fact, have not. Most are stuggling just to keep their head above water.

If you speak to 3rd world nations there are many other factors as you well know that impede their growth. Lack of rule of law, corruption,lack of observance of property rights including human rights, imperialist tampering, political instability in the form of military juntas etc.