Marxism and contemporary society.

[Agathon]

I've always thought that the welfare state was dramatically unstable. It's being dismantled as we speak all so that baby boomers can get tax cuts.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd say it isn't as unstable as actual communism.

[Fake Boris]

I agree with Che, the buyout of the working class may just have been a lull in the class warfare struggle.

[Fake Boris]

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

Believe in what? Marx's works are based on rational arguments. You're free to read them and criticize.

[Kidlicious]

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

I know you have no real idea what Marxism is, but this statement is so bizarre that I wonder if you even know what religion is.

[Kidlicious]

Marx assumed correctly that people are selfish, but his mistake was that he didn't forsee that selfish workers would have so options. He scared the **** out of people though, because they didn't really either. There haven't been communist revolutions in the West because the economy has changed so much. Capitalism can survive in such a dynamic environment. As soon as the economy becomes static the options of workers will disappear and capitalism will fail.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And Christ will return in a second coming.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
And Christ will return in a second coming.

It's more reasonable for you to assume that things will continue to be the same forever?

[chequita guevara]

There were revolutions in the West. The difference is that the capitalist states were strong enough to survive or the workers were too timid or naive to press their advantage. There were revolutions in: Germany, Italy, Spain, Finland, and France. Some countries came very close: The United States and Great Britain. The thing is, however, a chain breaks at its weakest link, not its strongest.

Regardless of how one feels about Lenin, his central thesis that the working class needs a cadre of professional revolutionaries to carry out the tasks of revolution has been proven by history. Workers generally do not recognize the dangers or opportunities they face. The workers have only come to power twice without the aid of a revolutionary party, and in two of those cases, they were overthrown by the capitalists within months. The workers of Bolivia did overthrow the government in 1952, but they did not take power, but instead allowed the liberal bourgeoisie to create a new government. It was overthrown twelve years later, which is why Che Guevara went to Bolivia.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's more reasonable for you to assume that things will continue to be the same forever?

Actually, we're assuming that things will keep changing, according to you

[jsorense]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara The workers of Bolivia did overthrow the government in 1952, but they did not take power, but instead allowed the liberal bourgeoisie to create a new government. It was overthrown twelve years later, which is why Che Guevara went to Bolivia.

Well two comments here, Comrade Guevara was encouraged to leave Cuba because he was a pain in the ass and he failed in Bolivia because some liberal land reforms had already been enforced. Face it, he was a dick that just looked great in a beret.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

Extremley good point.

Detroit and Cleveland are two examples of where poverty and unemployment is a big problem.

No offense to people in those cities, but there is a big vaccuum left behind.

[Ted Striker]

Also the recent tax cuts as mentioned have added to the chasm between classes, unfavorably favoring the rich. And CEO wages as a multiple of line worker, continue to grow.

[Dracon II]

So in a sense we've been in a period of aberration due to the pragmatic ceding of economic control to the state... but that this is now changing and returning the world to a more classical, laissez faire market.
Is it fair to say that if labour costs are under downward pressure in the 1st world, then labour in the 3rd world will have to be exploited much more severely in order to maintain consumption in the 1st world? A dual deflationary situation such as that could be devestating.
Che, if I understand correctly... this doesn't happen under MC? If so... does greater global competition reinstate price competition and a race to the bottom?

Can anyone point me in the direction of some contemporary souces of radical PE theory?

[Alexander's Horse]

Sorry Dracon, not related to your last post but I think the best primer on Marx is actually the communist manifesto of 1848.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Its only short - but stirring stuff - a spectre haunting Europe.....The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.... etc.

Whatever you think of Marx and Marxism, its one of the seminal political texts of 19th century. And 1848 was a seminal year in Euorpean history because of all the unrest - a bit like 1968 in the 20th century.

Anyone interested in European politics or history should read it. Millions of people died for it.

Its catch cry is brilliant - I know it off by heart.

"Workers of world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"