Student Marxist Societies?

Not as bad to be honest.

Feminist ones can be "okay" but it depends on the lecturers views (aka radical feminist or not).

What is a Marxist society?

My uni doesn't do politics, especially within our societies.

What is a Marxist society?

My uni doesn't do politics, especially within our societies.

A society that will abolish capitalism once and for all.
Or, more realistically, a society that just bitches about capitalism.

I think the main problem nowadays is the complete political apathy that has washed over the current generation -- only those considered on the 'fringe' will be interested in this sort of group. Add to that the fact that 'Marxist' is a weighted word with bad connotations (communism = soviets right guys?) and a lot of people really don't want anything to do with it.

Having spent some time at Socialist Party (not the rapey Workers, just normal SP) meetings, the problem exists there. They are too traditionalist, sticking with fists and red flags and cogs and 'WORKERS'.

Both groups need to change tack, need to rename and rebrand. Everything these days is advertising and while the SP stands against that you aregoing to have to join them to beat them. A good example of this is the Podemos political party in Spain. Despite being created less than 2 months before the EU elections they managed to get 8% of the popular vote in Spain.

The reason for this is they have a good brand. They are socialists but they don't CALL themselves that and so the connotations have gone. If we rename 'Marxist' Society to 'Progressive' Society I think people are a lot more likely to join,

I went a Socialist Workers Party meeting once at university, and there was probably half a dozen of them. I was expecting to hear tense debate, speeches about how the system is utterly ****ed, and how we need to act NOW to save the planet and stop us speeding into the complete ruin of our society.

Well, that's kind of what I got, but without the rose tint. It was the atmosphere of the 1970s with the arguments of the 1910s, 'capitalism is about to collapse, the workers must unite', etc. etc. Still locked in an industrial mode of resisting authority, unable to see that the British working classes have been brutally subjugated from decades of idleness, vice and dehumanising service work.

At that point I thought - this is why we have consumerism. This is why ordinary people get such a **** government. Because none of us are bothered, and the best thing we have aside from the Green Party is this bunch of would-be revolutionaries, speaking of for a common man that no longer exists.

Back to the bottle for me,

That's exactly what I see. These people are so set in their ways -- many of them campaigning for 40 years. They don't realise what got people to take action in 1970 is not what people respond to today.

We also had a mockup of Question Time where the leaders of the student parties met up and engaged in fierce debate. The booming SWP stood up and declared the bankers and the corporations must pay their fair share. The hall erupted in applause. He continued his speech with a roaring tirade about the industrial working classes. I was like, hang on Arthur Scargill, the industrial working classes have been erased to make way for call centres and welfare dependency. Your dream is dead, engage with the present for goodness sake.

But I kept silent. I didn't want to interrupt the debate.

This is probably how bad men get elected.

I guess the hall erupted in applause because the sentiment is the same; a rich 'elite' class using an underprivileged lower class to further increase their wealth. The thing is, we as a people are apathetic but don't like to think that we are -- we'll happily retweet something but when it comes to actually take action we lose all interest. Yeah, smashing the bourgoise elite sounds good but if it requires you to stop playing Candy Crush then ehh.... This is the end result of massive consumerism; a Huxleyan Bread and Circuses society, which the current lot of socialists/communists fail to see that they've ultimately lost in. A great example of this was Russell Brand talking about a REVOLUTION -- people reblogged and retweeted and shared that video but did they do anything else? Nah.


Another great point is that back in the 70s and 80s uni was free -- you could participate in the protests and marches because a) chances are you weren't going to be arrested and b) a uni was a place of learning and new experiences. Nowadays, it's an investment and doing anything to jeapordise that investment (like getting arrested for protesting) is seen as a big no-no. This is exactly where the elite want us, in debt and wage slavery from the day we step out of it; and exactly against what the socialists stand for. But again, they fail to see it's a war they've lost for now.

I remember going to the London Pirate Party meetup (don't, they are a bunch of ****ing idiots) and when they asked me if I was uinvolved in politics before I said I went ot a few SP meetups and their immediate reaction was "what, where you neval gaze about how much better the 70s were?" -- showing that socialist and communist have immediate connotations in peoples' minds. Something big needs to change if we want to see any real change.

i went to a conference with a tory politician at uni once. there was asocialist student saying that tories are unfair because they use their power to consolidate their own powerbase. that is more young college leavers in employment rather than uni becoming challenging academics etc. and yet tony blair went off and bought an oil company after all the campaigns in the middle east. the whole thing needs substantial stances. one clear division is environmental policy. labour chooses priveledges off the proletariat over larger environmental concerns by keeping coal mines open and building airports.

Most if not all socialists do not count Blair as even left wing.

but essentially the same values were upheld ie equality/ opportunity/ existentialism and faith in the human heart. he was a belshonivik (not correct spelling i know) of the uk. although taxes were not distributed as in collectivism the working member of society got value for labour. i think the latter is more important however it is delivered.

Communism is not about that; and I would say that Blair was not in any way a Bolshevik.

Blair was a free-market neo-liberal.

what is communism about? wasnt blair the guy that introduced government funds for education like ema? what sort of neo liberal offers support to the unproved? neo liberalism is all about selective market forces and darwinianism not governmental funding -correct me if im wrong.

I went a Socialist Workers Party meeting once at university, and there was probably half a dozen of them. I was expecting to hear tense debate, speeches about how the system is utterly ****ed, and how we need to act NOW to save the planet and stop us speeding into the complete ruin of our society.

Well, that's kind of what I got, but without the rose tint. It was the atmosphere of the 1970s with the arguments of the 1910s, 'capitalism is about to collapse, the workers must unite', etc. etc. Still locked in an industrial mode of resisting authority, unable to see that the British working classes have been brutally subjugated from decades of idleness, vice and dehumanising service work.

At that point I thought - this is why we have consumerism. This is why ordinary people get such a **** government. Because none of us are bothered, and the best thing we have aside from the Green Party is this bunch of would-be revolutionaries, speaking of for a common man that no longer exists.

Back to the bottle for me,