Turn on thread page Beta

Overthrow the bourgeoisie? watch

  • View Poll Results: Who SHOULD rule?
    workers rule
    14
    53.85%
    pig-****ers rule
    12
    46.15%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Let's take a look at food production in the USSR:

    Before the revolution in 1917, the Russian Empire had been one of the largest food exporters .
    After the arrival of Communism under Lenin, & later Stalin, food production collapsed. In fact, farmers had to be allowed to have their own private plots as the collectivist plots didn't produce anywhere near enough food. The USSR was actually importing food from the USA as it couldn't feed itself.
    In 1973, Soviet farmers were allowed to keep their own private plots. The statistics suggest that private plots were over 10x more productive in 1980 than the collective plots; just 3% of arable land was privately owned yet produced over a quarter of Soviet food production.

    This is just one reason to suggest that Communism, Marxism, Marxist-Leninism etc just doesn't work in the real world with real people; do I even need to mention the 100 million people killed by Communism in the 20th Century alone?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Just finished writing my literature review so COME AT ME public school boys. Tell me about playing polo and shopping at Waitrose and let me tell you about socialism. I'm ready for you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Stupid, no, he was certainly an intelligent man and developed an interesting theory.

    It's just that that theory in itself is naive, hypocritical and at times downright silly.

    For one, he championed an atheistic society but never renounced his own religion of Judaism.

    Secondly, he advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat, albeit a temporary one, it's silly scattergun logic "oh the bourgeoisie dictatorship is bad, I know let's make our own dictatorship, that'll show em" literally sounds like a stereotypical tumblr SJW.

    Finally, I know you'll all say "B-But Connor, collectivist anarchism was Marx's true final aim so your point is void"

    To that I say, collectivist Marxist anarchism is even more ridiculous than authoritarian communism, I'm sure the former wealthy bourgeoisie will willingly give away all of their wealth and live in harmony with the workers, especially after a period of being brutally oppressed, and they definitely won't hire foreign militias using their money and influence to gain back control. Also, humans are inherently evil, it's naive to think that EVERYONE will work together and help each other, there will always be a few bad eggs causing chaos
    Who is saying this? No Marxist i know of?!?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    China has proven that their communist system is no barrier to economic prosperity. Better still, there is not one slacker in any country with a good manufacturing sector when your economy is ruled by banks, no wonder you moan at the first sign of hardship
    China is not communist and has not been communist for decades. China today is like western Europe in the 80's.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
    Should we overthrow the bourgeoisie and create a society ruled by the workers? Or embrace the status quo and be ruled by pig ****ers?
    Are you actually a Trotskyist or did you just think that was a cool name? (check my signature)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
    Should we overthrow the bourgeoisie and create a society ruled by the workers? Or embrace the status quo and be ruled by pig ****ers?
    If you own the computer you typed that on, you are probably a member of the bourgeoisie.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Let's take a look at food production in the USSR:

    Before the revolution in 1917, the Russian Empire had been one of the largest food exporters .
    After the arrival of Communism under Lenin, & later Stalin, food production collapsed. In fact, farmers had to be allowed to have their own private plots as the collectivist plots didn't produce anywhere near enough food. The USSR was actually importing food from the USA as it couldn't feed itself.
    In 1973, Soviet farmers were allowed to keep their own private plots. The statistics suggest that private plots were over 10x more productive in 1980 than the collective plots; just 3% of arable land was privately owned yet produced over a quarter of Soviet food production.
    This information has been put together with extreme bias when we consider that in 1940, the end of the collectivisation process initiated under Stalin, 96.9% of farmstead were in collective farms and 99.8% of sown area was in collective use. Through this, grain production rose to nearly 100 million tonnes in 1937; Russia sold large surpluses to other countries, 17 million workers were able to leave the countryside to go and work in the towns and the combination of this policy with Stalinist industrialisation made the Soviet Union the second largest industrial power in the world within 20 years.

    This is just one reason to suggest that Communism, Marxism, Marxist-Leninism etc just doesn't work in the real world with real people; do I even need to mention the 100 million people killed by Communism in the 20th Century alone?
    The fact that you think by listing a death toll and blaming it on an ideology is a coherent argument is vacuous.

    Aside from the fact that no one was let in peace so they could implement communism and all the countries which tried to go for communism were forced to stay in a State Capitalist format, keep militarizing and stay in a state of pending war to defend themselves, one could easily say that capitalism did kill more, and is still killing countless millions of people all around the world - even we take the countries/systems you are mistakenly calling communist, as communist.

    I'll illustrate with a very blunt example:

    People who died due to famine in Holodomor are counted as 'killed by communism', despite Western countries' trade blockade against USSR which prevented them from exporting anything but their grain to be able to buy industrial machinery . The Stalin administration took a gamble and bet on next harvest being good to export their grain to buy machines via grain exports, because west was preventing them even using their gold to buy machinery. Harvest didn't turn out well, a lot of people died due to famine. Even as government did everything to rectify the famine by implementing rationing across entire country to help the regions with famine.

    This is considered "communism's fault".


    Around the same time, countless millions were dying in US due to famine, malnutrition, lack of access to healthcare, shelter, security because of abject poverty brought by Great Depression, and the US government was refusing doing anything about it based on ideological grounds of 'Not intervening in the market'. People were dying on the road to California, in roadside camps, hobo camps, in their houses due to sickness brought by malnutrition, diseases, entire nation was begging, 'Brother can you spare a dime', but the government was ideologically refusing to do anything about it, even as a minority of people made incredible fortunes.

    This is not considered capitalism's fault.

    See the biased difference?

    Now let us address your claim that Soviet Russia was communist.

    The question "Is this country communist?" can be answered by the answer of another question: "Do the workers own/control the means of production?" If the answer is no, then it is not communist.

    In Soviet Russia and many other countries that claim to be communist or socialist, while we can admire their efforts and some of the advantages of their system they are simply state capitalist.
    Attached Images
      
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't mind mixing with the Trots. There's often some hotties in amongst the Commie girls - as long as they shave their pits.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheBirdman)
    Socialism may seem lovely on paper, though the same can't be said for communism, however may I remind you of a few attempts at socialism/communism: Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Cuba, China. Could you survive happily in the place you are advocating for? Have you not benefitted from capitalism?
    Oh dear god you didn't just call Nazi Germany socialist.

    And oh dear god you didn't just call these societies socialist despite being deformed workers' states.


    Use the flowchart!!
    Attached Images
      
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Stupid, no, he was certainly an intelligent man and developed an interesting theory.

    It's just that that theory in itself is naive, hypocritical and at times downright silly.

    For one, he championed an atheistic society but never renounced his own religion of Judaism.
    Do you even know what you're talking about?

    Marx's father converted to Lutheranism to protect his family from anti-Semitism, and baptised his children Lutheran, but remained non-religious. Marx later dismissed religion as "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

    Secondly, he advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat, albeit a temporary one, it's silly scattergun logic "oh the bourgeoisie dictatorship is bad, I know let's make our own dictatorship, that'll show em" literally sounds like a stereotypical tumblr SJW.
    Proletarian revolution followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent bourgeois counter-revolution - still democracy.

    Marxism–Leninism follows the ideas of both Marxism and Leninism, seeking to establish a vanguard party, to lead proletarian uprising, assume state power on behalf of the proletariat, and create a single party socialist state. The socialist state, representing a dictatorship of the proletariat is governed through the process of democratic centralism, which Vladimir Lenin described as "diversity in discussion, unity in action."

    "Dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over the other class; but it does mean the abolition of democracy (or very material restriction, which is also a form of abolition) for the class over which, or against which, the dictatorship is exercised." Lenin

    Finally, I know you'll all say "B-But Connor, collectivist anarchism was Marx's true final aim so your point is void"

    It wasn't his true final aim, it was his prediction of the ultimate final stage of human development.

    To that I say, collectivist Marxist anarchism is even more ridiculous than authoritarian communism, I'm sure the former wealthy bourgeoisie will willingly give away all of their wealth and live in harmony with the workers, especially after a period of being brutally oppressed, and they definitely won't hire foreign militias using their money and influence to gain back control.
    The final stage being communism, after the proletarian revolution their wealth would have already been taken from them and so they would have been removed from their unjust and high position from the capitalist hierarchy, as well as the hierarchy itself, a "root and branch removal" and made truly equal, not oppressed - again your misunderstanding of what "dictatorship of the proletariat" means.

    Marx actually said that this:
    "My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

    Also, humans are inherently evil, it's naive to think that EVERYONE will work together and help each other, there will always be a few bad eggs causing chaos
    If humans are inherently evil then surely you mean we are all "bad eggs" and nobody will ever help each other?

    Human nature is not a constant, it adapts to its environmental surroundings (i.e. economic system). To suggest that in nature there exists definite constants that are not effected by anything within nature itself is not only mad but also completely against the scientific understanding of nature. Everything is a product of its environment, what else could something be a product of?

    Moreover, humans create laws to curb murder, rape and other 'natural' behaviours; why, then, does the fact that something is natural make it right?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    This information has been put together with extreme bias when we consider that in 1940, the end of the collectivisation process initiated under Stalin, 96.9% of farmstead were in collective farms and 99.8% of sown area was in collective use. Through this, grain production rose to nearly 100 million tonnes in 1937; Russia sold large surpluses to other countries, 17 million workers were able to leave the countryside to go and work in the towns and the combination of this policy with Stalinist industrialisation made the Soviet Union the second largest industrial power in the world within 20 years.
    Dress it up whichever way you like but the fact is that Stalin killed, deported or imprisoned the most successful peasants during his rein. It didn't even get better either which is why the Soviet Union was forced to import grain from the USA in the 1970s/80s. Surely you can see they entire situation is totally FUBAR'd when you're literately relying on your biggest enemy to feed your population, despite that fact that Russia had been the breadbasket of Europe during the late 19th Century?
    The fact that the second largest industrial power in the world was having to rely on the West for both food and industrial machinery 50+ years after the October Revolution is a massive embarrassment to say the least.


    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    The fact that you think by listing a death toll and blaming it on an ideology is a coherent argument is vacuous.

    Aside from the fact that no one was let in peace so they could implement communism and all the countries which tried to go for communism were forced to stay in a State Capitalist format, keep militarizing and stay in a state of pending war to defend themselves, one could easily say that capitalism did kill more, and is still killing countless millions of people all around the world - even we take the countries/systems you are mistakenly calling communist, as communist.

    I'll illustrate with a very blunt example:

    People who died due to famine in Holodomor are counted as 'killed by communism', despite Western countries' trade blockade against USSR which prevented them from exporting anything but their grain to be able to buy industrial machinery . The Stalin administration took a gamble and bet on next harvest being good to export their grain to buy machines via grain exports, because west was preventing them even using their gold to buy machinery. Harvest didn't turn out well, a lot of people died due to famine. Even as government did everything to rectify the famine by implementing rationing across entire country to help the regions with famine.

    This is considered "communism's fault".


    Around the same time, countless millions were dying in US due to famine, malnutrition, lack of access to healthcare, shelter, security because of abject poverty brought by Great Depression, and the US government was refusing doing anything about it based on ideological grounds of 'Not intervening in the market'. People were dying on the road to California, in roadside camps, hobo camps, in their houses due to sickness brought by malnutrition, diseases, entire nation was begging, 'Brother can you spare a dime', but the government was ideologically refusing to do anything about it, even as a minority of people made incredible fortunes.

    This is not considered capitalism's fault.

    See the biased difference?
    I'd love to see proof that millions were dying in the USA during the Great Depression. Besides a blatenly biased Pravda article, there's not one shred of evidence. On the other hand, there's evidence to suggest that, despite the hardships during the early 1930s in America, life expectancy actually increased by six years.

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/h...at-depression/

    The fact that every single communist nation to date has had some kind of state secret police with far more power than anything seen in NATO is rather explains the brutality of communism rather well.. The Cheka, MGB, NKVD, KGB along with the MSS, Stasi, MINIT etc butchered tens of thousands, if not millions of people.

    So how many deaths have nations like Cuba, the USSR, PRC etc been responsible for?

    Cuba - at least 8,200, perhaps as high as 70,000+

    Cambodia - up to 2 million

    USSR - suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin. In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties. Even the most conservative figures put the death toll at 20 million.

    People's Republic of China - around 65 million.

    Even ****ing Hitler had nothing on these barbarians. But then you probably buy into the following quote from Stalin & that the ends also justify the means?

    "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Now let us address your claim that Soviet Russia was communist.

    The question "Is this country communist?" can be answered by the answer of another question: "Do the workers own/control the means of production?" If the answer is no, then it is not communist.

    In Soviet Russia and many other countries that claim to be communist or socialist, while we can admire their efforts and some of the advantages of their system they are simply state capitalist.
    Ah yes, the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Ask the leaders of the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba etc what political philosophy they were following during their murderous regimes then? And surely something similar could be said about Capitalism - I too could probably argue that certain countries weren't/aren't actually truly capitalist which have cocked up on a monumental scale.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
    Just finished writing my literature review so COME AT ME public school boys. Tell me about playing polo and shopping at Waitrose and let me tell you about socialism. I'm ready for you.
    I can't speak for the others who've disagreed with you here, but I'm certainly not a "public school boy", I'm a working class beneficiary of social mobility and meritocracy, those "myths" as you called them.

    My parents both instilled aspiration in me from a young age, my dad went from being a manual labourer to a supervisor at his construction firm and my mum went from taking phone calls to being a senior manager at Yorkshire water. They took us off the council estate I was born on and got us a modest semi detached house, they made sacrifices so that I could get into the local grammar school, which I did. I worked hard and got an excellent set of GCSEs, repaying their faith, now I'm predicted an equally excellent set of a levels and should get into a Russell group uni.

    All of these are why I hate socialism and collectivism, it encourages the working class to know their place and paints the "bourgeoisie" (they aren't really as most aren't aristocrats these days) as "them" and "the enemy" it's a divisive and regressive ideology that belongs in the 19th century, where it was conceived.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Dress it up whichever way you like but the fact is that Stalin killed, deported or imprisoned the most successful peasants during his rein. It didn't even get better either which is why the Soviet Union was forced to import grain from the USA in the 1970s/80s. Surely you can see they entire situation is totally FUBAR'd when you're literately relying on your biggest enemy to feed your population, despite that fact that Russia had been the breadbasket of Europe during the late 19th Century?
    The fact that the second largest industrial power in the world was having to rely on the West for both food and industrial machinery 50+ years after the October Revolution is a massive embarrassment to say the least.


    I'd love to see proof that millions were dying in the USA during the Great Depression. Besides a blatenly biased Pravda article, there's not one shred of evidence. On the other hand, there's evidence to suggest that, despite the hardships during the early 1930s in America, life expectancy actually increased by six years.

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/h...at-depression/

    The fact that every single communist nation to date has had some kind of state secret police with far more power than anything seen in NATO is rather explains the brutality of communism rather well.. The Cheka, MGB, NKVD, KGB along with the MSS, Stasi, MINIT etc butchered tens of thousands, if not millions of people.

    So how many deaths have nations like Cuba, the USSR, PRC etc been responsible for?

    Cuba - at least 8,200, perhaps as high as 70,000+

    Cambodia - up to 2 million

    USSR - suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin. In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties. Even the most conservative figures put the death toll at 20 million.

    People's Republic of China - around 65 million.

    "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
    Even ****ing Hitler had nothing on these barbarians. But then you probably buy into the following quote from Stalin & that the ends also justify the means?
    I find Stalin repulsive, the fact that you've continued with your claim that communism is bad just because of what you claim to be communist countries' death tolls is not proving anything.

    Millions have been killed under the guise of communism (which of course has never existed, and many will argue neither has true socialism). So 'communism' has been tainted and probably rightly so due to the crimes committed in its name. But ones who use this argument clearly have no understanding of the ideology and it's system.

    Nowhere in communist literature will you find Karl Marx or Lenin advocating the deliberate mass murder and starvation of civilians, instead you'll find the exact opposite of equality, humanism, working class solidarity, whereas in capitalism it's profit over human need in a dog-eat-dog world where the existence of the system is based on greed and financial gain over the basic needs of humanity and the long-term survival of the planet and it's resources.

    You'll also hear many other proponents of capitalism or of a more social and regulated form of capitalism claim that socialism/communism is a fantastic idea on paper but not a realistic possibility, mainly due to apparent human nature, which they say is greed, which self defeats the whole argument about the morality of capitalism.

    So the "millions killed" argument is an easy and simplified excuse for totally brainwashing and shocking the public into instant discreditably without ever having to get the uninformed read up on the truths and to educate themselves in the facts. So my advice would to do just that, and read up on the facts and the structures of the systems and ideologies of communism and capitalism.


    Ah yes, the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Ask the leaders of the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba etc what political philosophy they were following during their murderous regimes then? And surely something similar could be said about Capitalism - I too could probably argue that certain countries weren't/aren't actually truly capitalist which have cocked up on a monumental scale.
    No, you could not argue that in the same way, because capitalist countries have trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, despite some liberal countries embracing mixed economies and Keynesian economic policy.
    Attached Images
     
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I can't speak for the others who've disagreed with you here, but I'm certainly not a "public school boy", I'm a working class beneficiary of social mobility and meritocracy, those "myths" as you called them.
    Meritocracy is a myth in today's society. It's what’s politely called a dead duck. A child from a ‘modest’ background can only go from rags to riches in the sense that a human being can take off if they flap their arms around wildly enough. A disadvantaged child will nearly always and everywhere become a disadvantaged adult, and if you ignore the right-wing rhetoric and look at the data you might be a little less keen on hearing the 'M' word in future.

    All of these are why I hate socialism and collectivism, it encourages the working class to know their place and paints the "bourgeoisie" (they aren't really as most aren't aristocrats these days) as "them" and "the enemy" it's a divisive and regressive ideology that belongs in the 19th century, where it was conceived.
    A regressive ideology, unlike conservatism which was conceived in the 16th and 17th centuries but is a pre-Enlightenment ideology and is, defined in the most basic terms, a defense of the privileged?

    Marx pointed out that capitalism is fundamentally exploitative, noting that the proletariat who live off the sale of their labour are exploited by the bourgeoisie, the owners of productive wealth. The bourgeoisie are not, despite what you may think, the middle or upper class, but the super-rich, the 1%, most of the people who were implicated in the Panama Papers. Socialism does not aim to divide people, but point out the inevitable inequality caused by, maintained and promoted by the capitalist system, and seek to either reduce these inequalities (social democracy) or completely eliminate them. Instead of dividing people, it aims to unite them.

    If you read any socialist writings, which I recommend you do, especially the Communist Manifesto since it is more of a pamphlet than a book, you will realise it is not an argument but an analysis of society; it does not "tell them their place" but informs and educates people about the inequality caused by this new system. However, Marx notes that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it". Marx and Marxists may have embraced this interpretation, but seek to change it and make it fairer, more just.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Do you even know what you're talking about?

    Marx's father converted to Lutheranism to protect his family from anti-Semitism, and baptised his children Lutheran, but remained non-religious. Marx later dismissed religion as "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."



    Proletarian revolution followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent bourgeois counter-revolution - still democracy.

    Marxism–Leninism follows the ideas of both Marxism and Leninism, seeking to establish a vanguard party, to lead proletarian uprising, assume state power on behalf of the proletariat, and create a single party socialist state. The socialist state, representing a dictatorship of the proletariat is governed through the process of democratic centralism, which Vladimir Lenin described as "diversity in discussion, unity in action."

    "Dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over the other class; but it does mean the abolition of democracy (or very material restriction, which is also a form of abolition) for the class over which, or against which, the dictatorship is exercised." Lenin




    It wasn't his true final aim, it was his prediction of the ultimate final stage of human development.



    The final stage being communism, after the proletarian revolution their wealth would have already been taken from them and so they would have been removed from their unjust and high position from the capitalist hierarchy, as well as the hierarchy itself, a "root and branch removal" and made truly equal, not oppressed - again your misunderstanding of what "dictatorship of the proletariat" means.

    Marx actually said that this:
    "My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."



    If humans are inherently evil then surely you mean we are all "bad eggs" and nobody will ever help each other?

    Human nature is not a constant, it adapts to its environmental surroundings (i.e. economic system). To suggest that in nature there exists definite constants that are not effected by anything within nature itself is not only mad but also completely against the scientific understanding of nature. Everything is a product of its environment, what else could something be a product of?

    Moreover, humans create laws to curb murder, rape and other 'natural' behaviours; why, then, does the fact that something is natural make it right?
    I apologise if this isn't what you meant, I've only skim read the whole thing.

    But as I understand it, your point is that I have misunderstood Marx's true meaning in Das Kapital. If so, come on, we both know that works of literature have more than one interpretation, none of which are explicitly "right" or "wrong", only Marx himself knew exactly what he meant. For example, what do you think Dr Hayek means when he says:

    "Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such action should undoubtedly be taken." (The Road to Serfdom)

    I can guarantee it'll be different to my interpretation, I imagine you'll say that this is Hayek selling out and buying into Keynesian economics, I'd call it common sense and compassionate neoliberalism.

    I thought you were smarter than the average left wing idiot on these forums, I guess I presumed wrong...

    http://quoteaddicts.com/i/217574
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Meritocracy is a myth in today's society. It's what’s politely called a dead duck. A child from a ‘modest’ background can only go from rags to riches in the sense that a human being can take off if they flap their arms around wildly enough. A disadvantaged child will nearly always and everywhere become a disadvantaged adult, and if you ignore the right-wing rhetoric and look at the data you might be a little less keen on hearing the 'M' word in future.



    A regressive ideology, unlike conservatism which was conceived in the 16th and 17th centuries but is a pre-Enlightenment ideology and is, defined in the most basic terms, a defense of the privileged?

    Marx pointed out that capitalism is fundamentally exploitative, noting that the proletariat who live off the sale of their labour are exploited by the bourgeoisie, the owners of productive wealth. The bourgeoisie are not, despite what you may think, the middle or upper class, but the super-rich, the 1%, most of the people who were implicated in the Panama Papers. Socialism does not aim to divide people, but point out the inevitable inequality caused by, maintained and promoted by the capitalist system, and seek to either reduce these inequalities (social democracy) or completely eliminate them. Instead of dividing people, it aims to unite them.

    If you read any socialist writings, which I recommend you do, especially the Communist Manifesto since it is more of a pamphlet than a book, you will realise it is not an argument but an analysis of society; it does not "tell them their place" but informs and educates people about the inequality caused by this new system. However, Marx notes that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it". Marx and Marxists may have embraced this interpretation, but seek to change it and make it fairer, more just.
    I don't identify with conservatism, I'm a classical liberal who believes in Neoliberal economics.

    Again, interpretations, the term bourgeoisie comes from the French Revolution and referred to anyone who was loyal to the crown, which included the middle and upper class, your interpretation of this from communist literature is that it refers to the 1%, I prefer to use the more factual, historical interpretation.

    What about the people who don't want to be united? Have you ever considered that the workers actually have minds of their own and aren't a collective hive? You'll probably say that such thoughts are "media brainwashing" or some other leftist conspiracy theorist nonsense
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I have another good Hayek quote that fits with this thread actually:

    "The principle that the ends justify the means is in individualist ethics the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."

    Use that on any leftist that tries the moral superiority schtick folks, unless they're a complete Stalinist fruitcake it'll leave em reeling
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Why am I not surprised that a student forum in the UK is a marxist cesspit?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I don't identify with conservatism, I'm a classical liberal who believes in Neoliberal economics.

    Again, interpretations, the term bourgeoisie comes from the French Revolution and referred to anyone who was loyal to the crown, which included the middle and upper class, your interpretation of this from communist literature is that it refers to the 1%, I prefer to use the more factual, historical interpretation.
    Except this definition of the bourgeoisie is not the same, nor applicable, in the same way that the definition of a base is not the same in chemistry or biology.

    What about the people who don't want to be united? Have you ever considered that the workers actually have minds of their own and aren't a collective hive? You'll probably say that such thoughts are "media brainwashing" or some other leftist conspiracy theorist nonsense
    No, it's because the proletariat are not class conscious and the efforts of bourgeois labour parties and trade unions have simply caused trade union consciousness. Today's global capitalism hides real power relations by framing our participation in it as voluntary and then hiding its inherent exploitation by championing just enough progressive social movements that it appears benevolent.
    The public sphere in which ideas and beliefs are shaped, is where bourgeois ‘hegemony’ was reproduced in cultural life through the media, universities and religious institutions to ‘manufacture consent’ and legitimacy.

    Again, I'm trying to point out to you that it is not "conspiracy theorism" or "divisive ideology", but a highly influential and scientific analysis of the world.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I apologise if this isn't what you meant, I've only skim read the whole thing.

    But as I understand it, your point is that I have misunderstood Marx's true meaning in Das Kapital. If so, come on, we both know that works of literature have more than one interpretation, none of which are explicitly "right" or "wrong", only Marx himself knew exactly what he meant.
    Except Marx did not see himself as a philosopher or theorist but a scientist, and his analysis of capitalism was deterministic, in the same way that combustion or evaporation does not have more than one truth.

    "Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such action should undoubtedly be taken." (The Road to Serfdom)

    I can guarantee it'll be different to my interpretation, I imagine you'll say that this is Hayek selling out and buying into Keynesian economics, I'd call it common sense and compassionate neoliberalism.
    I wouldn't, considering that Hayek was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism, as well as the fact that his full quote is:
    ""Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."

    Hayek did not subscribe, in his own words, to a "dogmatic laissez faire attitude". He believed in rules "to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements", and believed they were "fully compatible with the preservation of competition".

    I thought you were smarter than the average left wing idiot on these forums, I guess I presumed wrong...
    I'm going to let that slide considering how new you are.

    Using quotes is the same as using a statement with no other evidence to back up, and so does not reinforce your argument.
    For example, like me doing this:
    Name:  god economics meme.jpg
Views: 58
Size:  93.3 KB
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,711

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.