Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by GBateman)
      I wouldn't say that's anything like what I said, to be honest.

      Communism is perfect in theory but because people are selfish and greedy it wouldn't work.

      That is what I was saying.
      That idea gets offered up a lot but there's a difference between living in a society which fosters, indeed demands, selfish and greedy behaviour and living in a society which doesn't. If you put an animal in a cage it will behave like an animal in a cage, you get me? Selfish and greedy behaviour are likely to be most cultivated under circumstances in which we either win or lose, where we win the lifestyle jackpot or we struggle to afford a home, clothes and food, where our neighbours are our competitors for work or resources, where we are bombarded with messages about self-satisfaction and 'getting ahead'. Any of that familiar? Don't mistake behaviour that is 'natural' under capitalism as necessarily 'natural' under any economic and social system.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      It's the media that makes us think that we need to compete with everyone in order to succeed (just look at tripe like the X-Factor which pretty much sums up capitalism). People need to be taught that we can work together for the common good.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Oswy)
      It's not much of a stretch to make the connection in capitalism's productive power combined with its widespread economic uncertainty as having generated the ongoing acceleration of the human population. At the same time capitalism's economic functioning is specifically dependent upon growth and growing consumerism. There is no such thing as steady-state capitalism, we've only had 200 years at the most of it in industrial form and look where we are already. Socialism's aims are different, they are based on the satisfaction of human needs for all (not, you know, supplying gold taps to the few) and on the kind of economic security which under capitalism only really allows the wealthy to curb their offspring rates. This is as much an environmental argument against capitalism as it is a social one.
      Do you then believe that if capitalist nations switched to a socialist mode of production the exploitation of the environment would be significantly lessened? I don't really think that can be argued.

      In fact, it could be argued that a socialist state would drain more resources, as the exchange value of items would be lessened, thus meaning that more could be afforded, and more resources would therefore be used.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by GBateman)
      I wouldn't say that's anything like what I said, to be honest.

      Communism is perfect in theory but because people are selfish and greedy it wouldn't work.

      That is what I was saying.
      You can create a "perfect" aviation theory in which flapping you hands is enough to fly, the problem is that it will fail in reality because it will be based on wrong assumptions.

      Communism is based on wrong assumption regarding human nature, which is why it fails.

      A theory which is based on wrong a assumption is not perfect, it's simply wrong.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by no chance)
      Proberly.
      Is that mindless snipe all you have to contribute? I would have neg repped you, rather than make this equally useless post, but I'm sadly unable to do so.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Try Rousseau though he can be incoherent at times
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      GBateman, Borismor, and others who argued along a similar line about human nature --

      Marx would say that there's no such thing as 'natural' behaviour, as he is a materialist and believes that the economic (and political, which comes from the former) structure constructs the individual. It's useless to argue that Marxism looks good on paper but wouldn't work well with human nature because according to Marx, there is no such thing as human nature. What we call human nature is actually a product of a history of class struggle, the kind of struggle where you are taught that survival is a zero-sum game. In the ancient/feudal past this kind of profit-making behaviour was condemned by social values (very much shaped by the Church which condemned usury). Today, capitalism liberates and praises such behaviour which only makes individuals even more 'selfish' and 'greedy'. Other values such as social justice and human rights which leads to welfare reforms and heightened concerns about the poor actually make capitalism even more possible because they hand out candies to the discontent while leaving the root of the problem unsolved. Raised taxes need justification because they work under the capitalist concept of 'private property', we have 'human rights' such as 'right to life' but the value of such a life is conceptually separate from the right to life (so you may spend the larger part of your life doing jobs that you absolutely hate just to sustain that life) and any demand for the government to do more than just secure the basic 'right to life', 'equal opportunity', is immediately denounced as 'free lunchers' who thrive on other people's hard work, because under capitalism 'you make your own' is a virtue...'democracy' only goes as far as the ballot box once a few years for the ordinary working man who has neither the time nor the energy to monitor the government like their richer counterparts... all of this discourse was constructed and made possible by capitalism.

      Contrary to what some people said here, China is a great example of rampant capitalism WITHOUT even those candies to the poor. Without religion, human rights, etc, look at what kind of individual has been constructed - the entrepreneur who earns a profit by manufacturing cheap and harmful products, and by not giving a damn about the environment; there have been countless cases of babies and children dying or getting sick from these products but what do they do? After having a government inquiry on the milk powder incident, the milk powder was repackaged at another factory and sold out again. This is the kind of zero-sum, reckless, profit-making, truly selfish and greedy 'human nature' that capitalism has constructed.

      There is no such thing has human nature; the appeal of Marx is that he does not construct his theory from the heaven to earth, as many philosophers like Hegel and John Locke did, but from earth to heaven. His materialism (rather than assertions about supernatural forms such as God/human nature) makes everything so convincing, and real.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Yes it's called a mix meerkat economy

      Lol why not just have a mixture of both, like we do.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Law123mus)
      Yes it's called a mix meerkat economy

      Lol why not just have a mixture of both, like we do.
      I think people tend to confuse socialism (democratic workman ownership over the workplace and politics) for welfare state capitalism.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      Not wanting to be inflammatory or anything, I'm just honestly, genuinely confused. I don't understand 'libertarian socialism'. I don't understand how it would work?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Revd. Mike)
      Not wanting to be inflammatory or anything, I'm just honestly, genuinely confused. I don't understand 'libertarian socialism'. I don't understand how it would work?
      www.anarchyfaq.org

      See section A.1.3 Why is Anarchism also Called Libertarian Socialism?
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
      www.anarchyfaq.org

      See section A.1.3 Why is Anarchism also Called Libertarian Socialism?
      I must admit, I don't really like that site. It seems particularly heavily biased. Also, didn't really answer my question of 'How exactly would an anarcho-socialist society function?"

      Again, without wanting to be inflammatory, I consider myself a libertarian. I believe in laissez-faire, free market economics. It makes sense to me how the system would work, and how it would benefit everyone, rich and poor alike. It's entirely possible that it's only because it's never been explained to me properly, but I genuinely don't understand how that would be the case with anarcho/libertarian socialism.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Revd. Mike)
      I must admit, I don't really like that site. It seems particularly heavily biased. Also, didn't really answer my question of 'How exactly would an anarcho-socialist society function?"

      Again, without wanting to be inflammatory, I consider myself a libertarian. I believe in laissez-faire, free market economics. It makes sense to me how the system would work, and how it would benefit everyone, rich and poor alike. It's entirely possible that it's only because it's never been explained to me properly, but I genuinely don't understand how that would be the case with anarcho/libertarian socialism.
      Most politically oriented sites are biased as opinions are naturally biased. You have to research different ideologies before you make up your mind (objectively as humanly possible). What don't you get about or what do you think "won't work" about libertarian socialism. Its hard to answer such a question unless you specify.

      Also, check Section I for more detail - I just didn't want to bog you down with loads of info.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yituool)
      It is possible to agree with someone's ideas without them strictly being on the same side of the political spectrum as you. Political ideologies aren't as polarised and black and white as you seem to think. I personally take influence from and agree with thinkers from all over the field of political thought, I don't feel obliged to have any political alleigance to any one doctrine.

      And Tbf Marx had some rather right-wing leanings, especially with his alleged anti-semitism.
      Wasn't Marx a Jew....
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yituool)
      Do you then believe that if capitalist nations switched to a socialist mode of production the exploitation of the environment would be significantly lessened? I don't really think that can be argued.

      In fact, it could be argued that a socialist state would drain more resources, as the exchange value of items would be lessened, thus meaning that more could be afforded, and more resources would therefore be used.
      A socialist society would invest in renewable energies (other than nuclear) on a significantly bigger scale than under capitalism. Therefore there can be a greater amount of production with less environmental damge than sticking with oil, gas and nuclear.

      Capitalism struggles to invest in renewable energy when there is more profit in Oil and Gas etc.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Law123mus)
      Yes it's called a mix meerkat economy

      Lol why not just have a mixture of both, like we do.
      Marxists (among most others including elites etc.) would argue that we live in a class system roughly compromising of a ruling and a ruled class. In this case capitalists and workers. With Hegels idea of dialectics Marx says that the two are in competition. Its in workers interests for state run economies (free education, NHS etc) and for capitalists its best to have privatly run companies as they make more profit for the capitalists. So with these two opposing forces there can never be a steady balance - always a toing and throwing. What this means in practical terms is that when workers organise they will win concessions i.e NHS in 1948 etc. but at a point if this isnt continued - the capitalists will at a point get the upper hand and undo the workers reforms - like we are seeing the Con Dems do now. (an attempt will be made to privitise royal Mail, the NHS will come under stealthful attack etc.) for this reason a mixed economy will be a temporay measure - until the workers win a full victory and get rid of the capitalist system and destroy the class divide (maybe some new opposing forces will arise?)
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by badtothebone)
      Wasn't Marx a Jew....
      Born a Jew. Didn't stop him calling people "Niggerjew"s
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yituool)
      Born a Jew. Didn't stop him calling people "Niggerjew"s
      If you're born a Jew arnt you always a Jew- I think they see it as a race. Where does he says niggerjew?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by badtothebone)
      If you're born a Jew arnt you always a Jew- I think they see it as a race. Where does he says niggerjew?
      I found this post on another forum in regards to Marx's "racism" (which was fairly mild, in my opinion - that's if he even was actually racist).

      http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...12&postcount=4

      I think one has to put it into context: Marx was alive during the 19th Century and, actually, I think he had fairly radical views in regards to the sort of ideals that a typical citizen would subscribe to in those days. These radical views I am talking about refer to his dislike of the status quo, his revolutionary ideas, his astute observations about the political economy (everyone can benefit from reading Marx, even the Libertarian-Right who wish to criticise corporatism rather than the free market), his down-to-earth materialism (which was a pretty new idea in face of the wishy-washy alien-to-matter concepts of idealism) and his atheism in the face of stout religion.

      Most of the racist words he seems to use either seem to be some kind of description (albeit an inappropriate one) or words used to put down people he found repugnant. Of course we can criticise him all we like but lets not allow these things to take away from the day and age and all of his other wonderful ideas.

      Edit - From the post:

      "The harshest he goes is with that letter to Lassalle, and I think that's more of his heated rivalry with Lasalle coming out more than anything. The later bits he uses "******" as a way to describe Africans, but that was as far as I know the norm during those times. He doesn't seem to use it in a hateful manner then and you can see from his correspondence he was disappointed that Reconstruction didn't go far enough in helping and elevating the freed slaves."
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
        I found this post on another forum in regards to Marx's "racism" (which was fairly mild, in my opinion - that's if he even was actually racist).

        http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...mp;postcount=4

        I think one has to put it into context: Marx was alive during the 19th Century and, actually, I think he had fairly radical views in regards to the sort of ideals that a typical citizen would subscribe to in those days. These radical views I am talking about refer to his dislike of the status quo, his revolutionary ideas, his astute observations about the political economy (everyone can benefit from reading Marx, even the Libertarian-Right who wish to criticise corporatism rather than the free market), his down-to-earth materialism (which was a pretty new idea in face of the wishy-washy alien-to-matter concepts of idealism) and his atheism in the face of stout religion.

        Most of the racist words he seems to use either seem to be some kind of description (albeit an inappropriate one) or words used to put down people he found repugnant. Of course we can criticise him all we like but lets not allow these things to take away from the day and age and all of his other wonderful ideas.

        Edit - From the post:

        "The harshest he goes is with that letter to Lassalle, and I think that's more of his heated rivalry with Lasalle coming out more than anything. The later bits he uses "******" as a way to describe Africans, but that was as far as I know the norm during those times. He doesn't seem to use it in a hateful manner then and you can see from his correspondence he was disappointed that Reconstruction didn't go far enough in helping and elevating the freed slaves."
        of course he was antisemitic. Everyone knows the wretched Jews are those filthy Capitalists.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • 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

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