Turn on thread page Beta

The Marxist Society of TSR watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    Yes, it was good. I think Moore was hinting that Capitalism should be replaced with Socialism, think he was too afriad of the reaction to the S word though. That said, (i may be reading too much into this) I think that he did want socialism to replace it, as the song for the end credits was The International which was the USSR's national anthem until Stalin got rid of it (comparable to Orwell's Animal Farm - Beasts of England, which Napolean gets rid of) and is now the anthem for Socialism.

    So where do you stand on things? are you (gonna have a stab in the dark) an anarchist? or do you lean towards socialism, communism etc.
    I agree with as well. I think Moore was trying to hint at some kind of reform. I wouldn't know whether I'd go as far as to say it was socialism but it is known that he holds fairly extreme left wing tendencies. I noticed that as well but I thought it was a tongue-in-cheek reference rather than a symbolic message.

    I am personally an anarchist, yes, although I advocate it in a fairly different way to most I would imagine. I am in favour of liberal governmental reform although I'd like for the complete removal of government and state in eventuality.

    I am going to log off now but I can respond to your post tomorrow perhaps. Nice to see you on the forums again!

    ANARCHY__
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    It was on the Communist Manifesto, yes. And I liked your response to that question I posed by the way.

    Have you seen Capitalism: A Love Story? It's a very good documentary about capitalism in America. I have to say, I was sceptical with the title that it would be too dry but it really wasn't. I suggest you give it a try.
    It really wasn't. That movie (like a good bit of other literature on the subject) is a terrible distortion and misrepresentation of capitalism.

    I think there are much better material out there for one to study on this subject.

    I also don't like Michael Moore 9/11 movie as it is terribly unpatriotic and 'conspiracy' based.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    It really wasn't. That movie (like a good bit of other literature on the subject) is a terrible distortion and misrepresentation of capitalism.

    I think there are much better material out there for one to study on this subject.

    I also don't like Michael Moore 9/11 movie as it is terribly unpatriotic and 'conspiracy' based.
    How did he mis-represent it?

    I thought he said capitalism was based on Profit, and that being successful in terms of profit is not the same (in some cases the opposite to) being successful in terms of taking care of the needs of the majority of people?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    How did he mis-represent it?

    I thought he said capitalism was based on Profit, and that being successful in terms of profit is not the same (in some cases the opposite to) being successful in terms of taking care of the needs of the majority of people?
    But those two aren't separate. In fact, people being driven through selfish aims (i.e. maximising profit) does improve the standards of living of the majority of the people.

    Michael Moore focuses on Corporatism (which is actually a problem of government and not the free-market) and I was just remarking that there are better alternatives to understanding Capitalism .
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    But those two aren't separate. In fact, people being driven through selfish aims (i.e. maximising profit) does improve the standards of living of the majority of the people.

    Michael Moore focuses on Corporatism (which is actually a problem of government and not the free-market) and I was just remarking that there are better alternatives to understanding Capitalism .
    Could you give me an example of where capitalism is like a free market? I am genuinely interested.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Could you give me an example of where capitalism is like a free market? I am genuinely interested.
    Firstly, this is the Marxist Society and I don't wish to intrude and make a 'scene' and secondly, I don't understand what you mean. We haven't had a true free-market in society. It has been tried but government sought to control things.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Firstly, this is the Marxist Society and I don't wish to intrude and make a 'scene' and secondly, I don't understand what you mean. We haven't had a true free-market in society. It has been tried but government sought to control things.
    As far as I understand, a free market economy allows for opportunity for everyone in society to make gains and profits with minimal government regulation. Whilst in a Communist/Marxist, the opportunity is also presented to the individual, it seems to me that more is done to help that individual if they don't manage to make a profit. So in essence, would it not surely cause more strife, unrest and division to live in a free market capitalist society than even a Marxist one?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    As far as I understand, a free market economy allows for opportunity for everyone in society to make gains and profits with minimal government regulation. Whilst in a Communist/Marxist, the opportunity is also presented to the individual, it seems to me that more is done to help that individual if they don't manage to make a profit. So in essence, would it not surely cause more strife, unrest and division to live in a free market capitalist society than even a Marxist one?
    I would argue that I don't recognise 'opportunity' in Marxism. There is no individual in a Marxist society, unless I am mistaken. The philosophy is based on collectivism. But it also requires one to believe that the workers have been exploited and that the wealthy have used society. I also affirm property right is a natural right and therefore no entity can assume to remove it.

    The greatest incentive in life is profit maximisation, and in order to take away profit from people, you must remove the incentive to have it. Which means the desires to have more, better, and the constant strive to never be satisfied is removed from life. You can imagine the greatest achievements of man would also have never come to be - going to the moon, medical discoveries, relativity, Quantum etc ...

    Anyway, I don't want to intrude and be a **** in your society ... so maybe somewhere else
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I would argue that I don't recognise 'opportunity' in Marxism. There is no individual in a Marxist society, unless I am mistaken. The philosophy is based on collectivism. But it also requires one to believe that the workers have been exploited and that the wealthy have used society. I also affirm property right is a natural right and therefore no entity can assume to remove it.

    The greatest incentive in life is profit maximisation, and in order to take away profit from people, you must remove the incentive to have it. Which means the desires to have more, better, and the constant strive to never be satisfied is removed from life. You can imagine the greatest achievements of man would also have never come to be - going to the moon, medical discoveries, relativity, Quantum etc ...

    Anyway, I don't want to intrude and be a **** in your society ... so maybe somewhere else
    Sure. I'd be happy to discuss somewhere else if you like.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone read Slavoj Zizek's In Defence of Lost Causes, an argument for communism? I've bought it, but haven't had chance to read it yet. It looks a relatively tough read though; one needs a fairly good grasp of Western philosophy to tackle it seriously, I'd suspect.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    You can imagine the greatest achievements of man would also have never come to be - going to the moon, medical discoveries, relativity, Quantum etc ...
    I don't imagine that quantum physicists do it for the financial gain; they generally do it for the love of the mathematical challenge. Again, many medical discoveries are made by those who enjoy science more than money. If educational levels were increased (so that the abysmal state of science teaching in the UK were superceded), there would be a larger pool of people able to go into such research, and so a slightly lower level of demand that may or may not arise could be negated. And, to be honest, I think we could have done without going to the moon. But the USSR was the first country to achieve a moon landing, so a communist society obviously could do so, if it wished.

    But yes, along with the possible lack of "supply information" (i.e. manufacturers producing goods on the basis of [forecasted] demand, thereby being quite efficient) that capitalism brings, one could say that the possible lack of an incentive to strive in communism is the biggest problem facing it; just like with the physicists who hardly understand the nature of the universe, it seems more fruitful to attempt to work through these problems than to dismiss the enterprise altogether, however. The best theories tend to create highly dependent social networks, so that one's labour aids not just oneself, but also those around oneself -- as well as attempting to increase the naturally small propensity for empathy that humans possess, which can be increased by making sure that rewards are equitable, i.e. those who work hard receive the most rewards, but those who work hard in low-status jobs get similar rewards to those who work hard in high-status jobs, unlike in capitalism, whilst those who cannot work might receive a standard of living perhaps based on their prior service, but their basic needs would be met whatever their service. Those who choose not to work might get a basic amount of dosh, but which would be lower than those received who did work. There would be no inheritence, and no need for it.

    Of course, there are billions of potential ways in which a society could be organised, so the problems of one model may indicate the need for further revision more than the destruction thereof -- after all, capitalism has many problems itself, and is directly responsible for a great deal of death and suffering, so we're not looking for an impenetrably perfect model here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone who wants Marxism is a underachieving poorly educated fool. I believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcomes. There's a reason EVERY single Marxist state has failed, it never works.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    Anyone who wants Marxism is a underachieving poorly educated fool. I believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcomes. There's a reason EVERY single Marxist state has failed, it never works.
    Thanks for blessing us with the erudition of your generalisation. Marxism, by the way, doesn't necessarily have to be equated with equality of outcome, since, just looking at the basic maxim, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" would hardly give such a state (since some are needier than others and some, for whatever reasons, are legitimately able to contribute little). Indeed, there are many real senses in which no state could have have equality of outcome: since we can't all be doctors, for example, (even if we were all to take home a "doctor's salary", whatever that might be) and we're all constrained by our individual genetic phenotypes.

    One could have similarly said not so long ago there's a reason why NO WOMAN has ever ruled a country -- so something certainly doesn't have to have been practised to be practicable in some form or another. Indeed, using a scientific analogy, many people might have thought that cloining, for example, were a mere pipedream (and may even have considered it dangerous and wrong to try), yet human ingenuity has left such naysayers behind. In many cases, there are thousands of failed experiments before a scientific success occurs: why should this not be so in progressive politics?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Thanks for blessing us with the erudition of your generalisation. Marxism, by the way, doesn't necessarily have to be equated with equality of outcome, since, just looking at the basic maxim, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" would hardly give such a state (since some are needier than others and some, for whatever reasons, are legitimately able to contribute little). Indeed, there are many real senses in which no state could have have equality of outcome: since we can't all be doctors, for example, (even if we were all to take home a "doctor's salary", whatever that might be) and we're all constrained by our individual genetic phenotypes.

    One could have similarly said not so long ago there's a reason why NO WOMAN has ever ruled a country -- so something certainly doesn't have to have been practised to be practicable in some form or another. Indeed, using a scientific analogy, many people might have thought that cloining, for example, were a mere pipedream (and may even have considered it dangerous and wrong to try), yet human ingenuity has left such naysayers behind. In many cases, there are thousands of failed experiments before a scientific success occurs: why should this not be so in progressive politics?
    Economic calculation problem, human nature ect.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    The greatest incentive in life is profit maximisation, and in order to take away profit from people, you must remove the incentive to have it. Which means the desires to have more, better, and the constant strive to never be satisfied is removed from life. You can imagine the greatest achievements of man would also have never come to be - going to the moon, medical discoveries, relativity, Quantum etc ...
    Spot on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hello Marxist soc. I recently finished Das kapital in which Marx postulates the proletariat waiting for the inevitable self destruction of capitalism rather than pursuing direct revolution(in so many words.)

    I personally prefer this to what he and Engels laid down in the CM. However, i read a critique of this position by Ludwig von Mises in Planning for Freedom: Let the Market system work. He said that in taking this position. Marx, and the school of orthodox Marxism advocate the rejection of all policies that pretend to restrain, to regulate and to improve capitalism and the lives of those who live under such a system. "For they would rather delay the coming of age of capitalism, it's maturity and thereby its collapse". He then goes on to say that Marx and his orthodox acolytes are therefore not progressive at all, but reactionary. He cites the example of the German social Democratic party (Which Marx loved) which voted against Bismark's social security legislation and sought to frustrate his plan to nationalize the German tobacco industry declaring the early and later works of Marx paradoxical.

    Mises certainly has a good point here. I was wondering how you would justify the iniquity Marx circa 1867 advocates or if you prefer the CM?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Thanks for blessing us with the erudition of your generalisation. Marxism, by the way, doesn't necessarily have to be equated with equality of outcome, since, just looking at the basic maxim, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" would hardly give such a state (since some are needier than others and some, for whatever reasons, are legitimately able to contribute little). Indeed, there are many real senses in which no state could have have equality of outcome: since we can't all be doctors, for example, (even if we were all to take home a "doctor's salary", whatever that might be) and we're all constrained by our individual genetic phenotypes.

    One could have similarly said not so long ago there's a reason why NO WOMAN has ever ruled a country -- so something certainly doesn't have to have been practised to be practicable in some form or another. Indeed, using a scientific analogy, many people might have thought that cloining, for example, were a mere pipedream (and may even have considered it dangerous and wrong to try), yet human ingenuity has left such naysayers behind. In many cases, there are thousands of failed experiments before a scientific success occurs: why should this not be so in progressive politics?
    Marxism is all about equality of outcome. If we aren't all making the same salary, then some are richer than others. If some are richer than others, they can buy more, have more, and do more. Furthermore, how would a government determine the needs of it's people?

    Your woman analogy is completely false. The difference was that No Woman EVER had ruled a country when that statement was made. Marxism HAD been tried and failed. If all female leaders did a terrible job and were never elected again, then your statement would be true.

    It's also ironic you mention human inegenuity, when that is exactly what Marxism destroys. If we're all equal and there is no capitalistic pyramid, where is the incentive for one to reach for the top?

    I did in fact generalize, and I'll do it again: anyone who wants to live under Marxism is an absolute moron (most likely a university student who has been brainwashed by a socially awkward professor).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    Marxism is all about equality of outcome. If we aren't all making the same salary, then some are richer than others. If some are richer than others, they can buy more, have more, and do more. Furthermore, how would a government determine the needs of it's people?

    Your woman analogy is completely false. The difference was that No Woman EVER had ruled a country when that statement was made. Marxism HAD been tried and failed. If all female leaders did a terrible job and were never elected again, then your statement would be true.

    It's also ironic you mention human inegenuity, when that is exactly what Marxism destroys. If we're all equal and there is no capitalistic pyramid, where is the incentive for one to reach for the top?

    I did in fact generalize, and I'll do it again: anyone who wants to live under Marxism is an absolute moron (most likely a university student who has been brainwashed by a socially awkward professor).
    When was Marxism ever tried?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    When was Marxism ever tried?
    Is this a joke?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    Is this a joke?
    Do we ever joke?
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
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.