Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Marxism for and Against?
With the labour party on the change, what’s the endgame for the UK if Labour wins the next Election?
Marxism is an economic and social system based upon the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. While it would take veritably volumes to explain the full implications and ramifications of the Marxist social and economic ideology, Marxism is summed up in the Encarta Reference Library as “a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.” Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism which is defined by Encarta as “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.” Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Under capitalism, the proletariat, the working class or “the people,” own only their capacity to work; they have the ability only to sell their own labor. According to Marx a class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production. He proclaimed that history is the chronology of class struggles, wars, and uprisings. Under capitalism, Marx continues, the workers, in order to support their families are paid a bare minimum wage or salary. The worker is alienated because he has no control over the labor or product which he produces. The capitalists sell the products produced by the workers at a proportional value as related to the labor involved. Surplus value is the difference between what the worker is paid and the price for which the product is sold.
An increasing immiseration of the proletariat occurs as the result of economic recessions; these recessions result because the working class is unable to buy the full product of their labors and the ruling capitalists do not consume all of the surplus value. A proletariat or socialist revolution must occur, according to Marx, where the state (the means by which the ruling class forcibly maintains rule over the other classes) is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism evolves from socialism out of this progression: the socialist slogan is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The communist slogan varies thusly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
What were the Marxist views of religion? Because the worker under the capitalist regimes was miserable and alienated, religious beliefs were sustained. Religion, according to Marx was the response to the pain of being alive, the response to earthly suffering. In Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844), Marx wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless circumstances.” Marx indicated in this writing that the working class, the proletariat was a true revolutionary class, universal in character and acquainted with universal suffering. This provided the need for religion.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,070
Grateful also for views on phrenology, mesmerism,spiritualism,homeopathy etc from lumpenproletariat members of forum.
Will happily swap for my robust support for eugenics.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Captain Haddock wrote:Grateful also for views on phrenology, mesmerism,spiritualism,homeopathy etc from lumpenproletariat members of forum.
Will happily swap for my robust support for eugenics.
Just for a moment there Bob I had forgotten how intellectually superior you are to the rest of us, I will endeavour never to forget again. I will now leave you in peace to polish your ego.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,070
Calm down Howard. I was merely trying to point out that the theories of Karl Marx have been thoroughly discredited and rejected by history by flagging up a few other mad ideas which have had popular support.
As for my 'ego'. The same goes for the theories of Sigmund Freud!
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
just trying to get a politics thread running bob.
labour is moving in this direction, but all the systems are up for discussion bob.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,070
Agree absolutely Keith.
Sometimes my attempts at a humorous input fall on stoney ground. Personally I'd argue that Marxist analysis is far too simplistic in reducing an economy to wicked capitalists exploiting the workers. He also far too easily dismisses religion which seems to be hard wired into human existence from year zero.
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
Phrenology doesn't work? that bloody Jackie woman owes me a fortune!
Arte et Marte
Guest 1881- Registered: 16 Oct 2016
- Posts: 1,071
Captain Haddock wrote:He also far too easily dismisses religion which seems to be hard wired into human existence from year zero.
In reality, the context is organised religion, in particular 'the church'. One of the biggest land and wealth 'owners' across the world. A simple investigation into this and, contemporary terms, you get...
Between the national church, the diocese and the average of the Parish/Parochial Church Councils we end with a total wealth for the Church of England of £22,939,138,720 Source:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/02/for-richer-or-poorer--where-is-the-church-of-england (2016)
Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you. PERICLES.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
socialism in all its forms, all sound good systems, But I just don't think they work with the nature of man. money and power corrupt them controlling it all.
capitalism, on the other hand, tends to run out of control, and then starts to work against the majority of citizens .same thing money and power corrupts.
and the best capitalists seem to be the psychopaths, that tend to have no concept of social responsibility.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
religion bob is just a bit of a comfort blanket.
if you're in the gang you tend to feel safer, you can call on others to back you up and maintain things you're easy with.
and its a bit of a money spinner if your at the top
Weird Granny Slater
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,064
Which Marxism would that be, though? I mean, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts are rather different from the later Das Capital. The former is mainly about alienation, is relatively short and a good read, while the latter is a bit of a slog (but then I've only read volume one: maybe it gets better in two and three!). And then, it's useful to have read Hegel as a bit of background, as the dialectic plays quite a part in Marx's historical analysis.
Labour, by the way, are nowhere near being a Marxist party. Corbyn's certainly taking it leftwards, but back to the non-Marxist 'socialism' it has historically mostly practised: e.g. state ownership of major utilities and transport networks and provision of an NHS are democratic socialist aims that the neoliberal swing of Blair renounced.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
try reading this.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
[QUOTE="Weird Granny Slater.
Labour, by the way, are nowhere near being a Marxist party. Corbyn's certainly taking it leftwards, but back to the non-Marxist 'socialism' it has historically mostly practised: e.g. state ownership of major utilities and transport networks and provision of an NHS are democratic socialist aims that the neoliberal swing of Blair renounced.[/QUOTE]
I think you wrong Granny, by 2022 mandatory reselection in the labour party will be in place.
the local parties will be full to the gunnels with activists and the Marxists in place .
Guest 1881- Registered: 16 Oct 2016
- Posts: 1,071
Activists, Mr Bibby, are people who campaign to bring about political and/or social change. Are you happy with the status quo? (If so, I'll send you my old 33RPM LPs.)
Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you. PERICLES.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
ah rev,it depends if mr bibby has a device he could play them on. [stylys costs an arm and leg these days.] lol
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
The Bishop wrote:Activists, Mr Bibby, are people who campaign to bring about political and/or social change. Are you happy with the status quo? (If so, I'll send you my old 33RPM LPs.)
I am not happy with the status quo.
I much preferred labour of old, when people like Skinner peter shore and Corbyn!!!, campaign against EU membership, because they knew it was against the interests of the British working class and democracy
what we have now is the cottonwool protected champagne middle-class socialists polling the strings who actually despise the British working class.
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,064
Strange times when the word 'activist' comes to mean something like 'a person engaged in Machiavellian manoeuvres.' All parties have activists. You might even ask what the point in joining a political party is if you don't intend to do anything.
As to whether the Marxists will have taken over the Labour Party by 2022, well KB, let's come back to this thread in five years' time. But I doubt it: with its roots in the trades unions, cooperative societies, and religious dissenters and nonconformists it's always been a reformist and never a revolutionary party.
Oh, and perhaps the Bishop would be able to enlighten us on the liberation theologists and whether he believes that the 'preferential option for the poor' was, as the Catholic hierarchy asserted, just a little bit Marxist.
Brian Dixon likes this
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I'm more of a pragmatist and don't feel that arguments in favour of a Capitalist or Communist system made in the 19th century has any relevance today. I would lie to see the utilities and the railways brought back into public ownership and this is not seen as Marxist in many Western European countries. The only privatisation that benefitted the general public, in my view, was telecommunications where before people and businesses were forced to wait for new phone lines to be installed.
Guest 1881, Guest 745 and Jan Higgins like this
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
the changes that are happening to the labour movement by the activists, are welcomed and despised equally by its tridiagonal voters, mainly because the party is out of step with its voters, this is mainly because them pulling the strings in the labour movement are not the working class, nor do they think like the working class. the true working class like some of the new policies but not all ??
the conservative party have a similar problem. they do not reflect the views of the conservatives voters.
come election day both parties may a reality slap.
Guest 1881- Registered: 16 Oct 2016
- Posts: 1,071
Weird Granny Slater wrote:Oh, and perhaps the Bishop would be able to enlighten us on the liberation theologists and whether he believes that the 'preferential option for the poor' was, as the Catholic hierarchy asserted, just a little bit Marxist.
Preferential option for the poor = in my 'umble opinion is very well-meaning but massively tainted by 'the church' (Protestant and Catholic) when you look at who they invest money with (e.g. Wonga) and who they collect money/donations from (i.e. predominately those with the least). In short, the 'preferential option for the poor' is a political statement unfulfilled (and, I would venture, never honestly intended to be).
Sorry if that is too preachy!
Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you. PERICLES.