How Relevant is Marx Today?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

Marx will always be around as long as there exists navel-gazing, half-educated adoloscents who ascribe to the view that humans are driven by materialism and materialist reaction. As such, the Left and libertarians keep Marxism alive and well.

Relevant? In a sense, yes, because many now speak (all too often) in the language that there is no higher human good or pursuit than consumption. There might be a debate over what the right answer is, but the terms of the debate have been set. Just as Marx would have wanted.

But really, not that relevant. Marxist theory is in the crowded dustbin of history.

22

^^Damn naive materialists, get in the real world (notquitesrs?!?!) :smiley:

23

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

^^Damn naive materialists, get in the real world (notquitesrs?!?!) :D[/quote]

Yes, serious. The materialists fall into the mistake of economic reductionism, often referred to as Economism. Humans - and their complex behavior and nature - can’t be reduced along such terms - which, of course, why Marxism in practice failed so miserably - so Marxism, along with its idiot cousin Anarchism, are generally worthless as political philosophies helping us make sense of the world.

Thanks.

24

Tell me good sir, what else is there but a materialist understanding of the universe, is this even debatable in 2012 lol??

25

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Under Anarchism the production of things would be based on human wants rather than profit for a tiny majority, which they get by extracting surplus value from the workers they employ by selling their finished labour as commodities.
[/quote]

“on human wants”. The problem is, what people want/think they want isn’t always relevant.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
If the working class is organised then things are made for people not profit, so mass production could and would lead to HUGE living conditions for people.

Also you raise an important point when you say “If there is no profit or gratification for your actions, what is the motivation to work? Sure, there are some idealists, but how many”

Communists do not have these goals based on ideals but rather by the scientific analysis of society, old and new fighting for domination, coming into conflict, leading to new ideas and new struggles, put simply, the have nots, gon get.

[/quote]

It wouldn’t work like that. It could possibly work in a small, isolated region, but not globally. And only short term.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
As for you have to rob the rich for communism, I think you will find the rich are the highwaymen good sir!

As a far wittier man than me put it; “The rich can rob us all, take our produce and have a ball, but when we take it back they call it crime”
[/quote]

That’s the problem. Too many people seem to think, that if something is bad, then the opposite (or it’s enemy) is good. No. Neither of them is good. Stalin’s army besieged and captured Berlin, Hitler died. Hitler was a criminal. But Stalin was a criminal too, in fact he was responsible for more victims than Adolf.
Stalin ordered to kill Yezhov. Yezhov was the People’s commissar in NKVD during the great Purge. But does that make Stalin good? Or Yezhov? He was Stalin’s victim after all. Yet neither of them was good. Yezhov killed Tukhachevsky, so maybe Tukhachevsky was good? No. He was responsible of manslaughter in Tambov, not to mention many other crimes.

“but when we take it back they call it crime”
Because what you want to happen is actually a crime.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I am exhausted from being up till 6 in the morning for the fights, I will be coming at you after sleep, be ready :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Okay;-)

The second post.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
“Just as the Allies were just as bad as the Axis”
[/quote]

Soviets? Yes. Western countries? No way. I’m not saying they were perfect or even good, but what they did cannot be compared to what Germans, Ukrainians and Russians did. Before you think that I’m idolizing western Allies, keep in mind, that I’m coming from a country which was betrayed by them twice(1939 and 43 and following) and sold to Stalin in Yalta and Tehran.

As far as I know, western Allies didn’t try to kill the entire intelligence and elite of any country. Both Stalin and Hitler did in Poland. There was no Katyn committed by Americans or Brits. No Palmiry. There was nothing like Treblinka, or Auschwitz, or Dachau created by the West.There were no mass executions of civilians committed by them.
UK and USA actually did send people to death in Siberia or Kolyma or Kazakhstan (Operation Keelhaul anyone?), but the number of people sent there can’t be compared to the number of Poles sent there in 39-40, after the “liberation of Western Belarus and Ukraine”. There is no way it can be compared to the number of people dying there in 30s, even before the war started.

The colonial rule in India wasn’t perfect. But it can’t be even compared to what happened in the second world war (or in Soviet Union after the onset of revolution).

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
and the only remedy to class society is classwar not intra-Imperialist war!
[/quote]
Do you understand, what a true classwar, leading to the removal of all classes, would mean?
To be honest, I doubt it.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
you should realize Anarchists did not support the Republic in the spanish civil war
[/quote]
Are you 100% sure about that?

There is also another problem with anarchism. Let’s say you manage to set anarchist paradise in USA or in EU. Let’s imagine that it’s working great, working class owns everything, there is no centralized government, bourgeoisie were robbed of their property etc.
Unfortunately, anarchist state you want would be incredibly weak. There are still other countries though. They wouldn’t turn anarchist. And they would keep growing in power. People who made the revolution could be even safe. However, their grandchildren would probably speak Russian or Chinese, or have to learn Koran.

I do not worship capitalism. It isn’t a perfect solution, has many flaws. However, that doesn’t make anarchism (or communism) good.

If you see injustice, the solution isn’t even more injustice and mass murders.

Anarchist ideology may seem appealing to you. Please forget for a while about it and think. Imagine the worst guys you personally know, the most cruel, greedy, unjust and lazy ones. Only the ones from “working class”. Would the anarchist society composed of people like that work? Now imagine people much worse than the guys you know. Now, would that work?
Also, how do you see the transition phase? Imagine how it would look, step by step. Focus on the transition itself, not on the initial state and final results. Be realistic.
Do you still think, that it’s such a great idea?

26

A) It would be impossible to have “Anarchist utopia in the UK or USA” as you put it, Anarchism is a Classless, stateless, non monetary, nationless society, please read what Anarchism is before you try and form coherent arguements against it.

B) Explain how it is not fair to compare them. How is the extermination of the Native American population, anywhere up to 100 million, the British colonizing of the world and the extermination of whole communities who dared resist any different to Hitlers crimes or Stalins?

C) Anarchists do not support the USSR or Stalin, stop implying so, the first people Leninists killed were Anarchists.

D) You say people would refuse to work in an Anarchist society and take resources, they would not be able to, communities would democratically run their workplaces, food sources through workers councils with votes and recallable elected delegates, if someone refused to work because they didnt want to help they would not recieve clothes, recieve food, basically they would die, so no Anarchism is the greatest system to ensure greed and laziness is removed from society.

E) Anarchist Revolution is not about mass murder, it is not about guns, it is about working people organising together and taking over the means of production, so things can be made for people, rather than for a tiny percent to make huge profits.

F) “Do you understand, what a true classwar, leading to the removal of all classes, would mean?
To be honest, I doubt it” … Yes I do, it would mean an egalitarian society where humanity could reach a production stage where everyone could have housing, clothing, food, education and an amazing life without misery war or poverty.

G) The colonial rule in India wasn’t perfect. But it can’t be even compared to what happened in the second world war (or in Soviet Union after the onset of revolution)… Again this is sick and extremely racist, 30 million killed but because they are brown indians they are somehow less important and their rape, torture and murder is less evil???

H) “It wouldn’t work like that. It could possibly work in a small, isolated region, but not globally. And only short term”… Not true, Anarchism has to be a global system, to fullfill human potenial and reach a post scarcity system where we have everything we could want needs global production and cooperation.

I) ““on human wants”. The problem is, what people want/think they want isn’t always relevant”… Human want in the sentance i used means basic human wants for a good life, aka housing, clothing, freedom of work and private life, access to education, no money system to unlock human potential etc.

27

This thread has been superb, people arguing against Anarchism without understanding what it is, Anarchist utopia in one country was the best response HHAHAHAHAAH, amazing :slight_smile:

28

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
A) It would be impossible to have “Anarchist utopia in the UK or USA” as you put it, Anarchism is a Classless, stateless, non monetary, nationless society, please read what Anarchism is before you try and form coherent arguements against it.
[/quote]

It’s not possible to introduce the anarchist system at the same time all over the world.
Therefore, you’d have anarchist regions (for example where once reactionist EU was) and reactionist regions, where countries still exist. Imagine what would you do, if you were a leader of a such reactionist country?
There is more to the world than North America and Europe. You can’t think about the rest using the same standards you use in case of western countries. Do you think, that Saudi Arabia would become anarchist by choice of it’s citizens? Or China?

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
B) Explain how it is not fair to compare them. How is the extermination of the Native American population, anywhere up to 100 million, the British colonizing of the world and the extermination of whole communities who dared resist any different to Hitlers crimes or Stalins?
[/quote]

Methods. Extent. Time frame. Reasons. I’m not defending extermination of the Native Americans.
You just underestimate what really happened in the East.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Anarchists do not support the USSR or Stalin, stop implying so, the first people Leninists killed were Anarchists.
[/quote]

Yes, Bolsheviks in Russia killed members of all other leftist parties, organizations, movements and associations.
But anarchists did support USSR. I’m not saying they did it intentionally. Their actions however helped USSR. They weakened western countries, the main rivals of Soviets.
Don’t forget that these movements were heavily infiltrated and steered by Soviet agents. Regular members could even hate USSR, see it as imperialistic, oppressive empire. Yet their actions helped it.

In Russia anarchists helped destroy the old regime. Then they were no longer needed, actually they became a threat. So they were eliminated.

If you were a head of some totalitarian state, how would you deal with a democratic country, which is your enemy?
On top of other actions, I’d sponsor all actions and movements that could weaken it. I’d help anarchists, give them all materials and money they may need. Of course I wouldn’t do it directly. I’d send numerous agents to each of leftist organizations and steer those organizations through them. I’d support pacifists of all kind. This way I’d weaken my opponent as much as possible and make it easier target.

Have you ever heard a term “useful idiot”?

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
E) Anarchist Revolution is not about mass murder, it is not about guns, it is about working people organising together and taking over the means of production, so things can be made for people, rather than for a tiny percent to make huge profits.

[/quote]

What about middle class? There are quite a few people in it, they do own some property, yet there aren’t in the “tiny percent”. What about that tiny percent? What about people, who simply don’t like your idea?
What about religious people, who oppose your idea? Now that’s a lot of people, in fact many millions of people. What would you do about them? How would you get rid of that “problem”?

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
here everyone could have housing, clothing, food, education and an amazing life without misery war or poverty.
[/quote]
It would be great. Unfortunately none ideology that promised it, has worked so far. Futhermore, many of them actually brought even more wars and poverty.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
G) The colonial rule in India wasn’t perfect. But it can’t be even compared to what happened in the second world war (or in Soviet Union after the onset of revolution)… Again this is sick and extremely racist, 30 million killed but because they are brown indians they are somehow less important and their rape, torture and murder is less evil???

[/quote]

Again, you seem to underestimate what happened during IIWW or in Soviet Russia.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I) ““on human wants”. The problem is, what people want/think they want isn’t always relevant”… Human want in the sentance i used means basic human wants for a good life, aka housing, clothing, freedom of work and private life, access to education, no money system to unlock human potential etc.
[/quote]
I’m all for the freedom or work and private life and easy access to education.

29

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
A) It would be impossible to have “Anarchist utopia in the UK or USA” as you put it, Anarchism is a Classless, stateless, non monetary, nationless society, please read what Anarchism is before you try and form coherent arguements against it.

B) Explain how it is not fair to compare them. How is the extermination of the Native American population, anywhere up to 100 million, the British colonizing of the world and the extermination of whole communities who dared resist any different to Hitlers crimes or Stalins?

C) Anarchists do not support the USSR or Stalin, stop implying so, the first people Leninists killed were Anarchists.

D) You say people would refuse to work in an Anarchist society and take resources, they would not be able to, communities would democratically run their workplaces, food sources through workers councils with votes and recallable elected delegates, if someone refused to work because they didnt want to help they would not recieve clothes, recieve food, basically they would die, so no Anarchism is the greatest system to ensure greed and laziness is removed from society.

E) Anarchist Revolution is not about mass murder, it is not about guns, it is about working people organising together and taking over the means of production, so things can be made for people, rather than for a tiny percent to make huge profits.

F) “Do you understand, what a true classwar, leading to the removal of all classes, would mean?
To be honest, I doubt it” … Yes I do, it would mean an egalitarian society where humanity could reach a production stage where everyone could have housing, clothing, food, education and an amazing life without misery war or poverty.

G) The colonial rule in India wasn’t perfect. But it can’t be even compared to what happened in the second world war (or in Soviet Union after the onset of revolution)… Again this is sick and extremely racist, 30 million killed but because they are brown indians they are somehow less important and their rape, torture and murder is less evil???

H) “It wouldn’t work like that. It could possibly work in a small, isolated region, but not globally. And only short term”… Not true, Anarchism has to be a global system, to fullfill human potenial and reach a post scarcity system where we have everything we could want needs global production and cooperation.

I) ““on human wants”. The problem is, what people want/think they want isn’t always relevant”… Human want in the sentance i used means basic human wants for a good life, aka housing, clothing, freedom of work and private life, access to education, no money system to unlock human potential etc.[/quote]

So, it wont happen.

Good.

30

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
This thread has been superb, people arguing against Anarchism without understanding what it is, Anarchist utopia in one country was the best response HHAHAHAHAAH, amazing :)[/quote]

Excuse me, but if that pipe dream is supposed to be anarchism there is no arguing against it.

Anyone who can convince himself that a money-less society is possible, that democratic decision making could somehow overcome scarcity and that someone like me might actually willingly participate in such shenanigans is so out of touch with reality that there is nothing to argue about.

31

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Tell me good sir, what else is there but a materialist understanding of the universe, is this even debatable in 2012 lol??[/quote]

Ethics. That was easy. I could go on, but there’s no need to.

But as I re-read your posts, and with such gems as “there’s no difference between the Axis and Allies” and “moneyless society”, punctuated by “lol” at the end of your posts, I’m getting the sense we have here someone who hasn’t spent much time on the subject before opining on it.

Anarchists. Unintentionally hilarious, but hilarious nonetheless.

32

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

E) Anarchist Revolution is not about mass murder, it is not about guns, it is about working people organising together and taking over the means of production, so things can be made for people, rather than for a tiny percent to make huge profits. [/quote]

“Anarchists, unite under a centralizing principle to effect a common good!”

I am serious. Simply hilarious.

33

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Tell me good sir, what else is there but a materialist understanding of the universe, is this even debatable in 2012 lol??[/quote]

Ethics. That was easy. I could go on, but there’s no need to.
[/quote]

This.

34

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Anarchists laugh at the humanitarian veneer of world war two, post 1945 for example British Government and politicians denounced the Holocaust as evil and terrible (as of course it was)… these same politicians supported the colonial rule in india, that through murder, forced famine and terror killed between 10 and 30 million innocent Indians.
[/quote]

Innocent of what?

145 billion/6 trillion?

35

I kinda sorta, maybe just a tad, miss the contributions of Ryan P. McCarter in these threads.

Anybody else miss that Marxist rascal? LOL

36

There is no such thing as middleclass, it is a vulgar term with no real meaning, anyone who works for a wage who is not in a position of power over other workers is proletarian, so anyone who recieves a wage who isnt a boss or politician or someone employed as a thug of the state.

In America the political rhetoric is so insane people who are not absolutely destitute are classed as middle class.

37

Sorry how are ethics to be viewed outside a materialist understanding of themselves, or are you saying ethics were given too man by a man in the sky?

38

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
…anyone who works for a wage who is not in a position of power over other workers is proletarian

[/quote]

You mean like the cashiers that the Bonnot gang murdered?

39

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
There is no such thing as middleclass, it is a vulgar term with no real meaning, anyone who works for a wage who is not in a position of power over other workers is proletarian, so anyone who recieves a wage who isnt a boss or politician or someone employed as a thug of the state.

In America the political rhetoric is so insane people who are not absolutely destitute are classed as middle class.

[/quote]

What about doctors? What about most engineers? What about the majority of lawyers? They aren’t your typical proletarians, yet they’re usually neither bosses in corporations nor politicians.
What about small, family business?

You want a classless society without any hierarchy.
It would mean that a doctor who spent most of his 20s studying most of the day (and night…), at the cost of his social life, with little free time, would be in the same position as someone who is now working at the lowest wage. Now, one of them works under huge stress, the smallest mistake he makes can cost someone life and cause incredible legal problems. On top of that, he has to keep learning until the retirement. The other one goes to work in the morning, spends there ~8 hours and comes back home. His position doesn’t require a lot of thinking. There is little stress related to his job. If he makes even a big mistake, even in the worst case he’ll just lose his job. Not be put in jail for many years along with a 6 figure+ fine.
When he comes back home, he can totally forget about his job. He doesn’t have to keep learning, maybe he has to participate in one, short and relatively easy course/training a year.
Now, how can these 2 jobs be compared? Do you really think there should be no difference between people holding those positions?
If you don’t like the example of doctors, what about computer scientists or electrical engineers? The stress and responsibility is much lower than in the case of doctors, but they still are there. Both jobs require many years of hard training and constant learning and improvements later.
Should they really be in the same position in the society as someone who is handing out flyers?

Somebody who has what it takes to become a doctor or electrical engineer, should be granted a chance to become one, whether he comes from a rich or poor family. A chance. If he has what it takes.

Why someone who studies for years and then works on a demanding position requiring high skills, under huge responsibility, should be given the same position in the society as someone who doesn’t?

You don’t deserve a high position in the society just because you want it. You have to earn it.

By the way, I don’t live in America.

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Sorry how are ethics to be viewed outside a materialist understanding of themselves, or are you saying ethics were given too man by a man in the sky?

[/quote]

I assume you don’t go out and rob people. Now, if you knew you were getting no punishment, would you go out and start robbing? If you knew you wouldn’t be caught, would you start raping good looking girls? I wouldn’t.
There is more to life than material goods alone.
You asked if I believe in God. Yes, I do.
Whether you like it or not, there is a set of ethics most people in our civilization share to a some extent. Whether they’re religious or atheists.

40

I would rob those who aquire wealth by robbing the workers of their labour, I see no reason not to.

And to the post asking if Doctors or lawyers or engineers are workers the answer is yes, they recieve a wage for their labour, so they are by anyones standards working class, however of course one can render his class position defunct by gaining enough wealth he is no longer going to benefit from revolution, having said that, a well of worker, even if he lacks the material conditions to be revolutionary, is not the problem, the problem is the system.