The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Socialism not the answer students need > Comments

Socialism not the answer students need : Comments

By Mal Fletcher, published 7/2/2018

Marxist thought is apparently enjoying something of a resurgence in popularity on Britain's university campuses, as an emerging generation realises that it may face worse economic prospects then its parents.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
As one raised in a communist family and born during the War (hence the name), I would suggest that even Marx would despair at the gormlessness of anyone who thinks nowadays that nothing changes, that the conditions for revolution which may have existed in the middle of the nineteenth century, still exist.

Marx complained in the late 1870s to Engels (or was it the other way around ?) that Britain was well on the way to developing a bourgeois proletariat. He would have been aware of the changes in the productive forces, i.e. its technology, and that more advanced and complicated technology everywhere required more skilled workers - hence more education, and more opportunities for the beat and brightest children of the working class to get up and out.

Marx was devastated when the Paris Commune of 1871 failed. Then of course, the European powers expanded their empires, providing managerial opportunities for anybody in the working class to migrate and 'improve themselves'. Meanwhile every new industry required more technically skilled people than ever before. So the education system broadened into secondary education. Governments (e.g. Bismarck's), under pressure from unions, improved working conditions, brought in the eight-hour day, guaranteed wages and improved conditions in many other ways, especially by implicitly promising better lives for working-class kids - no thanks to their generosity. But in all of these ways, revolution was a thing of the past by 1900, only possible when capitalism in a country like Russia, and later China, was on its knees.

The peak of manufacturing employment in Australia was around 1966, fifty years ago. The children of those workers went onto teachers' college, nursing schools and university. The number of all 'worker' jobs is a fraction now of what it used to be. Barely 10 % of workers are in unions, let alone left-wing unions. Even Marx would realise the jig was up: that any notion of 'revolution' was anachronistic fantasy. e.g. Venezuela.

In the 1930s, Gramsci also realised this and advocated - instead of revolution - tearing down any and all bourgeois institutions, by any means conceivable.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 7 February 2018 9:13:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marxism, the political philosophy that has killed more people that all the others put together.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 7 February 2018 9:14:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As young folk look around at the world individualism and greed has crafted for them. And see the wealth trickling ever upward into fewer and fewer hands and know, no matter how hard they work or for how many hours? They will always get further behind, rent more and more humble abodes, try and get by as everything they need get progressively more expensive.

All while the real pigs of George Orwell's animal farm keep pileinging on the pork!

There is an example from capitalism that allows those who create all our wealth and prosperity to share a fair and reasonable portion of it.

And that is through cooperative capitalism comrade.

Co-ops allow the income and profit earned in the community to stay in that community far longer doing the work of up to seven times as much money as that occurs.

Co-ops are generally union free workplaces that need no protection from unions whatsoever. They invariably are equitable places that share the wealth and profit they create amongst those who actually create it!

Imagine how much cheaper our electrical supply could be if were wrestled back out of the hands of tax avoiding, price gouging, profit repatriating foreigners and instead reticulated in genuine feice competition by a medley of employee owned co-ops.

Co-ops were the only private enterprise, free market, business model to largely survive the great depression intact and solvent! Even as communism proved it couldn't function without a measure of slavery and central command and control dictatorships. And ginormous firms went under.

Extreme capitalism no better, as ordinary folk (exploited masses) were treated less generously than owned slaves.

Extreme capitalism cannot exist without the cooperation and compliance of the ruling class! And that ruling class cannot in truth have the genuine interests of their fellow citizens or the country at heart?

Because if they did, some of the entirely self serving or incomprehensible decisions wouldn't be possible?

Simply put, I don't blame our young people for losing all faith in the ruling class and the status quo!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 7 February 2018 11:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as I'm aware socialism hasn't killed anyone! But communism which rode on its coattails to power has, with Lien responsible for as many as a million deaths and Stalin responsible for as many as 25 million disappeared or dead folks.

As far as I'm aware no deaths can be directly attributed to Socialist Scandinavia. But a world leading happiness index, may well be!?

Even so, so incredibly ignorant folk, who ought to try talking from a little higher up, manage to equate unselfish and sharing Buddhism with of all things, communism!

Ditto Marxism. Which is more socialist and revolutionary. Revolutionary in the belief and knowledge this was the only way the great unwashed would be able to access both justice and equality/fair and equitable treatment before the law and in the workplace.

Do we need a revolution to see this longed for equitable treatment and social justice become our everyday reality? Along with affordable housing, affordable energy and an economy that works for us, not every foreigner with deep pockets?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 7 February 2018 11:35:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a nice way of saying our universities are becoming some of the most corrupt institutions in the first world. Mal subtly tells us that tens of thousands, without the ability for serious academic study, have been lured into university courses, of no value to society, or the student's future.

He does not actually say that this has led to tens of thousands feeling robbed by the education juggernaut, which promises everything, but gives almost nothing to the majority. Most courses qualify people for nothing more than a pencil pushers job in the bureaucracy, or burger flippers, rather than the expectations promoted.

So these disillusioned folk, finding they have not been equipped for, & were probably never capable of earning that peaches & cream existence the university promised, look for another way. Socialism, with the lure of spending other people's money, looks like their best prospect. With lefty academics, converting this to communism is easier than teaching anything useful.

One has to wonder if this was not the plan all along in expanding tertiary institutions, with the added advantage of infiltration many indoctrinated socialists/communists into the bureaucracy.

While it is true, socialism [is] not the answer students need, we can go a step further & find universities are not the answer most of them need either.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 7 February 2018 12:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan,

Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by a central government and Communism/Marxism is extreme socialism, so socialism has killed millions.

Socialism lite is where the government owns the supply of services and utilities and taxes business which is largely what we have in Sweden and to a lesser extent in Aus.

Secondly as a correction, the sale of electricity assets in Victoria initially led to a drop in the real price of electricity. The costs of electricity began to rise when the government started to regulate the crap out of it first with standards that forced distribution owners to gold plate their networks at consumers costs, then the requirement for networks to buy super priced renewable power, again at the consumers'cost.

Finally, "extreme" capitalism hasn't existed since slavery was abolished, and even then was still better than "extreme" socialism.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 7 February 2018 1:43:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Socialism is not the answer to anyone's needs, particularly students, where teachers' union Marxists are preaching 'safe' schools and gender-bending rather than things that would help with the economic prospects of the students.

If history was taught – honestly - the students could find out about the economic conditions produced in Stalinist Russia, where people starved in their thousands (if they weren't murdered by the regime first). Karl Marx said: “The first battlefield is the rewriting of history.... take away the heritage of people and they are easily destroyed”.

Current teachers and politicians are ignorant of the history of socialism and its abject failures. Therefore, there is little we can do to arrest the march to destruction. Maybe a Trump might come along?
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 7 February 2018 1:44:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The younger generations, and indeed many members of older generations, don't view the world through Cold War blinkers! It is truly ludicrous to pretend we have to choose between the entire package of capitalism and the entire package of socialism! 'Tis much better to pick and choose the features we like, regardless of where they come from.

Even half a century ago, Britain's socialists had largely abandoned the idea that central planning was an adequate substitute for markets. Socialism became more about the redistribution of wealth than about ownership of the means of production. And though widespread support for nationalisation remained, it was increasingly pragmatic. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who still thinks car manufacturers should be nationalized, for example.

As for Marx, he developed an innovative new approach to economics that should certainly be studied in universities. As should the way his overreliance on the labour theory of value frequently led him to the wrong conclusions.

And finally, the danger from communism is long gone. So I'm quite surprised that only twice as many young people regard big business as a danger than fear communism. I guess capitalists can take solace in that.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 9 February 2018 1:29:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

socialism
noun
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Considering that the greens and others are calling for the re nationalization of the energy sector, it looks like the threat of socialism is not quite dead.

As you say it is the millenials who have no experience of the complete economic cock ups of socialism that are drawn to its siren song.

As for state welfare, it is important to ensure a healthy and educated work force, but the moment it goes too far, you get tax evasion and high flyers emigrating.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 9 February 2018 12:09:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

I'm aware of the original definition of socialism. But I contend that definition is obsolete, as it's not what most people who self identify as socialists support.

And socialism is not a threat at all. There is no siren song. Where people advocate nationalisation, it's usually because of the market failures they've seen.

The threat of high flyers emigrating is vastly overblown. If some go, others will replace them. And tax evasion has nothing to do with state welfare going too far.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 9 February 2018 1:34:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What students need is direction....you can call it whatever you want and it'll mean nothing without a sense of purpose.
Everyone is preoccupied with labels....as if they are a replacement for direction.
There is no political label that has ever created a stable and secure social society.
The only cultures that have any sense of social stability are mono cultures with one of the pillars of these societies being 'respect'
Respect is the social reference all understand, and are aware of, even if they don't practice it...... and they practice it least in responsibility free societies...like Australia
Ahhh democracy....you can choose as you please, as long as no one objects to your freedom.
Posted by Special Delivery, Friday, 9 February 2018 2:04:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

I beg to disagree, I think that you would find very few of those identifying as socialist being comfortable with the sale of state assets.

Secondly, the high flyers are typically the most mobile, and countries with lower income tax rates attract high income earners and low company tax rates attract company investment, meaning that high taxing "socialist" states end up with slow economic and wage growth. A clear example is the UK which has gained about 25% in GDP relative to the more socialist France in the last 20 years.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 9 February 2018 2:30:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy