Tao,
Perhaps you've read this - I recently came accross it. Has this any parallel with a Marxist aim to rid the world of poverty, or are the expressed ideals a little too far out of this world? (The article is quite critical of our capitalistic based 'free' market economy)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5078

Gadget,

Yes, the truth is overwhelming at times. You attempt to dismiss what I have brought to your attention because it is “copy/paste”, however what I am doing is supporting my argument, a concept you apparently have trouble with. Are you suggesting that UNICEF, the UN, Oxfam and all the other studies upon which the articles are based have just made up their statistics? You say “they are all representative of the socialist world view” – yes, the analysis and interpretation is, but the statistics are not. Did you even read the articles? Do you dispute the facts contained in them? Perhaps you should read the actual reports themselves and tell me what you think – sources are in the articles.

“Mao-did-nothing-for-socialism-except-give-it-a-bad-name.” I agree, but Mao WAS NOT a Marxist, regardless of whether he called himself one or not. This is a distinction I don’t think you appreciate, possibly deliberately, but probably through ignorance.

“Does-socialism-realise-that-it-has-taken-6000-years-to-get-modernity”.-This question just reveals that you know absolutely nothing about Marxism. Marxists are historical materialists, which means they study history. Of course they know that it has taken 6000 years FROM WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN to get to modernity. In fact, they know it has taken tens, or hundreds, of thousands of years for humans to reach modernity. They know that humanity has progressed through various different forms of social, political and economic organisation which arise from the particular means of production of each epoch. This is why they believe that capitalism is merely another stage of human economic and productive development. The contradictions of capitalism are such that they must be resolved, by humanity raising itself to another level of development.

Relda, no I hadn’t read it, but have now. These people want to reform capitalism, plead for some crumbs, and ameliorate its worst symptoms. Marxists consider that capitalism can’t be reformed – anything achieved is just a band aid and fosters illusions that capitalism is fixable if only the rich would ‘help’. Aid and ‘programs’ don’t change the system that causes the problems in the first place.

So, Tao, you wish a revolution - perhaps similar to the American one (the Civil war). You've discounted the Russian one. What is the revolutionry formula - peaceful from 'within' or a violent overthrow from without?

Well i dunno tao

The only contradiction i see is between capitalist progress, and socialist usurpation of it (ie commy-capitalism).

To resolve this issue in the US, there is a new book out. A sort of instruction manual for the internationale, called Empire by Hardt. Try it tao.

PS: if it is a bit long, just do the first and last chapters.

I am going to do some copy and paste here soon, and prove once and for all that socialism is over, just like in China (well soon anyway, hehe).

Marxology is to be ovethrown by the dictatorship of the technocrats.

vive la pluralcy.
Marxology has had it.

Relda,

Yes, I wish a revolution. But wishing is not enough.

No, I don’t discount the Russian Revolution. For all of the subsequent problems (the lessons of which must be assimilated by the working class and learnt from), the Soviet Union was the first state in the world in which the working class took power (as opposed to the American and French revolutions in which the capitalist class took power).

The revolution is unlikely to be “peaceful”, whatever that means. Refer to my previous post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5010#58709. Capitalists are unlikely to give up power without a fight, and are hardly a peaceful bunch themselves (n.b. bourgeois revolutions were not peaceful). Indeed, part of the problem for the Soviet Union was the counter-revolutionary forces of the White Army backed by capitalist countries.

There is no exact “formula” for the revolution – the future is unknown – however Marxist theory, or dialectical materialism, is an analytical tool which can be used as a guide to practical revolutionary action. The essential thing at the moment however, is the education of the working class as to the nature of the capitalist system, and the building of a mass party which is independent of capitalists and capitalist parties. Marxists intervene consciously to do this (as opposed to radicals who adapt themselves opportunistically to the prevailing 'mood'), hence your apt quote “And it is upon these theoretical and political foundations that the Fourth International prepares consciously, and with unrepentant revolutionary optimism, for the future”

Gadget,

Are you blind?

Is it not a contradiction that 400 rich people in the US (0.00013% of the population) are worth 10% of that country’s GDP, while 21.9% of its children live in poverty?

In Australia “Translated into weekly earnings, an average CEO is paid $65,000 a week, or around $11,000 more than the annual wage of an average worker or nearly $40,000 more than the annual earnings of the 1.6 million basic wage workers who make up 20 percent of the Australian workforce. These workers struggle to make ends meet on just $25,188 a year, or $484 a week”. Bank profits are soaring while house repossessions, due to inability to make mortgage payments, are on the increase, and 123,000 people are homeless. Are these not contradictions?

Is it not a contradiction that billions of dollars are spent on waging war while people starve?

I refer you back to my earlier post addressed to you http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5010#58707 , and suggest that you still suffer from vulgar thought.