Economist, Nouriel Roubini, who accurately predicted the 2008 GFC and subsequently became known as "Dr. Doom", has told The Wall Street Journal that Karl Marx was right in his assertion that at some point capitalism can destroy itself.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/karl-marx-was-right-says-economist-nouriel-roubini/story-e6frg926-1226113566843

Overnight the IMF has warned of a looming double-dip recession, saying the present conditions in the U.S.and Europe could undermine "global expansion".

even a dead clock
is right twice a day

capitalism..is just another ism
all isms are about the elites getting theirs

capitalism needs consumer-ism
no consumer..no capital..no capita-list

currently the consumer is under attack
[i got an invite for a 'credit card'..the other day
ie an invite to spend...with the lure in big words..6 mths 5% intrest

in reading the fine print..it goes into a default rte of 25%
after 6 mths..[thats when capitalist-ism reveals its ugly head

thats when short termism
comes to the head

thats when the chickenc come home to roost

thats when the next card offer comes along
that offers you another 6 mths credit
for the next stage of 'capitalist'..bailout
and the next stage of consumer's debt

we consumers collectivly hold too much debt
at too high a rate of intrest

see that money get issued via the credit card
but the intrst...others need to pay..can only come by others defaulting

jesus was upset at the money changers
now wae are seeing egsactly why

the capitalst abuse of ursury
[at a time when us bankers can get it for 2%
then lend it for 25%...and still we have govts bail the bums out]

offering THEM..the low intrest
while we get shafted

when will govt offer YOU
low intrsst..or no intrst?

or lol the bankers
who have deflated the value..of coin*

bah
why bother

criminals run the money franchise/services

ITS TIME*...to make govt
seize back the instuments..of governance
if they arnt serving the people..they are only serving themselves

[and their colluding criminal mates]

he was wrong about so many things I suppose if you dig hard enough you will find something he said was true.

Whenever any system becomes extreme (that is serving the interests of the few over the majority) it is likely to implode.

Capitalism is no different to Socialism, Communism or any other system in this respect. It nearly always comes down to excesses of greed.

Poirot I am sure that capitalism, in it's current form, is on its way out. I do think that it is a more robust 'system' than socialism but to become a system that works for all of us and not just the few who can live up to the demand for us to constantly striving for wealth.

From my understanding of psychology, the current form of capitalism has passed the point where it made our lives better and now material progress is actually harming us. There is too much choice, too much freedom, too much competition and too little security and restraint and co-operation that many of us need.

In this very interesting article:

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/aer94.pdf

the authors suggest that economists make the incorect assumption that "rational behaviour is the state of nature, requiring no explanation."

I wonder if this assumption is based on the fact that the idea of the market and the invisible hand was developed by a very select group of men who perhaps were able to behave rationally back in C19?

The article provides some fascinating ideas about evolutionary psychology and how our brains work and suggests that we are 'better than rational'.

Runner, you are an economist are you?

So lets hear your explanation about how and why Nouriel Roubini is wrong.

Just trolling again are you?

The question arises as to what is destroying what?

In the end, the present global problems were caused by
politicians of the US and EU, who have failed in their
tasks.

A number of economists forecast years ago that longer term
the EU was bound to crash. Seems they were correct. In the
US we have a political stand off which is the problem, the
market is claiming that poltical solutions being proposed
are simply unsustainable.

Greece became a disaster by politicians borrowing forever
more to bankroll their porkbarreling. Don't blame capitalism
for the disasters that democracy is creating.

Our real problem is that democracy has yet to find a way to
find more intelligent politicians

Yabby it is the US Federal Reserve.Ron Paul is right.END THE FED!

We have not yet found some thing better, but we will/must.
It can not last but must not be replaced by past failures like Socialism.
I do not refute the truth, Australia is in part Socialist, under any current form of government, and would not change that.
The term so often used wealth creation is in my view an enemy of most of us.
America,s super rich, not wanting to contribute tax increases.
Ones that would bring them up to rates lower paid workers pay, is used to talk about this wealth creation, as if its a religion.
Our worlds richest Nations, America China India should, each of them, be looked at from the very poor who live on those country's streets eyes.
International trade/ money is the oil that drives humans,we should watch it never confines us as we come under a new ism to maintain the wealth of the few.

So Yabby what you think intelligence is? Do you have a definition?

Or do you judge or assess a person's intelligence by the degree to which they agree with your opinions?

...I remember (a long time ago) John Howard defining capitalism as anything making money in any way...Can,t see that system changing until all humans are reincarnated...

Mollydukes, I'll answer your question this way:

If you think that the smartest people in America are sitting in
the US Congress, or that Australia's smartest people are sitting
in our parliament, then you are free to do so.

If you think that George Bush was the smartest man in America at the
time and thus should have been president, you are again free to
think that. You can also believe that Tony Abbott is the smartest
man in Australia on the conservative side, so is ideal to lead
the next Govt.

On the other hand, you might disagree with these notions, in
which case you would have to concede that I have a point.

Well you know Yabby that doesn't answer my question but I have noticed that not many people on the forum do answer questions. It seems to me that you don't answer for the same reason as most politicians won't anwer a direct question with a direct answer. You are scared of being 'caught out' and 'proved' to be wrong.

Of course you have a point. I think your point was that our politicians are not up to the job. But I don't think that it is intelligence in politicans that is lacking. It is not just the politicians 'fault'.

Aren't 'we' to blame also, for the choices we make? The choice to have a second plasma when we could support something that would benefit our local community? The choice to eat that second lot of chips and burger and get fat and be a burden on the health system?

We don't really want the Government to control everything do we? And what about the bankers? Don't you think they have something to answer for? The problems are much more complex and more fundamental than that we have useless politicans.

After all, politicans are only human and it seems to me that overall our politicans - both labor and coalition, independents and the minor parties - have, over the past decades and despite many 'wrong' decisions, contributed to the pretty good situation that we are in now.

Dear Poirot,

You ask the question: "Karl Marx Was Right?"

The key to history, Karl Marx believed was
class conflict - the bitter struggle between those
who own the means of producing wealth and those who do
not. This contest, Marx claimed, would end only with
the overthrow of the ruling exploiters and the
establishment of a free, humane, classless society.
As we've seen from history -
this so called Utopian point of view
of a classless society failed miserably as
proven with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Even though Marx wrote about the conditions of his time,
he was right in one sense and that was his claim that
all except the most primitive societies are divided into
two classes - one which dominates and exploits others.

The domiant class always uses
social institutions to maintain its privileged
position. For this reason, institutions like the
state always serve to maintain the status quo, not to
change it.

The state itself is simply the "executive committee of
the ruling class," protecting their class interests
and of course allowing it to enjoy the surplus
wealth produced by the workers.

You have only to look at the US to see this in action.
The current tax system in the US is a problematic
system. Where the rich pay less
tax than anyone else - and are refusing to have this
changed as President Obama is trying to do. He's not wanting
to get the rich to pay "extra taxes," merely their fair
share in these tough economic times. There is great
resistance to his plan.

*Of course you have a point*

Well Mollydukes, that was my point.

*But I don't think that it is intelligence in politicans that is lacking. It is not just the politicians 'fault'. *

Well it was the people who elected them, so absolutaly, it is
the people who are at fault, for electing politicians who show
poor judgement. As they say, people get the politicians which
they deserve. Which brings me back to my point, don't blame
capitalism for flawed political judgements, as per my examples.

For all its faults, capitalism is the one way which has unlocked
humanity's potential for innovation and it is that innovation
which has changed our lives so dramatically.

People who show great judgement are actually quite difficult
to find and in my experience they are not the people who commonly
rush into politics

I agree partly with almost everyone who has contributed to this thread, even Runner. I was born into a Marxist-oriented family and did my stint as a Maoist, although I never went in for Trotsky, so I'm not all bad.

Lexi, you're right about class conflict, but that was hardly a novel observation of Marx's - Buddha, Wat Tyler, even Plato, made observations about conflict in society (like Plato, Marx's solution was also to institute a totalitarian Utopia, if that's not an oxymoron). And yes, capitalism is not the final answer. But the trouble is, neither was socialism: your point about the state being "the executive committee of the ruling class" is doubly true for states like the Soviet Union and China - and Pol Pot's Cambodia was probably the most horrific example of the perversion of this slogan. Executive indeed.

Yes, there has to be something better than either capitalism or socialism as they have been practised up until now. One huge mistake that even Marx made, IMHO, was to spurn the broad lessons of the Enlightenment and, rather than go beyond them, retreat from them.

The trick may be how to build on Enlightenment values, how to extend the lessons of the last few hundred years that equality, liberty, universality and diversity - always in tension - must be combined constructively, without lurching into dictatorship, on one pretext or another.

Cheers, Lexi, how's the weather over there ?

Joe Lane

Pelican:>>Capitalism is no different to Socialism, Communism or any other system in this respect. It nearly always comes down to excesses of greed.<<

Never factored into the equation yet as history has shown the ruler of the outcome every time.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Brilliantly put as always.

How's the weather here?
Warming up apparently - although I can't feel it at present.
I'm getting over a rotten virus, so I've been restricted
to indoors for the past few weeks. I've got a persisent
cough that won't go away. So I'm a bit of an insomniac.
Can't wait for the lazy, hazy, crazy, days of Summer.

Most of the countries of Western Europe have had periods of
both socialist and non socialist rule since World War II,
as their electorates have periodically switched allegiance
from one political party to another. I guess the reason for that
was probably due to the fact that while socialist societies
may distribute wealth more evenly than capitalist ones
(I'm talking about democratic socialism here), they are less
efficient at creating wealth in the first place.

The twentieth century has provided overwhelming evidence that socialist economies are more bureaucratized and less
productive than capitalist ones.

Ideally a blend of both capitalist and socialist elements
and their evolution toward a common ultimate form - could
possibly be the way to go.

John Passant has blogged in some depth on the present state of capitalism at this stage of its evolution - and on the pertinence of Roubini's comments.

http://enpassant.com.au/?p=11118

Poirot, I read Passy's blog and sometimes used to read his articles,
when he preached his philosophies on OLO.

The trouble with his analysis is this. As far as I am aware, under
Keynsian economics the idea is that Govts save in the good times and
then have financial power to spend, if there is a recession.

What has been happening in the last 10 years is that Govts in both
the USA and Europe, have been spending up big on borrowed money,
during the good times, so now the coffers are bare. The only
treasurer who paid off debts and got his house in order was in
fact Costello. Our present treasurer is benefitting from Costellos
achievements, so is the rest of Australia.

Yes, Corporations are sitting on 2 Trillion $. But if Greek
hospitals can't pay the bill for medicines, because Greek politicians
have failed miserably over the years, you can't go and blame
corporations when they stop delivering supplies, as is seemingly
happening now.

What failed is politicians, who clearly disregarded Keynsian
economics, apart from Costello.

Which once again shows that Govts in general cannot be trusted to
manage money. Under Passy's beloved socialism, they would be
managing all of it. Why should I go and support proven failures

im sick of hearing albert and costello paid off our debt
they sold the family silver..canceled death duties and gave us consumption tax..ie put the tax burden in the main upon the poor..

then we stood out from all the rest
who hold massive debts..because their people dont carry our tazx burdens

but as the saying goes a rising[or falling tide]
raises or sinks all ships...[one of the things i explained to the treasuror and pm rudd...that in the natural course...where currency gets deflated even more by quantitive and qualitive 'easing'..

our debt free status sets us up for the same fall as those who didnt loose their family silver..who arnt burdend with gst..or carbon tax

hence them now spending cash like its going out of style
[which it just might when the world goes into meltdown]

no one mentions that the 3 rd world has boomed
through all this first world boom and bust
mainly because of socialist type principles

ie [a unique thing i know]
but serving its people..not big business
ie by taking back the revenues direct,,not cutting royalties

Governments controlled the supply and price of money and money substitutes at all times before, during and after the GFC, and the Great Depression for that matter.

So much for Roubini's and Poirot's theory.

Poirot,

Just to go back to the original story, that 'at some point capitalism can destroy itself.' We wish, I guess. Of course it can. But maybe not. Capitalism is the product of vast resources on the one hand, and a multitude of tiny minds on the other all looking for the next main chance. Perhaps the next few years will be disastrous for many countries and their economies, perhaps most, maybe all, and certainly the Greeks'. But don't be surprised if capitalism, like some indestructible organism in the primeval ooze, mutates into something which climbs out of the mess and gets going again.

The problem for Marx, if he were alive today, is that I don't think he would have any better answers. He probably would have had his best shot in 1848, or during the 1871 Paris Commune, and they didn't go too well. The proletariat has pretty much vanished - at least in Australia - since the sixties, at least as a viably independent political force. Every 'socialist' state has disgraced itself, so what next ?

We can join with the Greens and revel in the inevitable destruction of the world as we know it, or try to plan for a better, constructive future, something better than capitalism, and one hell of a lot better than any of the bullsh!t versions of socialism. No, wait, they WERE genuine, inevitable versions but of a defective theory, and there has to be something better than that too. There's a hell of a lot of nutting-out to do, we can't just rely on 'timeless' credos.

Oops, sorry, 'credo' has more to do with religion, hasn't it ?

And there are no gods. It's just us.

Joe

You'll all have to excuse the fact that I'm not an economics expert and mostly I'm just trying to understand. It seems to me that capitalism is radically unstable and in a permanent state of unrest.

Has capitalism reached a tipping point...by which I mean, is it intrinsically unsuited to human psychology? If so, then it is not sustainable. Are the results of the unleashing of human potential in the last two hundred years more than merely "creative destruction"? Has it advanced humanity in more than a material way and/or is material advancement the sole indicator of success?

Here's an article European sovereign debt - worth a read to grasp the scale of the current problem.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/banks-banking-GFC-eurozone-Europe-IMF-Lagarde-Jose-pd20110906-LFB8B?OpenDocument&src=spb

I actually think that it would be a useful thing to go back and look at some of the knowledge and wisdom that humans had before any of the ism's were developed.

The enlightenment was a wonderful thing in giving us the idea of reason, science and the idea of human rights but it didn't really take into account the full reality of human nature. I think this was because the enlightenment was developed by a very select group of men who lived in a very specific type of society that formed their human nature in such a way that they really believed that people can and usually do behave 'rationally'.

I think we should look further back and look at the way other cultures or societies conceptualised human natue and that we might see a wider range of possibilities upon which to establish a decent society.

I think we 'reason' all the time and we do it well but we don't do 'rationality' all that well because the emotional areas of our brains are more influential than our cognitive ability and so our emotions are much more influential in most decisions we make.

I think it is important to understand that there are large differences between us with some of us better at emotional reasoning and this is a very useful way of thinking, and some are better at rational reasoning.

The idea of 'individual differences' is the big growth area in psychology and even medicine, with researchers recognising that the differences between people in such fundamental things as the way drugs are metabalised can be very big.

So for me the message is that none of our current 'isms' really recognises that we will not all react in the same way to the same things. I think that we need to accept that we aren't all motivated by the things that Marx thought we were motivated by and we aren't all motivated by the desire for wealth as the capitalists assume. We are more complex than economists assume we are.

Mollydukes

Well said.

To which I would add that those who place their perceived rights and freedoms above all others to remember there are consequences to all.

Thanks for the thread, Poirot. Just a few meditations from me.
I think Marx was right in almost everything, at least right in terms of the materialist paradigm we occupy and he substantially helped to create, theoretically. Materialist/idealist paradigm's are both ways of making sense of life (heuristically rationalising rather than solving the riddle), but they're incompatible with each other. Marx's materialism occupies the cusp the two paradigms share, making his philosophy poorly and mis-understood, and objectionable to proponents of both.
I'm persuaded not merely that capitalism "can" destroy itself, but that it's inevitable. Marx's predictions have proved uncannily accurate, the only error being that it has lasted longer than he predicted. Marx had nothing complex to say about utopias (long since a popular genre) and he didn't see a transition to socialism/communism as part of some inevitable material dialectic. He correctly (for mine) identified the means of production as the main dynamic (but not the only one. Fortune also plays a part) in human history and inferred his calculations from that. But these are social dynamics that however accurate, as they've proved to be, for plotting human progress, do little to elucidate the human condition at the level of the individual.
I think capitalism must collapse, as it must grow and cannot be confined, and the planet cannot support it. But it will probably just re-emerge and again evolve viciously from barbarism to government and regulation, the geopolitics being altered and so with variations.
It seems to me that until humanity takes stock of the conditions and physical limits it encounters, and learns to cut its cloth accordingly, it will just continue pointlessly from collapse to collapse.
Life is too short and current generations have grown complacent, having no lived-experience of world war or famine; we've coddled a childish optimism that all will be well, though human history is littered with examples to the contrary and we shall become another. Future generations shall emerge in a different world and have different experience of what's normal; hopefully they'll learn from previous mistakes.

Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking
Sustainability," tell us:

"All the fantastic inventions we have put to use have
delivered the middle-classes (wherever they live) a
lifestyle far beyond scarcity. A major tragedy is that
most of us do not recognize our success. Some of the
most eminent economists, psychologists, and philosophers
have made it clear what should be most obvious: we
don't become happier if life is led in search of the
next material object, in conspicious consumption.

What happens in the hypothetical world where we are all
"the Joneses" on top of the pile? Is that the end of
striving, of incentive, of the drive that is essentially
human?... Whatever the answer, the truth is that the
middle class has overcome scarcity - and should focus on
the best use of the real scarse resource. Time!

...The inconvenient truths of our economic system are the
fundamental flaws which need to be exposed.
The promise of sustainability lies in the balance. Do we fall
downwards over the precipice or take our boat out onto the
peaceful ocean? That a few have overcome scarcity means
little if the majority live in poverty...it will not be
sustainable with an expected world population of over
nine billion. We will overshoot - and probably seriously -
the globe's carrying capacity. We will then suffer for
ages, as will the natural world, until we can reduce the
human population and return our ecosystems to
sustainable health."

Does anybody think that the indigenous Australians did develop a totally sustainable society? It lasted pretty much unchanged for thousands of years and it wasn't because they couldn't change or develop more complex technologies; the archaeological evidence shows that they actually rejected advances in technology from their northern trading partners in Asia.

The more I learn about this culture, the more impresed I am by the way they managed to put limits on human desire and I think that the main problem with capitalism is that it makes no provision for the limitation of human desire.

I'd say that people of all political persuasions see that the level of materialism in western society is a problem. But it has only become a problem now that capitalism has brought us so much wealth.

Throughout most of our history as a human species, there was never too much and the desire for more and more stuff was functional. We haven't changed, we still want more and more, although reason should tell us that it is not good for us.

As my faviourite ex-politian said once and was ridiculed for it; "life wasn't meant to be easy".

But back to my hobby horse, the human brain and the way it works;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

The above link is to a study that shows how political bias prevents us thinking clearly and rationally. But bias of any kind, because it is emotional, will work in the same way to prevent us taking all the facts into account.

The collapse of the Soviet Union is usually blamed on mismanagement
and the financial drain of the US Star Wars program.
At the risk of boring you all, the soviet union collapsed because
their oil production peaked and the depletion crashed their economy.

There is an author Dimitry Orlov who was there.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23259

On the energy bulletin you can find his articles.
I just picked that one but there are several on the subject.
From what Dimitry says the Russians did not realise the cause and did
not import oil thinking they could sort it out internally.

The GFC was predicted as early as 1995 and with less accuracy as long
ago as 1956. Colin Campbell and others predicted in their books and
articles that oil production would peak in 2005 +- a couple of years
and that there would be a financial recession as a result of the peak
in oil prices.

Every recession except one has been preceded by a peak in oil prices.
The dot com recession was the exception.
I can't find the article that contains the graph but I do have the graph here.
Pity we cannot include graphs

Lexi, Squeers and Mollydukes,

Here's a link to an article by John Gray (I've just realised I have a book of his that I haven't read) - He posits that the ideal of "middle-class" in Marx's day was a lot different to how we see middle-class today. He says that "It is capitalism that has killed off the bourgeoisie."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14764357

just happens that greed, corruption and every other vice common to man is in his nature. Capitalism feeds the greed while those believeing in socialism are to self righteous to see they are often the biggest victims of these vices. Wherever man is their is imperfection. Just so happens that everyone wants to immigrate to countries formed on Christian based values. They want to leave socialist and other religous based nations in droves.

There is not one entity called capitalism. The word encompasses multitudes. As long as a society accumulates wealth or capital and uses that wealth for further production the society is capitalist. By that definition of capitalism socialism is merely a subset of capitalism where the state accumulates capital rarher than corporations, private individuals, cooperatives, partnerships or other forms of non-state ownership.

That is not what Marx meant by capitalism since he stated that the goal of socialism is to abolish private property and favoured state ownership of the means of production. As far as I am concerned that does not abolish capitalism. That keeps capitalism but puts the possession of capital in the hands of the state. In my opinion that is not a good place to put capital. I favour separation of religion and state along with separation of capital and state as much as possible.

It seems sensible to me that during economic downturns governments should redistribute wealth to alleviate suffering and provide for the future in supporting education and needed infrastructure. Taxes serve those ends.

I think the present problem is partially due to the fact that ideological cranks have seized the levers of power in the US and many other places. They are cutting taxes and non-military expenditures at a time when it is bad policy. In addition the cranks support spending vast sums in unwinnable wars which cause immense suffering.

This not the article I mentioned, but it is similar;

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-04-25/pick-one-spr-or-recession

David f.,

"...By that definition of capitalism socialism is merely a subset of capitalism where the state accumulates capital rather than corporations....."

I believe it was Fromm who suggested that Soviet communism had more in common with capitalistic practice than it did with the crux of Marx's theories.

Dear Davif F.,

I agree with what you've said. Especially the part about
cutting taxes. The "cranks" are indeed part of the vicious
circle of cutting taxes, for the rich. That's outrageous at this
point in time in their economy. President Obama is trying to pass
legislation to at least get them to pay their fair share. And
of course these "cranks" call it "divisive" and class warfare. Typical! As for needless wars - and the huge costs involved.
You won't convince the Republicans (Dick Cheney et al) to make
any changes in that area. Huge problem.

Mollydukes,

Ah ! the luxuries and comforts of the middle-class ! Do you have the slightest idea of what it might have been like living in the open, bitter cold on winter nights, blisteringly hot on summer days ? Of having to endlessly search for food, and having to smother your new-borns when there was no prospect of food ? Of violent and constant warfare between neighbouring groups, always the threat of somebody in the night snatching you away from your camp (women) or murdering you as you slept (men) ? Of having no idea about how the world worked except what the elders told you of their conjectures, and what they had been told by their elders, and so on ?

What on earth is the value of an 'unchanging' culture ? An unchanging culture is one in which people cannot learn, or which does not have the means, or will, to learn from other people - in Marxist terms, a reactionary culture.

But by all means, if you really and genuinely want to live in some sort of traditional way, feel free - pack up and move out into the bush, leave it all behind and give it a try. I'm sure that you will learn a great deal about reality. Just say goodbye to your plasma TV :)

Your comments about the Enlightenment were interesting - yes, the writers two and three hundred years ago were groping towards something, and they could only see a sort of fuzzy 'big picture' - universal rights and equality for all regardless of gender or race or religion, separation of church and state, the rights of the individual and the fostering of civil societies - but how easy it would be, as you demonstrate, to turn back on all that and searching for some mythical Golden Age back in some distant past, or in some other place. Like central Australia - did you have that in mind ?

[TBC]

[contd.]

Squeers,

Yes, capitalism can be evil and heartless, and should be reformed or replaced with something better. But slagging is one thing, coming up with better solutions is something else. And that's our obligation, to fall back on neither a dream of Utopia nor think we have done anything by carping and criticising about the present. What do we put in its place - without retreating into myth or repudiating what has been painfully achieved over the last few hundred years ?

The future has to be built on the present, on reality, not wishful thinking, or empty criticism. As someone wrote once, the task is not just to describe or criticise reality, terrible as it may be, but to change it.

Joe

Dear Poirot,

The Communist Manifesto recommends:

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The manifesto prescribed state ownership of means of production and state control of expression and transportation. Marx recommended a totalitarian state, and Lenin and the other Marxist dictators carried out the recommendation.

The Soviet Union was a Marxist state.

Many Marxists promulgate myths. Two of the myths are:

1. The states called Marxist weren't really Marxist. That is addressed above.

2. Stalin hijacked a Leninist revolution. Censorship, the gulag system, the dictatorship and the secret police were all products of the tyrant Lenin not Stalin.

Loudmouth,
In your short post you've used the terms "evil and heartless", "dream", "Utopia" (which I only repudiated), "carping", "retreating into myth", "wishful thinking" and "empty criticism", implicitly accusing me of "slagging" via this colourful mode when I've done nothing of the kind! Would you mind pointing out where I've indulged any of these?
It was Marx who said that the point of philosophy was not to understand the world but to change, hence the concept of praxis. Since then Marxists have sought to do just that and have signally failed. I do not believe capitalism can be meaningfully reformed, and I'm equally persuaded it can't, or at least won't, be stopped except by its own destructive means and in its own time.
You can prattle on about change all you like and it will get you nowhere; the current system merely patronises such voices, once they are loud enough, making token gestures towards token reforms. It's called "co-option". The world is manifestly not going to change willingly and nothing you or I do will change it. There is no will for change (in the West), the hegemonic centre holds, and in that case I consider my uncompromising condemnations of capitalism in the face of it, if they get anyone to think about it, far more useful, since consciousness has to change, than talk of revolution by tiny minorities, or the reform-minded chatter of wowsers.
Even Marx refused to be drawn into speculating about utopia; the overthrow of the bourgeoisie was the first consideration, and that would (will) only happen when the time is ripe. There was thus a strong element of wishful-thinking, rather than optimism, to Marx's thought, and in his hopes for the socialist movements of his day.
Like I said, I agree with him.

Squeers,

Well, I didn't say it would be easy :)

What is wrong with you people?

Why do you want to bite the teat that feeds you?

Truth be known, most of you could not survive for more than a week out of sight of a supermarket.

Socialist supermarkets have a habit of having empty shelves. For god sake, have a look at what you have. If you don't want 3 plasmas, don't buy them, no one forces you to, but stop bitching about the poor silly buggers who do want 3 of the things, its their fool spending that keeps the bread on your table.

It is also their spending that keeps available, something to put on that bread, something often not available in socialists economies.

In 8 years out in the Pacific, I met thousands of folk from capitalist societies, who had dropped out, to sail around the world. That was fine, & the system let them do their own thing.

I never met anyone from a communist/socialist society. Perhaps the drop out type, in those places, can't afford a yacht, & perhaps those who could afford one, aren't allowed to drop out.

I also saw many islanders, in their socialist economies, dying of a tooth abscess, or similar. Lack of capitalists industry meant there was no contact or communication, & no antibiotics either.

I sure as hell know which one I want to be part of, even if I don't want a bl00dy plasma.

http://www.angusrobertson.com.au/book/the-quest-energy-security-and-the-remaking-of-the-modern-world/24602190/

Bazz, before you slit your throat worrying about us running out of
energy next week, perhaps you should read this new, 800 page, detailed
analysis of the whole energy market as it stands. The book was
released a couple of days ago, so its up to date. The author,
Daniel Yergin, is a Pulitzer Prize winner. Both the Economist
and Bloomberg take it seriously, so it should be a credible source
of information.

I downloaded the Kindle version a couple of days ago for 19$,
but a hard copy is available in Australia for about 60$.

By what I have read so far, its enlightening information and the
sort of stuff that is worth knowing, for those who think about the
future.

I have enjoyed the thread.
Just wandered again from first post to last.
Noted hasbeens apparent rage,the idea Aboriginal Australians may have been Socialists/Communists, still chuckling !
But unconvinced returning to stone age living is the answer.
I suspect if I am not the only once truly poor and under privileged follower of the ism dream I would be close to it here.
FAILURES! every one of them failed ,other failures include tribal Chiefdoms- leading to equally primitive Kingships.
Egyptian God Kings too failed ,all attempts to unite humans under power structures that held them together and gave power to others.
Capitalism, unlike those other isms rewarded individuals for effort.
It said get up have a go and you just may make it.
Too many did not.
Too many do by climbing over the rights of others.
Too many is our problem, we are too many and for that reason our problems are too many.
Capitalism is driven by sell interest, but squatting in the hills chanting will change nothing.
A future generation will understand we have too many voices to many opinions and no directions, then we may find a system that includes not yet.

Loudmouth I've noticed in other posts that, although you think you know lots about indigenous people and their traditional society, I'm pretty sure your knowledge is sparce and inaccurate. And as Squeers has pointed out your use of emotive language means you are not trying to make a rational point.

Traditional indigenous societies were not communist you know. It was the idea of reciprocity - that everyone was responsible for everyone else - that underpinned the stability and functionality of their societies. And they had developed a very strict and complex set of rules or laws that governed everyone's behaviour, from when they were born until they died.

There wasn't much freedom; you couldn't decide not to be initiated or have your front tooth pulled out and there certainly was a lot of physical hardship and now that we are used to something softer, we could not cope with the conditions. It's interesting though that the legendary Spartans choose a level of hardship that was similarly harsh; rejecting the comforts that the Athenians chose. Amazing how different human societies can and have been.

But the indigenous people thrived before we came, they weren't just here doing nothing. They created an amazingly rich and complex spiritual and artistic life and their emphasis on security and reciprocity, provided each person with a high level of psychological health.

They did not have wars; they had ritualised conflicts that dealt with problems between different societies and usually didn't result in any deaths. Personal conflicts were equally carefully managed through rituals that ensured that both victim and perpertrator left feeling ok.

The capitalist system with it's emphasis on freedom and individualism, is the opposite and although it certainly has provided us with a lot of really good material stuff, it's given us nothing to believe in and makes it very difficult for some of us to find happiness; and the psychological and physical problems in all capitalist societies are growing.

So I'm suggesting that perhaps there might be something that they did, that we could use.

It is a mistake to generalise about tribal societies as they vary greatly. Morgan, a nineteenth century anthropologist, studied the Iroquois and found that some of them were communist sharing most goods in common. Marx picked that up and extropolated it to assume all tribal societies were communist. He created a narrative where humans progressed from primitive communism in an economy of scarcity through a period of class struggle to advanced communism in an economy of plenty.

However, all tribal societies are not the same. The Kwakiutl of British Columbia may be one of the most acquisitive and status conscious societies on earth.

Yabby, well yes Yergin made his reputation on his first book
"The Prize" and his position at IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
However his problem is he has made a number of way out projections on
both supply and price that were a long way out.
He has only slightly modified those projections despite the evidence.
Except for price of course, oil is now nowhere near $38 a barrel.
Anyway Prof Alklett can explain better than I can.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-09-21/there-will-be-peak-oil

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-09-21/more-thoughts-peak-oil

On the engergy bulletin towards the bottom there are a number of articles.I will read the link you gave.

Mollydukes,

I have a book titled "The Gift" by Lewis Hyde. In it he tells of the cycle of gift giving in primitive societies which helped to create a sense of wholeness and connection among various tribes.

He writes:
"....a circulation of gifts nourishes those parts of our spirit that are not entirely personal, parts that derive from nature, the group, the race, or the gods. Furthermore, although those wider spirits are part of us, they are not "ours"; they are endowments bestowed upon us. To feed them by giving away the increase they have brought us is to accept that our participation in them brings with it an obligation to preserve their vitality. When, on the other hand, we reverse the direction of the increase - when we profit on exchange or convert "one man's gift to another man's capital" - we nourish that part of our being (or our group) which is distinct and separate from others. Negative reciprocity strengthens the spirits - constructive or destructive - of individualism and clannishness.
In the present century the opposition between negative and positive reciprocity has taken the form between "capitalist" and "communist", "individual" and "socialist"; but the conflict is much older than that, because it is an essential polarity between the part and the whole, the one and the many. Every age must find a balance between the two..."

Hi Mollydukes,

Thanks for the serve. My wife was Aboriginal, we lived and worked at a couple of communities, hers and another one here in SA. I've worked in Aboriginal organisations, mainly with Aboriginal university students. Maria and I worked on the first flags forty years ago and sent many of them around the country, indeed around the world. Maria used to give one to visiting artists such as Buffy sainte-Marie and Roberta Flack, BB King and The Drifters. We both taught Ab Studies from the early eighties. And as far as I can tell, I'm still the only fool who is keeping up with Indigenous tertiary education stats.

Yes you're right, traditional Aboriginal society wasn't in any way communist, and really it wasn't all that reciprocal, more like some had obligations to other older relations, and nobody had any obligations to anybody who wasn't a relation, and usually a close relation at that.

As for warfare, amongst the Ngarrindjeri for example, a loose grouping of eight or nine dialect groups, and more than a hundred clans, hostility between some dialect groups, even between related clans, was the norm. And it was often fatal: the missionary George Taplin reported the gathering of many warriors from one dialect group, in alliance with another, to get stuck into another dialect group, and consequently had to patch up one guy with a spear through his eye, another with a spear through his knee. His main informant proudly showed him the scars of multiple near-fatal wounds. Taplin's Journals, 600 pages, are available from me if you want to read them: rmg1859@yahoo.com.au

In his book 'Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State', Engels somewhat overstated the communal nature of traditional society: it was more hierarchical, with obligations owed up the hierarchy in exchange for 'knowledge' passed down by the elders. 'Knowledge' was jealously-guarded private property - the modern knowledge of freely available knowledge would be anathema in such an inegalitarian society.

Mollydukes,

Sorry, that should have read: 'the modern situation of freely available knowledge would be anathema in such an inegalitarian society.'

With respect, you do exemplify the choices that we have to make: to retreat to some Golden Age either deep in the past, or a long way away, or preferably both - or to struggle to fashion a better society, to build on what good has already been achieved, to broaden the protection of human rights - individual rights - and to enhance human happiness. Neither capitalism nor socialism has managed this, yet whatever came before was certainly no better.

I'm intrigued by your admiration for a society [such as Sparta] where one does not have to think for oneself, societies with ' ... a very strict and complex set of rules or laws that governed everyone's behaviour, from when they were born until they died.' Be careful, my dear, that way lies totalitarianism. There's no going back to such ghastly and stagnant social arrangements, thank Christ.

Joe

Dear Poirot,

This may be of interest to you, and others:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/09/22/tax-the-rich

Yes Lexi, it is interesting to see the difficulties that the US govt
has in getting anything done.
I believe their problems are tied up in their fixed four year terms
of office.
Obana cannot say to the republicans, either approve the tax and
medicare legislation or we will go an election.
It is a bit of a madhouse at present where they don't seem to be able
to get a reasonable medicare system for all in operation.
The republicans seem to think anyone who cannot pay for medical
treatment should not have any.
Also when people have been unemployed for a certain period the dole
just stops and they have no income.
I think some of their politicians are simply out of touch with reality.

Belly, do you ever read anything, & perhaps try to understand what you thought you read, before you shoot your mouth off?

I don't recall saying anything about Aboriginals.

In Melanesian Islander society, the so called "one talk" society, the only thing anyone owns is what they carry on them. Everything else belongs to the people of the village.

Even what you carry is not totally yours if a one talk wants/needs it, you must give it. I doubt you can get more socialist than that.

Has anyone noticed that the Chinese economy has only prospered now, after they adopted a completely capitalist economy. They have more billionaires than anywhere else on earth. It's only the communist political system that remains, & that only really in name.

Poirot,
thanks for the link; it's great to see the melt of the ideological Cold War seems to be matching the retreat of the glaciers. Marx was without doubt one of the greatest and most inspirational personages in history. I've used the word "perspective" lately in other threads, and what made Marx unique was his bifocal view of the world. On the one hand his "materialism" incongruously utilised Hegelian idealism (rendering his discussion of the commodity in "Capital" all but incomprehensible to modern materialists and economists) to fathom social dynamics, but on the other hand he was empathically committed to the working-class perspective of his day, to the victims of industrial capitalism. This is what's missing from the modern western perspective today; it's incapable of empathy, of seeing with another's eyes and feeling another's pain, that of the victims and dupes of capitalism.
I have a new book on my desk now called "Debating Varieties of Capitalism". I'm very familiar with the arguments of the genre and they don't stack up. The two main features of all varieties of capitalism, which define it so far as I'm concerned, are 1) the profit motive, which knows no moderation and rationalises every ethical or common sense constraint in favour of rapaciousness and profligacy; and 2) the unfettered accumulation of capital in the hands of private individuals and interests; the stimulus for every variety of corruption and megalomania known to Man. Take away either of these and it would not be capitalism. And yet the profit motive must be diminished for the sake of the planet (which requires moderation), and the accumulation of wealth must be capped so as to simultaneously compromise ambition and the concentrations of power and corruption that entail.
Those other putative versions of capitalism are nothing more than variations on a theme; the price of doing business, grudgingly paid by capitalists during the good times but unsustainable in the long term. Keynesianism is arguably the single biggest reason the system has survived as long as it has--Marx didn't foresee it. It's no longer affordable and class tensions will return.

Dear Bazz,

I'm glad that your read the link about the US.
It made me realize just how lucky we are in this
country with our health system , Medicare, our social
security benefits, not to forget our Superannuation
Schemes (enforced savings), and so on.
Our system is not perfect by any means but it sure
is better than anything that's currently on offer
in the US.

Dear Hasbeen,

China is now irrevocably embarked on the path to
industrialisation and modernization. Yet China has
a long way to go; for example, in rural areas where
electricity is available, peasant families, even
now, are often permitted only one 25-watt bulb
a year to light their homes. China is still
determinedly socialist and authoritarian. It will
be interesting to see how far the country will stray
from the socialist path and whether economic
liberalization will in turn lead to political
democratization.

Given China's size and potential, its economic future
will be of world-historical significance.

Lexi,

Good points about China.

Hasbeen,

Notwithstanding that many Chinese people are now more affluent than previously was the case, "poverty" in China is measured somewhat differently than in the West. China's "poverty line" is set at 1300 yuan a year income equivalent to around one dollar a day in other countries. 70 million people exist below that poverty line, mainly in rural areas. Added to that, an estimated 45 percent of Chinese exist on the equivalent of two dollars a day.
Severe pollution of air and environment are all attributable to the rise in industrialisation, and certainly ongoing growth at the present rate is not sustainable.

Regarding your pertinent point about medical advancements now being utilised in the islands such as antibiotics. True - but don't ignore the health ramifications of industrial society. Those islanders probably weren't the victims of too much road trauma. Nor were they likely to suffer Western afflictions such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

Squeers and Poirot,

I was watching a bulldozer tear down an old house the other day and do you know what ? It wasn't building anything. Just because you or I can condemn capitalism (and 'socialism' too, in my case) doesn't put one brick upon another, it doesn't contribute one bit to what needs to be put in their place.

It's fun (and not difficult) to find fault with capitalism or whatever, but the trick is to try to knuckle out what might do better. Revolutions which simply tear down, with little thought of an alternative plan, or one very vaguely thought-out, can do far more damage - surely we have enough experience now of that. And how could, say, Lenin predict what a future Soviet world look like when in the period 1918-1921 they couldn't even plan a couple of months ahead ?

Let's face it, what Marx proposed, as an antidote to those other hopelessly woolly-headed Utopias of Saint-Simon or Proudhon, was HIS Utopia which, given the withering-away of the working-class, was just as woolly-headed and probably far more disastrous.

Withering-away of the working-class ? I chucked in a teaching job back in the sixties to get a working-class job in factories and found that, even then, Australian-born workers, certainly young ones, were very much in the minority. In some factories, I was the only Skip apart from the foreman. And when I think about those jobs, I realise that they all - ALL - would have been either computerised or made redundant, some thirty years ago.

When I was running career workshops for Aboriginal kids in the nineties, I tried to make that clear, that unskilled jobs were not going to exist, so either get into trades or go to uni and then on to professional employment. Which most were happy to do, especially the girls: the boys often thought they might be football champions for life.

So how might we contribute to making life better for kids like that ?

Cheers,

Joe

And on the subject of the withering-away of the working class, there is a very interesting thread starting today:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12645

Poirot, I'm not sure of the exact exchange rate at the moment, but 1300 yuan might be roughly $ 200 Australian, so the poverty line in China is around fifty cents a day. So fifty per cent of the Chinese population are living on a dollar or less per day. After sixty years of socialism.

Sometimes I wonder how Russia and China would have developed if they hadn't had socialism, where they would be now, which reminds us of the Russian definition of socialism, as the longest and most painful way to make the transition from capitalism to capitalism. I was married to that ideology for sixty years :( More fool me.

Joe

Hasbeen! first thought was to launch into you.
Understanding however is called for.
My Friend! cranky unfocused often unthinking mate!
As a fellow day Lillie grower you just have to be ok , in some way.
It Sir is you who should read, first my post I charged you in,with rage!
My regards and thanks,,, for confirming that is often your mind set.
My remark was addressed to the person who said it.
And I saw a rude reply to loudmouth uncalled for.
But not reaching Joe's level of support and understanding, I do have relatives who are Aboriginals.
A history of helping them, still.
A deep doubts even they,ever, would want other than a life not unlike ours.
Can any one, other than dreamers, see many of us wanting to go back to any less comfortable life.
Who will be the first in to a tent and without every thing power brings who wants bush tucker tomorrow instead of eggs and?

Loudmouth,

Re: China's poverty line:
http://www.chinese-embassy.org.za/eng/zgxw/t511211.htm

Squeers
“I think Marx was right in almost everything, at least right in terms of the materialist paradigm” … “[Marx] didn't see a transition to socialism/communism as part of some inevitable material dialectic.”

I think you are showing that you don’t understand Marx’s theory.

Marx’s whole theory was that, by an inevitable material dialectic [ie *material* conditions would cause one economic system to supersede the one before] capitalism was supposedly destined to give way to communism – abolition of private property and withering away of the state and all that.

His entire reason for calling it “scientific” socialism was constituted by his claim that he had discovered supposed inexorable “laws of history”. (He admired Darwin and wanted to construct a similar type grand progression beloved of Victorian-era types.)

That is the reason why Marx never went into the details of how production would be organized after the revolution in control over the means of production – because the change was *inevitable*. Anyone who questioned it was merely being “unscientific”. There was no point in discussing it, since because it was inevitable, there was no need for anyone to consciously do anything about it in order to make it happen and besides, since by the fact that communism came after capitalism, it was automatically a better system.

So Marx contradicted himself when he later wrote that the point of philosophy was not to understand the world but to change it, because his economic theory was that the change comes about by dialectical materialism – in other words, the “material forces of production”, bring about the conditions of their own antithesis. (The handmill produced the feudal age, the steam mill the capitalist age, and all that.)

So to believe Marx’ theory is right, you have to believe that your ideology is given by your economic class, and your economic class is given by your relation to the material forces of production. It’s materialist in the sense that material forces *cause* the superstructure, which includes ideology. In other words, the *tools you work with* *cause* your conscious thoughts which comprise only class ideology.

That’s right, his theory really is that daft. Proletarian “material forces of production” (tools) determine proletarian economic class, which determines proletarian ideology; bourgeois class m.f.o.p. determine bourgeois ideology, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Marx was the ultimate determinist.

So it doesn’t explain
a) how Marx or Engels, both bourgeoises, could possibly have proletarian ideology
b) how physics or chemistry could be right or wrong according to what class ideology produced it
c) how factually incorrect ideology was ever more useful to anyone – for example the bourgeoisie - than factually correct ideology
d) how you can possibly think this load of garbled nonsense is right.

You don’t even understand Marx’s theory, and here you are prattling on about how his predictions were correct. None of his predictions were correct. He predicted that his supposed “iron law of wages” would result in the proletarian class getting bigger and bigger, and poorer and poorer. The opposite happened. Living standards of the workers rose to the highest levels in the history of the world!

He predicted that the proletarian revolution would start in the most industrially advanced western countries. The opposite happened.

He predicted that communism would replace capitalism *internationally* without anyone having to consciously do anything. He predicted that communism would be more physically productive than capitalism. He predicted that the state would wither away. He predicted that under communism, the workers would lose the distinction between leisure and work.

How could he have been more wrong?

And now we are in the midst of economic crises and social chaos caused by *governments’* deliberate manipulation of the money supply and price – the nerve centre of a capitalist economy – motivated by Keynesian theory resting on Marxist premises – the opposite of a free market - and all the empty-heads rush out saying it proves Marx right!

It is obvious that you and Poirot don’t understand the first thing either about the economics or social theory that you criticize, nor the nutty Marxist theories that are the only basis of the slogans you substitute for reasoned argument

Well thank you Loudmouth/Joe I can see that you do have a real life and an educational basis for you views.

My interest came from my father who ran away to the bush back in the '40's to be a drover. He developed a real respect for the indigenous,and their philosophy. He also was able to socialise with the 'squatters', because he was educated and knew which fork to use, and from their stories he was convinced that 'extermination raids' on the indigenous were pretty common.

I think that an awful lot of the complexity and beauty of traditional practice was lost fairly quickly after whites arrived. It was a very delicate system. Of course I do have my rose coloured glasses on. (I like to think of myself, some days, as Pollyanna with attitude). But I think it's difficult to sort out from behaviour last century, what is traditional and what is an impoverished dysfunctional remnant.

I don't want to go back to living like that at all but I do think that it is significant that their culture was so stable and that therefore there could be something about the philosophy that governed their society, that might be relevant for us.

I used the word legendary with reference to Sparta in an ironic sense. The point being that human societies have been so very different and hence human nature is not easy to define or understand. You know it's not all guns, germs and steel as Jared Diamond suggests.

And maybe Belly is right when he says they have all failed but they all might have something to offer us as we all try to improve on what we have, which really is not that bad.

It's been a great thread. Thanks Poirot, and also every one else.

Peter Hume said;
The opposite happened. Living standards of the workers rose to the
highest levels in the history of the world!

Could that have happened if oil had not been produced in quantity from
the end of the 19th century ?

Peter,

So your excuse for the fundamental instability, recurrent crises and social chaos engendered by capitalism is that it's not really capitalism at all - but something that might be termed "Marxist-Keynesianism"...interesting.....

Peter,
I said above that Marx was poorly and misunderstood, and you've illustrated the point form me, thanks.

Marx nowhere uses the phrase "dialectical materialism", nor "economic determinism" and to the extent that his thought has been distorted, by "Marxists", into some form of scientism or naturalism, Engels and others were to blame. Marx famously said he was not a Marxist, and was above the admittedly dogmatic intellectualisations of his thought that have ensued. But I've debated these issues with you and others before and don't propose to do so again. I will only assure anyone interested that what you've said in your posts, Peter, is wrong from beginning to end. Anyone who cares to do a little open-minded research and reading on "Marx's" "historical materialism" (lots of good stuff available on line), can easily appraise herself of the truth.

In the meantime, Poirot and others, I've just come across this article by a favourite author of mine:
http://chronicle.com/article/In-Praise-of-Marx/127027.
I haven't checked but trust it hasn't been already put up here.

I do hope Davidf, particularly, will read the article I've provided the link to.

It beggars belief that in the 21st century people stil get sucked in by Marxism.
Marx is inextricably tied to suffering in exactly the same way as Hitler, is it socially acceptable to say "Well Hitler had some inspiring ideas but I don't agree with what went on in the camps"?
No way, so why is it acceptable to praise Marx, the inspiration for the most brutal, genocidal ideologies ever devised?
Marxism=Mass Graves, 100 million dead and counting, Commies aren't cool.
The backbone of Marxist Socialism has always been slavery, the Gulags were the spine of the Soviet economy, no more needs to be said about how evil Marxism really is:
http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/ton/MRJ_20091022.mp3

Bazz

I don't know. It's a counter-factual historical contingency isn't it?

People use what they can, and will prefer something that costs them less (ie gives more output per units of input) over something that costs them more.

The rise in living standards was based on the use of oil. But that doesn't mean that, in the absence of oil but in the presence of modern capitalist relations of production, living standards would not have risen to higher than those of former ages.

JOM,

As Squeers has pointed out, Marx was not a "Marxist".

Dear Squeers,

I read the article. In it, "The truth is that Marx was no more responsible for the monstrous oppression of the communist world than Jesus was responsible for the Inquisition."

Jesus and Marx were both responsible for the misdeeds of their followers.

Bishop Spong has cited some of Jesus' statements:

http://johnshelbyspong.com/sample-essays/the-terrible-texts/

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:
“No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)
This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

ANTI-SEMITISM:
And the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matt. 27:25)
No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible “Word of God” in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.

As I pointed out in a previous post:

The Communist Manifesto recommends:

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The manifesto prescribed totalitarianism - state ownership of means of production and state control of expression and transportation.

Jesus prescribed bigotry, Marx prescribed tyranny. Their followers filled the prescription. Original sin is moving from primitive communism by the advent of private property. The class struggle is a struggle between good and evil. The millennium is the eventual classless society. Marxist nonsense isn't too different from Christian nonsense. Examine their words!

Dear Squeers,

I have read Marx's "On the Jewish Question." It was the work of a hate-filled bigot, and you simply cannot erase those words. He wrote the words and never apologised for thdm. He remains scum.

David f,

Thanks for itemising the recommendations in the Communist Manifesto.....but where is the passage where Marx recommends the setting up of gulags and the forced labour and murder of millions....did you leave that one out?

And as you often indulge in your own ridicule of Christianity and other religions, it should be clear to you that humans are adept at manipulating and critiquing ideologies to suit their own agenda - hate-filled bigotry is unfortunately part of the human condition.

Poirot

The fact that Marx failed to think through the necessary logical consequences of his theory is no excuse.

As I have shown, the reason he didn't correctly predict the totalitarian chaos that followed from attempts to implement socialism - as Mises did *before* they happened: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
is because Marx didn't *think through* the consequences of abolishing calculation in terms of profit and loss.

The reason is, as I have shown above, because Marx simply assumed that socialism would follow capitalism by an inexorable law of history, the only evidence or reason for which was his own inner voice. But not only is socialism not inevitable, it's not even *POSSIBLE*. That's the bit you keep on not getting, instead circularly preferring demonstrable falsehoods.

Since communism and socialism both have as their fundamental desideratum the socialisation of the means of production, and since according to Marx the definitive means of production is labour, then it follows that communism and socialism must entail the ownership and control by the state of all labour, if capitalism is to be abolished.

But the utility of labour is *not* to be calculated in terms of profit and loss - that's the whole point of the exercise. Since the ultimate decision is to be exercised by the state, then there is no alternative than the total power, centralised decision-making, planned chaos, abrogation of human freedom, and abuses that happened. If the state decided that disposing of its human resources in a certain way is optimal, what objection could anyone have on the ground of human freedom that was not automatically ruled out by Marx's theory that any such objection could proceed only from vicious bourgeois "ideology" - exactly the objection that you throw in my face every time you defend the bullying of central planning from my arguments in favour of liberty - except you say "neo-liberalism" instead of "bourgeois"?

Any system that depends on the whim of the overall decision-maker to get it right, is not a good system.

Marx was a Marxist, and fully as arrogant, clueless and anti-social as all socialists.

But Poirot, that's precisely the point about the dangers of trying to construct - even if by another name - a Utopia: you can't control or predict human behaviour from one day to the next, so how can you prescribe the withering-away of the state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the voluntary sharing of all possessions, and so on, generations in the future ? Should John Lennon's adolescent, and brainless, 'Imagine' have been our anthem: no religion, no countries, no possessions - then, what ?

Yes, Marx and Engels repeatedly criticised 'Utopian Socialism', but in Engels' 1877 pamphlet on the subject, purporting to shine a light on both, 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific', there is extremely little said about 'Scientific Socialism' - the great bulk of the pamphlet is devoted to castigating Utopian socialisms of various sorts.

But you don't actually achieve, as it were, the construction of, and justification for, an ideological position by demolishing its rivals (where have we seen this method of 'argument' before ?): you have to put a case for your preferred ideology forward and defend it. After all, Marx and Engels, not to mention Lenin and Mao and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, all expected the 'people', en masse, to devote their lives, literally, to this ideology, so it really should have been able to justify that devotion and sacrifice. And one can rubbish the ideologies of one's enemies all one likes, it may not prove one's own ideology is in any way more authentic or efficaceous, not by one iota.

[TBC]

[contd.]

So what do we do now ?

Marx has been dead nearly 130 years, and capitalism has been through many phases since he died. The traditional working-class has been replaced to a large extent by contractors and service workers.

And most damning of all of course, has been the atrocious history of socialist revolutions. One has to ask, can 'dictatorship' ever carry the day ? Does dictatorship of the proletariat, of the workers and peasants, always degenerate into a dictatorship of the PARTY of the workers and peasants, and from there to a dictatorship of the 'executive committee', and thence to a dictatorship of the Beloved Leader ? Is that any better than a system run by the Mafia ? Or any other patronage, or patrimonial, system ?

And must millions be exterminated for being historically class enemies ? For what ?

Seriously, how different is that from the worst forms of fascism ?

No, there must be something better, better than capitalism, socialism and fascism. Are we up to the task ?

Joe

Dear Poirot, I do not ricicule Christianity or other religions. They have been a rallying point, a binding force and have given hope to people. However, religion is a mixed bag. It also can incorporate bigotry. Since the words attributed to Jesus can inspire bigotry it was wrong to say as the author of the article did that Jesus was not responsible for what his followers did.

I agree with you that hate-filled bigotry is part of the human condition. So is murder. However, I think hate-filled bigotry and murder are not good things. Most humans are neither hate-filled bigots nor murderers. Marx was a hate-filled bigot who inspired murderers. The corpses were no accident.

The Manifesto contains: "You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible."

It doesn't take too much imagination to see that as a recipe for murder. Lenin's Cheka murdered people solely due to their class identification.

Squeers asked me to read the article. I did. It does not negate the Manifesto nor Marx's expressed bigotry. If it could be shown that Marx did not write the words attributed to him that would cause to rethink my position. As it is his words condemn him.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

A better world is possible.

I think most of us are up to the task.

It is you and I as global citiznes who need to put
aside our narrow self-interests and work together
as friends if there is to be a world for thos
humans and other animals who follow us.
Our world leaders are beginning to start taking
notice of the vast army of experts who are willing
and able to guide us through the coming difficult years.
A better world is possible. It will take effort.
It will be difficult, but it will be worth it.

David f.,

"I do not ridicule Christianity or other religions..."

"runner,
Shirley McClaine and the practitioners of New Age nonsense are loonies. Imagining such nonsense as a spiritual realm is an example of looniness. Acknowledging Jesus Christ or any other non-existing entity as lord of the spirit world or any other imaginary entity is looniness..."
david f. Thursday, 22 September 2011, 5:23:06 pm

Yes you do.

I presume, however, that you don't consider yourself a hate-filled bigot, and nor do I.
Pinning human depravity onto an ideology is convenient, yet it's often a deliberately skewed perspective fashioned to suit an argument.

Thanks for reading the article, davidf, though your mind is hopelessly prejudiced and it seems futile trying to get you to rethink it. (most of your founding fathers were far bigger bigots than Marx could ever be, even in your imagination. Do you also revile them?) There is nothing in the manifesto, or on the Jewish Question that, read in context, justifies your position, quite the opposite. Same with Peter's and Jay of Melbourne's arrant rubish (did you note the Mises quote btw, Peter, in Eagleton's article?) This is why you all rely on colourful language and piles of corpses--because there is no substance to your prejudice--pure ignorance.
It's your burden to carry around, however; I'm only sorry I can't help to lighten it for you a bit.
I do hope those who are capable of critical thought are not dissuaded from making their own appraisal of Marx's thought--which is more relevant than ever--based on actually reading it.

Dear Poirot,

You are right. I did ridicule Christianity in my words which you cited.

However, I take back nothing what I said about Marx and Marxism. The Marxist generated corpses were once people and were no accident. The facts and bodies are there.

I don't have a skewed perspective on Marxism. I think I see it for what it is. Human depravity exists, and ideology can give one a sense of rightness while committing atrocities. So can religion.

If we can refrain from demonising those human beings who are on the other side of ideological or religious barriers from us we might be able to treat them with consideration. If we use language to the effect that they must be swept out of the way as the Manifesto does we invite atrocity.

Dear Squeers,

I actually read enough of the words of Marx to make a judgment. If you can see "On the Jewish Question" as other than rank bigotry I think you must disable your critical faculties when it comes to that person.

Thank you David.
Here is the text, "On the Jewish Question" for anyone interest: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

It's not a long read
And here's a wiki appraisal of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question
From which I've taken the quote:

"This work [On The Jewish Question] has been cited as evidence for Marx's supposed anti-semitism, but only the most superficial reading of it could sustain such an interpretation."

Here also is the Communist Manifesto:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

I invite anyone to read it and offer justified criticism of the content.

Dear Squeers,

I disagree with you. That does make me hopelessly prejudiced. You disagree with me. That does not make you hopelessly prejudiced. Let's curb the rhetoric. I am merely one of the many people who do not subscribe to Marx's idea. You are one of the many people who do.

Let's avoid putting down the other guy. It is fair to disagree with ideas. It is not fair to attack or call the other person names. It is not fair to ascribe negative characteristics because you disagree with a person. I do not do it to you, and I would appreciate it if you stop doing it to me.

David f.,

"Let's curb the rhetoric..."

Well, there you go....calling people loonies, interpreting "swept away" as "murdered". etc,etc. A lot depends on how we personlly translate rhetoric.(many governments have been "swept out of office" It's a metaphor, not an incitement to murder).

"It's fair to disagree with ideas....It's not fair to ascribe negative characteristics because you disagree with a person..."

David, you continually refer to Marx as all sorts of things, the latest being "scum" on page twelve of this thread.

Are you attempting to break some sort of record in hypocrisy?

Dear Poirot, In talking to you I will respect you. However, I see no reason to show Marx any more respect than I show to Hitler. I am referring to the way we address each other on this list. Is that clear?

davidf,

I agree that we should maintain the proper respect and tone, and I endeavour to do so.
You surely don't deny, however, that when you ascribe those colourful adjectives and hate-speech to Marx, knowing that others on this thread subscribe to his ideas, you effectively insult them (their intelligence and their morality) as well?
I can debate Christians here over Jesus Christ, but if I start calling Christ vile names and go on about the piles of corpses he was responsible for (like Marx, probably none), Christians would surely be entitled to take these offences personally?
You are a reasonable man and I don't see how you can deny this.

Dear Squeers,

Marx was vile. That does not mean everybody who agrees with him is vile. I read him and read vile stuff by a hate-filled bigot. I am aware of the many corpses his followers made and see a direct connection with his words. I cannot be sure that Jesus actually said the bigoted words ascribed to him so that is a different matter. I ascribe the hate speech to Marx because I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that he wrote "On the Jewish Question."

I was not engaging w you on that subject, but you recommended that I read the article. You want to subscribe to Marx's ideas? Then do so, and leave me alone or bring up another subject. I will address a Nazi with respect. Actually I am friends with one, but don't expect me to show any respect for Hitler.

We make judgements based on what information we have. If I read more about Marx that is not going to erase the words in the Manifesto or "On the Jewish Question." Unless it can be shown that he either didn't write those words or had second thoughts I see no reason to think he was other than a bigot who advocated tyranny.

I realise how you feel about Marx, and I realise how my Nazi friend feels about Hitler. He does not expect me to have respect for Hitler and does not try to persuade me that Hitler was really a good guy. I would appreciate it if you would do the same with Marx.

David f.,

How can you utter: "It's fair to disagree with ideas...It's not fair to ascribe negative characteristics because you disagree with a person..." - and then call Marx vile and a hate-filled bigot.

Yes, I realise that you only apply your concocted morality to those with whom you personally interact, however, failing to apply your ethics in a universal manner makes a mockery of your dictum.

So do we understand that if someone is giving you a viewpoint with any sort of universalist spin that they are probably up to no good?
It's all the same deal, Commies to the Left and Commies to the Right and the secret of happiness and prosperity can only be revealed or transmitted by an "educated" elite.

David,
Nazi Eugenics is no different to Stalinist or Maoist political correctness, Liberalism or Christian/Jewish/Muslim conversion, they all want the same thing, the eradication of poverty and suffering by creation of a new universal man or "Master Race", they're all explicit in expressing that desire. Commies, unlike the other groups want to walk away from Stalin and Mao and never mention gangsters like the IRA, Umkhonto we Sizwe, Shining Path, Khmer Rouge or the Naxalites when they're talking about the "struggle".
The Marxist "struggle" has always been linked to organised crime, murder, extortion, theft and oppression of the working class, the Leftist groups going about today are really just gangs.
I'll try and track an article I read on the role of Anti Racist Action agitators in the recent riots and looting in Manchester and their links to the IRA/Organised crime . They were caught red handed directing their young gang members to steal and trash businesses, they even handed out old leftist "Don't Speak to Cops" flyers.
There were reports of Dominic Noonan's involvement in the Telegraph and so on but one piece I read went in considerable detail on the background of that family, their links to ARA and other Communist groups such as the IRA and the man who "started it all", Mark Duggan (he was a relative of the Noonans).

Aha!
Found it:

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110824/more-on-the-white-rioters-in-england

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ will lead one to Marx’s “The Jewish Question.” I cannot see it as anything but a screed written by a hate-filled bigot. When it comes to Jews Marx says nothing that wouldn’t be acceptable to a Nazi. Squeers called me extremely prejudiced. Poirot castigates me because I called Marx a hate-filled bigot. I can’t see anybody but a hate-filled bigot writing the bilge in “The Jewish Question.” I will call neither of Squeers nor Poirot names nor comment on their character flaws, but I feel no obligation to keep quiet about Marxist atrocities or the theorist who inspired those atrocities. Is bigotry acceptable when Karl Marx is the bigot? I would appreciate it if other people would read the piece, especially the ending, and give their opinion.

It is crazy to be called extremely prejudiced because I pointed out that Karl Marx was a bigot. I call it as I see it. There are no excuses for the stench of bigotry.

The article Squeers suggested I read denied any responsibility of Marx for the corpses. However, the author didn’t explain why the followers of Marx were so prone to mass murder. Was it just coincidence? It seems to me a logical consequence of his recommendations.

As far as Marx’s bigoted writing the author doesn’t address that at all. Most Marxists don’t. Why should they? It doesn’t throw a very good light on the bigot. No excuse that will stand up can be made. Squeers wrote that Marx merely expressed a prejudice common at the time. To accept the prejudices of one’s time defines one as a bigot. Marx was a tremendously influential and brilliant bigot. I think humanity is much worse off because he lived.

I hope his writings will inspire no more murder machines.

Dear Jay, I am sceptical regarding the article you referred to concerning the riots in England. It may suit the establishment to blame protests and/or riots on criminals or agitators rather than social conditions. Marx protested against real oppression, but the tyrannies inspired by him merely produced more and worse oppression

From “In Praise of Marx” which Squeers recommended. The following is an example of how an ideologue ignores reality.

"Yet Marx was not foolish enough to imagine that socialism could be built in such countries without more-advanced nations flying to their aid. And that meant that the common people of those advanced nations had to wrest the means of production from their rulers and place them at the service of the wretched of the earth. If this had happened in 19th-century Ireland, there would have been no famine to send a million men and women to their graves and another two or three million to the far corners of the earth."

The famine was not caused by the means of production being in the hands of the rulers. The famine was caused by blight hitting the potato monoculture which the Irish basic diet depended on. England could have relieved the Irish suffering by sending food and supplying the Irish with seed to grow other foodstuffs, but England didn’t.

The author also wrote referring to Marx as “This down-at-heel émigré Jew.” Marx was a Jew only by ancestry, Hitler’s criterion for Jewishness. His father, Heinrich, converted to Christianity and also converted Karl Marx as a child. Karl Marx had almost no knowledge of his Jewish heritage and readily accepted Jew-hating bigotry. “The Jewish Question” was only one expression of that bigotry.

Eagleton wrote:

"Marxists were warning of the perils of fascism while the politicians of the so-called free world were still wondering aloud whether Hitler was quite such a nasty guy as he was painted."

Here Eagleton ignores history. It was Stalin who signed a pact with Nazis ushering WW2 in with the joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. It was Britain and France which declared war on Nazi Germany while Soviet Russia was their ally in aggression.

There is no need to go on. The author of “In Praise of Marx” lies and lies and lies to excuse the old bigot and his followers.

davidf,
you are of course at liberty to gloss over or read whatever you like into "On the Jewish Question", or any other text. You would be hard pressed to show me any text that is not imbued with the unconscious prejudices of its day. Marx's text uses the Jew stereotype as a trope and it is not bigoted if read sympathetically. Indeed there is nothing in it based on such a superficial reading. If it offends at all it is against political correctness, which was not then invented.

Eagleton is quite right to say that Marxists (the Frankfurt School for instance) were warning the West about Hitler while a great many anglo-Nazi sympathisers agonised and Chamberlain prevaricated, preferring to mollify and curry favour with Hitler than seek an alliance with the Soviets and the ideology he, as a conservative, despised. In the meantime the rapprochement between Hitler and Stalin was effected instead.

However, in his article Eagleton is at pains to urge that
"Almost all followers of Marx today reject the villainies of Stalin and Mao, while many non-Marxists would still vigorously defend the destruction of Dresden or Hiroshima. Modern capitalist nations are for the most part the fruit of a history of genocide, violence, and extermination every bit as abhorrent as the crimes of Communism. Capitalism, too, was forged in blood and tears, and Marx was around to witness it. It is just that the system has been in business long enough for most of us to be oblivious of that fact".

You say, "The author of “In Praise of Marx” lies and lies and lies to excuse the old bigot and his followers"

I can only say rubbish! and counter that your condemnations look like conscious lies in their omission of vital context and salient facts.

I can only urge others to look at the evidence.

David f,.

Correction - I wasn't castigating you for calling Marx a hate-filled bigot. I couldn't give a toss about your particular penchant for name-calling (loonies, scum, hate-filled bigot, etc, etc) You seem to enjoy applying nasty epithets up and down the threads when it suits you...and I accept that some people get their jollies from such behaviour.

However, I was merely calling you out on your hypocrisy. Your little pronouncement about it being fair to disagree with ideas, but not being fair to ascribe negative characteristics because you disagree with a person...rings somewhat hollow when it is only applied contingent on whether or not you're feeling precious.

But don't let me spoil your fun....your previous post was a veritable frenzy of name calling....continue.

Dear Squeers,

I see no way I can look at "On the Jewish Question" sympathetically and see no reason why I should. Political correctness? Nonsense! It is arrant bigotry.

I think in every period of history there have been men and women who could override the prejudices of their day. Marx was not one of them.

Trope, schmope, Marx was a hater.

Wherever there is conflict people are on different sides. When you forget the person on the other side is human you have made it easier to commit atrocity. What the Marxist tyrannies did was murder people by class identification rather than by race or ethnicity. Marx furthered class enmity and set the stage for the slaughter.

"On the Jewish Question" is a sample of Marx's hate.

Dear Squeers,

You quoted Eagleton:

However, in his article Eagleton is at pains to urge that
"Almost all followers of Marx today reject the villainies of Stalin and Mao, while many non-Marxists would still vigorously defend the destruction of Dresden or Hiroshima. Modern capitalist nations are for the most part the fruit of a history of genocide, violence, and extermination every bit as abhorrent as the crimes of Communism. Capitalism, too, was forged in blood and tears, and Marx was around to witness it. It is just that the system has been in business long enough for most of us to be oblivious of that fact".

That is more crapola. The villainies did not start with Stalin. Lenin organised the first gulags, the Cheka terror and the assault on the Kronstadt sailors who wanted him to keep the revolutionary promises. After Lenin took over he organised an election to give the stamp of legitimacy to his rule. It apparently was a free election, and the Social Revolutionaries got more votes than the Bolsheviks. So he turfed out the Constituent Assembly. An election was only good if he won. In 1921 after the Civil War was won and a free society could have been built, Lenin introduced censorship, and people like Kandinsky fled. The rot didn't start with Stalin. It started with Lenin. Communists like to promote the idea that the Bolshevik takeover was a good thing and was ruined by that nasty Stalin.

It was a tyranny from the beginning. Eagleton engages in a little gratuitous slap at non-Marxists. I have never heard anyone defend the bombing of Dresden. I have heard people defend Hiroshima as making an invasion unnecessary.

Capitalism certainly has been formed in blood and tears, and I want something better. Marxism is not better. Look at the masses fleeing the Marxist tyrannies. Very few go the other way. The masses know something that hasn't penetrated to Marxist intellectuals.

davidf,
I don't defend any of the evils perpetrated by corrupt regimes. The whole twentieth century is awash with blood and corpses derived from one ideology or another. You accuse Marx of being a bigot when a sympathetic reading of the text makes a nonsense of such claims--this is not just my opinion, and is well-nigh irrefutable!
I could argue far more plausibly that just as Germans could rationalise the Holocaust by seeing the Jews as sub-human, so the US could rationalise dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities because they were Asian. I doubt the decision to massacre civilians would have been taken so easily (or defended so blithely since!) if they'd been caucasian. The US remains today a deeply bigoted culture, notwithstanding the racial horrors its perpetrated and witnessed since. One would think the spectacle of the twentieth century would give pause, but intolerance is as rife as ever, and seemingly from every quarter, despite the PC!
There is nothing in Marx to paint him a bigot above the common or garden variety of his day, and certainly nothing to compare with the institutional bigotry that's dished out in your country today. By comparison Marx was a paragon, no wonder he remains a pariah!
But I really don't care about all these off-topic issues here, and it depresses me that prejudice still dominates debate--virtually every debate!
This thread is about Marx's prophetic view of capitalism. As you point out, he was a bourgeois himself, which makes what amounts to his self-criticism (criticism of his own culture) all the more inspiring, especially since precious few are capable of such "reflexivity" today. Marx suffered all his life for his convictions; we today, by comparison, have nothing to fear, yet we're incapable of looking at ourselves and our culture honestly. All criticism is dismissed or rationalised.
We are all at liberty to think as we choose. My conscience is clear that I choose, as far as is in my power, according to critical thinking, and not just ideology or inclination.

Dear Squeers,

You wrote: "There is nothing in Marx to paint him a bigot above the common or garden variety of his day, and certainly nothing to compare with the institutional bigotry that's dished out in your country today. By comparison Marx was a paragon, no wonder he remains a pariah!"

You may go on and on about Marx. I can read. I am not blind. I have read other things from that period. I don't accept bigotry from a supposed leader who has a goal of a better world even if it is only common variety bigotry.

Lessing, George Eliot, Nietzsche and other rose above the bigotry of their time, but the paragon didn't. He obviously is not a pariah. You are not alone in your regard for him. I think he should be a pariah.

I have been exposed to that sort of tactic before. Criticise Marx and the communists and one gets told how terrible the US is. The flaws in the US don't lessen the stench of Marx.

Yes, david, what you need to realise is that Poirot and Squeers really do think that the hundred million deaths at the hands of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu, Hitler (National Socialist German Workers Party), Saddam (Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party), and all the rest, are just some kind of strange coincidence.

They think it's nothing to do with the fact that these were all attempts to implement socialism. And the fact they all these attempts failed is also just some strange coincidence.

Fancy defending Marx after all that, no better than defending Hitler or Pol Pot.

Their method is to believe a theory riddled with illogic and self-contradictions in the first place, and then when these are pointed out, and they are completely at a loss to defend it in any rational terms or refute the critique, they just circle back and say "well I think it's relevant" without being able to give any reason but more of the same.

So it's a religion, and a very nasty violent religion at that.

Then when you call them on the fact that their entire belief system boils down to believing that aggressive violence is the basis of the good and fair society, you get this wide-eyed innocent act "What? Me? In favour of violence? Where did I ever say that?"

Yet these are the same fools who, a hundred years ago, would have been enthusiasts for the Bolsheviks. But at least the original power-hungry Bolsheviks had an exucse - they hadn't seen the disproofs in theory and in practice. Squeers and Poirot are morally and intellectually far worse than that.

The common flaw that invalidates all your criticisms of "capitalism" is that you fail to distinguish between outcomes of the private, versus outcomes of the governmental control of the means of production.

A classic example is Squeers recent equation of compulsory funding, compulsory attendance, compulsory curriculum and compulsory qualifications of *state* education as "free market".

That is the level of moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the arguments for using violence against human freedom, because that's what's in issue.

"Capitalism certainly has been formed in blood and tears..."

You're just as brainwashed as the Marxists.

What do you mean it's been formed in blood and tears?

And I bet you London to a brick that for every example you give you have either a) confused capitalism with the outcome of governmental action, a classic example of which is the GFC, or b) ignored the role of government in actively promoting the outcomes you criticise.

When I criticise socialism or interventionism, I at least can *correctly represent* what the belief system entails, from the point of view of its own advocates.

But the critics of capitalism cannot do that. All we ever get is fallacy after fallacy, straw man after misrepresentation, circularity after caricature, after Marxist slogan.

What blood and tears for gods sake?

Dear Peter Hume,

In England during the Industrial Revolution there were children of 7 working in the mines. Southern slaves were producing cotton for the mills of Manchester. People tossed off the land by the enclosure acts then had to take what they could get in the 'dark, satanic mills.' The Luddites fought back because they were starving as factory efficiency with new machines required fewer workers.

I have been writing my family history. My grandmother lived in Lithuania. The only employment in the area was a match factory. Her four brothers all worked there, and all died of sulphur poisoning.

Their fate was not unusual. Workers died building railroads, bridges and the other infrastructures of the industrial world.

It is not leftist propaganda that the Industrial Revolution was a time of sweat, tears and blood. It was fact for a lot of people.

Nineteenth century Marxism was the opium of many people. Its promises were as false as those of religion.

One of my uncles was a Bolshevik and was arrested by the czarist police. He managed to get out of Russia in 1921. After four years of Lenin he was no longer a Bolshevik. He then came to capitalist United States and had a good life thereafter dying at 98. He was going to a party and fell back on the bed dead & wearing full dress. He was all dressed up and ready to go.

peter..asks a reason/able..question

in response to..""Capitalism
certainly has been..formed in blood and tears..."

he asks
""What blood..and tears for gods sake?""

mate a brief histry
of this last stage..of capitalism

it began in amsterdam...with the dutch/east-india company
and them issuing shares...and paying huge dividends

by traders..capitalised traders..going trading

this evolved into colonisation
slavery..wars..deliberated poisening and murder of whole nations..from south america..to australia...

every war..ever fought..was financed with capital
that gained ursury..on top of it

heck how many diggers alone..died in just
ww1/ww2...in the boar war..korea/vietnam

or died..under forced labour for the japs
or the germans..[two huge capitalist powers]
contoling..still today much of globalist proffiteering

let recall those chinese..dead from british capitalist[opium trading]
or the current deaths..in columbia[drug war]...that are the only new income..sustaining many capitalists bankers

heck mate
your..a clever guy..how many slaves died
going to usa..or dumped..onto capitalist plantation's

how many people..died to mine that spanish silver
where two thirds the world/silver came from

who's mine workers,..are luckey to live 4 years

or the worker dead..from industial poisens..or asbestosis

heck my brother
your not thinking

these are just..off the top of my heard
but what about those killed for big pharma
like those injected..with monkey serum..what got aids

all so these multinationalist globalist capitalists
can sit..on their big plantations..or estates

how about the poor brits
died in the blitz
the irish

or the 25 million japs..what died from phospher and naplam/bombs

dropped on them by capitalists
making huge bucks from armament built for money..[capital]

mate we are living in capitalist hell
and in the real hell..many are still enslaved

thinking all they are..is their job...
or all they are..is in how many billions..they can scam

think of the hungry
that are hungry because
capitalists..*need their wealth

meed to steal..their oil..or diamonds..or their gold
or their water..or power companies

heck my bro
your not thinking

You're..just as brainwashed
as the Marxists/capitalist/party machine men/
bankers...pope...

the capoes..that drove men/woman
children to work..to death

'work makes free'
[werk maght frei]

yea
lol

by killing you

Peter Hume wrote: Yes, david, what you need to realise is that Poirot and Squeers really do think that the hundred million deaths at the hands of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu, Hitler (National Socialist German Workers Party), Saddam (Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party), and all the rest, are just some kind of strange coincidence.

They think it's nothing to do with the fact that these were all attempts to implement socialism. And the fact they all these attempts failed is also just some strange coincidence.

Dear Peter,

You have mixed disparate things together and called them socialist.

You have included movements that were not socialist and have implicitly assumed that socialism must be murderous.

It is true that Nazi is an abbreviation for National Socialist.

However, that does not make them socialist. The name of East Germany was the German Democratic Republic. The name did not make it democratic.

Hitler was supported by German industrialists who prospered under Nazi rule. The word, socialist, was used to attract workers into the party. There were Nazis who wanted socialism such as the anti-Marxist and anti-Semitic Gregor Strasser. Strasser was assassinated on Hitler's personal order by the Berlin Gestapo on June 30, 1934. There was never any attempt by the Nazis to implement socialism, and those elements in the party who wanted it were assassinated or suppressed.

Socialism eliminates private ownership of the means of production. This concept includes much more than Marxism which is only one form of socialism. Private ownership may be replaced by public, non-governmental ownership. If socialism is implemented in a democratic manner it may be reasonable. Capitalism may be reasonable also. I think it is in the Scandinavian countries.

Authoritarian rule is never reasonable. However, it may be possible that socialism can be implemented without authoritarian rule. If it doesn’t work and the country is democratic other forms can be tried. I agree with Squeers and Poirot that the US model of corporate capitalism is oppressive. I disagree with them in seeing hope in Marxism.

OUG summed up pretty well the "blood and tears" spilled in the wake of capitalist practice, the spirit of which seems to draw out the worst in human nature. In fact, one could be forced to deduce that it is incompatible with harmonious relations between human beings (let alone the disastrous consequences to the environment).

Peter Hume - although you posit that government intervention in the greedy race to the top is not really capitalism, but some "Keynesian - Marxist construct, it is difficult to deny the diabolical antipathies that arise in humans who are tethered to any system that rewards the competitive pursuance of profit over other considerations. Over and over again throughout history it's demonstrated that cold and calculated aggression and savagery comprise the bedrock upon which these systems thrive.

Marx predicted our present paradigm would destroy itself. Here's the latest on the crumbling of the edifice - a "contagion", no less:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-25/european-leaders-in-debt-crisis-talks/2941054

david
“...Marxism … is only one form of socialism.”

Yes indeedy. They all have in common the ideal of public, rather than private, ownership of means of production, agreed?

“You have mixed disparate things together and called them socialist. “

That’s one possibility.

The other logical possibility is that you, like Squeers and Poirot, are not making the common connection between disparate problems all flowing from attempts at public ownership of means of production.

I agree it is important that we speak to the substance of the issue, and take care to avoid confusion over mere names.

The quintessential issue is public versus private ownership of the means of production, but by ownership, is signified *control*. (If resources were nominally privately owned, but all details of how it were to be used were dictated by the state, that would, in substance, be a form of socialism, not of capitalism, agreed?)

For example:
“I agree with Squeers and Poirot that the US model of corporate capitalism is oppressive.”

There you have, in common with them, made the error I foreshadowed you would make before you answered, namely “failing to distinguish between outcomes of the private, versus outcomes of the governmental control of the means of production”.

The very large degree of governmental control of money, credit, banking, interest rates, and business in the USA has the logically necessary effect of favouring and cartelizing large businesses, and making them dependent on state-granted privileges or monopolies.

So you have not made the distinction on which your criticism of capitalism depends. It’s a question of substance not names, and as to the substance of things, the question is why it should not be called “the US model of corporate socialism”

“However, it may be possible that socialism can be implemented without authoritarian rule.”

This is the nub of the entire issue, because if socialism is not possible, then that is the end of the question, isn’t it?

It has already been proved why it’s not possible. This would have explaining power, wouldn’t it? It would explain both the free market and the socialist perspectives on attempts to implement socialism, which is, none of them have worked. (Scandinavia, btw, is higher on the Index of Economic Freedom than the USA. In other words, it’s arguably *less* socialist than the USA, not more.)

To understand why it can’t work even in theory, let alone in practice, please amuse an idle hour with reading this: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” by Ludwig von Mises.

In the absence of private markets for capital goods, economic calculation in terms of money prices becomes impossible. Socialism is not an alternative economic system, it is the abolition of the possibility of rational economising. Abolish private capital, and the only possibility is what actually happened: political totalitarianism, economic chaos, and massive human rights abuses.

That’s why, even in the socialists’ own terms, there was never socialism, but only (unsuccessful) attempts to implement socialism. Now that’s got explaining power, hasn’t it?

(The USSR only lasted as long as it did because it was able to rely on private ownership of capital in numerous ways, without which, it would have collapsed into mass starvation much sooner. BTW this theory also explains the substantial similarity between the ‘international socialism’ of the Russian, and the ‘national socialism’ of the German model. It’s a matter of substance, not names.)

None of the socialists have been able to prove their own claims or refute this argument. Like Marx, they just assume it’s a) possible and b) better, without *thinking through* what it must necessarily entail, and then, when faced with disproofs in theory and practice, they just ignore them. Thus it's not just ignorance, it's culpable ignorance.

What frustrates me about these discussions is that Mises showed in 1921 why attempts to implement socialism could only end in what in fact actually happened. Without being able to refute it, that should have been the end of the entire project. Yet the socialists simply ignored him and went ahead and killed 100 million people. And now they *still* think if we just keep trying it might work eventually!

Now I want you please to consider the possibility that, by persisting in trying to make it work in some form while being unable to refute the argument from economic calculation, you will not share in the guilt of further abuses or enormities. Maybe I’m wrong. Please prove it.

As to the Industrial Revolution, your critique fails because you cannot establish:
a) that the masses would not have been worse off in the absence of privately owned capital, and
b) that state interventions produced *net* benefits, in other words, that they did not produce greater unemployment, poverty and hardship than they relieved.

OUG
You have not distinguished between the outcomes of the private, versus outcomes of the governmental control of the means of production, and therefore your critique of capitalism fails.

The question is not whether evils are financed with capital, since they can be and are financed with capital under public ownership of the means of production. The question is whether the evils are necessarily the outcome of the private ownership of the means of production, rather than of the public. That’s what you haven’t established.

To name wars - carried on by states, under claim of monopoly right, financed by taxation and inflation and government debt, using conscription, against other states, for territorial gain by states – as a proof of the evils of capitalism, is a classic example of the confusion, illogic, and double standard that I named.

peter...as i understand capitalism
it relies on the market..to sort out its own issue
so why socialistic style bailouts of bankers?

the banks arnt govt..havnt
*been 'govt'..for near a century

all that war cost sent govt broke
just like it bankrupted many previous dynasties

its no use saying the federal reserve is govt
cause govt bonds are capitalised via the fed..and the fed is controlled by 12 bankers..

[sure a pitance/tokan.. is given back to govt]
but govt dont got its own bank..and cash given by the fed simply goes back to the govt banker..the fed..[its a clever closed lop system]

the fed takes cash..offers a credit line
thus a bank getting 5% deposit..allows the fed to CREATE credit for the rest..[all money is loaned into egsistance..but the ursury./intrst...that repays the ursury..must come via others defaulting

there is the crux of the proble,
if govt owned the system..it could create new money via its gifts/subsidies/ppensions or vaklue adding of assets/infastructure

but by virtue of the fed and the other instruments
such as the mint and the note printing branches...and the house of settlements...who hold the physical gold/silver etc or physical share

[funny enough mortgauged to bankers
and the ursury debt..on them too]

these house's..allow the same perversions such as
selling gold they dont own[ie trading 'promises..FOR gold..in a day trade..3 TIMES..the quantity of real gold]..and short selling of shares your only renting[lol]..try that with your avis renta acar

or the options market
so much is possable if you know
people only want the price increase on the day

not the actuall share certificate or asset
just like way back when we wanted the promise of gold
ie the security..in paper...[and we know how that ended

they issued ten times more paper promise
that they had in real gold

remember
the past

the same scams that worked last time
will work again..in a few years

so we dergulated
after we forgot

now
the same ol game
its simply insane

Peter Hume,

I realise that it's the "systemic" organisation of human society which interests you in the main.

On another thread, you opined on the situation of children being forced into state education - yet you don't seem to to have the same feelings regarding children that were drafted into cruel and inhumane servitude under the libertarian capitalism of the factory system....both are operational modes resting on capitalist principle.

It's the principle which is at fault. The system under which it is instituted cannot s help but dehumanise its participants because the initial premise devalues human nature and warps its potential.

in the end the saver allways looses his savings
or in this case their compulsory super contributions

and there is exposed
the crux of the problem facing us globally
increasing the price of the product..only increaases the price of egsisting product..it dont make new product

we are making wealthy
people only clever at pricing..*not producing

bankers collecting money..collecting ursury[lol]
not on real money..but fictional credit entry leveraged off the real

eg fractional reserve lending
the fraction..creates the rest[on paper]
yet the ursury needed to collect..needs be paid back with real cash or real credit

its such a clever sca,
the loan application
is the security..the only security for greece debt
yet the people get austerity measure...become capitalist peons

when no real money was there
hence the worlds 4 quadrillion of securities/bonds
and the real assets [in good times..worth only half a quadrillion]

do nothings...actually do nothing productive
but lend on bonds..THEY KNOW cant be realised

get their capital
by stealing future value from others

but so much more is gifted in bonus..dividend..
or huge wages and other gratitudes..like meetings and free lunches

heck
this huge issue has got the best govt treasurors talking
but then they issue a govt bond...and the bankers leverage the bond
then you get credit

if the poop hits the fan
govt bails out lol the bank..by lending to the bank
borrowing it from the very bank its bailing out

mate its criminal
with those rules
the commies in china can bail us all out
and guess what the socialista wins

givt credit back to govt
return the instruments of power back to govt

but first let the capitalista system go bust
no bailout...those assets revert to the people..[ie govt]

Poirot

Your argument depends on confusing private versus governmental control of the means of production, and therefore your critique of capitalism totally fails.

That argument about quadruply-compulsory state education being “capitalist”. might run in your Marxist kindergarten but here you just look like a desperado, or an ignoramus.

Perhaps if you kill another 100 million people, socialism will work eventually? Pathetic.

OUG
You’re confusing “capitalism” with government control of the means of production – socialism.

“we are making wealthy
people only clever at pricing..*not producing”

Not “we”. THE GOVERNMENTS are doing it. And they are doing it by exercising a power to control the market for money, on the basis that governments represent the greater good and are necessary to do social justice, and capitalism is evil. Because confused people, like you, David, Squeers and Poirot believe that capitalism is to blame for what, on examination, turns out to be SOCIALISM.

“givt credit back to govt
return the instruments of power back to govt”

Your argument ignores the fact that *government* has *already got monopoly control* of the supply of money and credit. That’s what’s causing all the financial chaos you’re complaining about – the permanent inflation, the FRB, the debt bubbles, the derivative bubbles, the corrupt favouritism, the handouts to big business, the artificial booms, the depressions.

Under capitalism - *private* ownership of the means of production – multiplying money substitutes out of proportion to money on deposit would be illegal.

This article explains how it is mere confusion to allege that the Fed represents the private ownership of the means of production - please have a look http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff364.html

All
You have all only proved my point. All the criticisms of capitalism so far COMPRISE failing to distinguish the private from the public ownership of the means of production. You’re giving arguments against socialism, not capitalism.

Now come on. Anyone else got a criticism of capitalism that does NOT involve that error?

peter/quote..""Not “we”...THE GOVERNMENTS are doing it.""

no mate..you .[the consumer]..buy that flat screen plasma
you pay your super..you pay..'advisers'..you pay bankfees

""And they""
they govt?

""are doing it by exercising a power
to control the market for money,""

lol mate..you forget..most of the present problems
began with DE-regulation..ie not so much govt..as lack of governace

""the basis that governments represent
the greater good""was subverted long ago

""[govt]..are necessary to do social justice,""

mate legal aid..is only to get guilty please
and then raise revenue...[and a guilty plea cant be applealed
thus unjust laws..remain..yet capitalists get away with rape or murder

people like you..'believe that capitalism is to blame
for what,on examination,..turns out to be SOCIALISM.""

no mate govts are acting socialist
what other name do you give to rich mates
bailing out rich mates..then the poor paying of their debts..[lol]

its commie thinking mate
the party class..and the serfs
too dumb to think for themselves..that get shafted EVERYTIME

capitaism..NEEDS capital
to get benefits..to the special capitlist
by abusing the fool..paying twice the capitalist tax rate

""Your argument ignores the fact
that *government* has *already got monopoly control*
of the supply of money and credit.""

mate your a clever guy
if govt owns money..how come it needs sell govt bonds
to the fed..id the fed is govt..WHY PAY ITSELF URSURY/intrest

cause the fed is controled by 12 bankers

heck you must know tha

you must know that

""That’s what’s causing all the financial chaos""

yes greece..lending ero's..from bankers
instead of simply printing them...lol

""Under capitalism -*private*/ownership
of the means of production"""

sure production
not money supply
not infinite credit supply

THAT SHOULD BE UNDER GOVT accountabilty
overseen by govt..[just like govts should be getting the super,..
not agents..on commision to gamble away...on the ponzi sceme..run by gambling capitalists]

""multiplying money substitutes
out of proportion to money on deposit would be illegal.""

no mate..thats a contract
under civil law..[a security is a contract]

i give you this
you give me that

its only enforcable..by and on
those who signed..[thats why house repo's in usa have been stopped]
when the investers bought the contract...the contract went void

(cause the debt has been paid*]

those holding the 'security'
arnt the contractually secured party

plus..forgery is criminal law..[as is uninformed contract]
anything that makes a 'victim'..is criminal

will look at ya link tomorrow
its late/mate

ok i have looked at ya link
its full of spin

so is designed to misslead
he quotes wiki..[then says the wiki..very closely watched is wrong]

yet he hasnt taken the time to edit it
or if he did..it was deleted cause he is lying

its going to take a bit to unwind his spin
but here goes

""However, the same Wikipedia article
almost immediately contradicts itself..when it states:

"Central banks in most developed nations
are independent*..in that they operate
*under rules designed...[by govt]..to render them
free from political interference."

this is conmpletly true
govts set them up..then went broke
cause the bankers..bought up the bonds
then demanded IMMEDIATE payment..in gold

well govts didnt have..the gold silver..cash
so they issued war bonds..when the colluding bankers wanted it IMMEDIATLY..govts got scared..and gave in to the bankers

yes govt set them up
but then the bankers took it all

its described in..'the creature from jeckle island'
and in..'the secret bankers manual'

but back to his spin
he continues

""How can a bureau..that is established
by the government and possesses extraordinary powers..'

ie under a govt act

""be independent and free from political interference?""

by others taking over thec powers by threat of bankruptcy

he then continues with his lack of fact
""The "central bank" embodies political interference!""

not giving any proof

""And to the extent that a Monetary Authority
such as the FED has been granted powers..
that it can exercise free of political interference,

how can such an institution be held accountable?"'

supposedly by the 12 bankers
and the fed reseve banking act

""How can it operate
without being responsible to the government
and indirectly to the people?""

by 12 bankers
controlling all the other feds

this is complicated
but note his replies
he isnt giving any fact..!

only asking questions..in lue of quoting the act
or giving proof..[like wiki has to have..*proof]

its spin

2b..continued

ok gone to the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

from the link

a large volume of economic research has been done to define the relationship between central bank independence and economic performance, the results are ambiguous.

Advocates of central bank independence argue that a central bank which is too susceptible to political direction or pressure may encourage economic cycles ("boom and bust"), as politicians may be tempted to boost economic activity in advance of an election, to the detriment of the long-term health of the economy and the country.

In this context,
independence is usually defined
as the central bank's operational and management
>>*independence..*from the government.

herck the info is there

but read the darn thing yourself in full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank#Independence

i have gone away from your blogger link
but its ccccrap

independance from govt is a must
you dont get independance by govt telling bankers whats what

and tghus the criminals stole the bank
and the gold...blooming capitalists..too clever by half

i suggest people read the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

its your super they are stealing
look up the other links

back to the fool at the link

""Fifth, the government has made them
to be at the heart or center of the banking industry and the monetary system.

Sixth, government power is itself centralized or national.

All of these statements are factual.


Now this is an imposing array of reasons why "central banks" are called "central banks". But the most important of these reasons is the fifth reason,

which is that the government
*has used..""..NOT IS USING>.!

""its power to make the "central bank" central.""

and INDEPENDANT

"""And because the government has used""

has used
not is using..!

""its power to create the "central bank"
and make it central,..

we know that the "central bank"
is not a free market institution."""

cccrap
what proof you nutter

""This is the main ground
upon which I challenge..the notion
that a "central bank"...is a bank.""

lol
too clever by half
thats not proof..its opinion

spin..!

"desperado...ignoramus...pathetic"

Peter, you old charmer. It's no use you sweet-talking me. I'm already spoken for.

Btw - that's rather an impressive Napoleon Complex you seem to have going there - now that's pathetique.

Well, after some ime avoiding it, I finally read this thread. Interesting, but not especially enlightening.

To sum it up (and I'm happy to be corrected if anybody feels so moved):

Squeers/Poirot/Mollydukes don't like Capitalism because they like the idea of having a "big brother" to look after their back if their best efforts end up producing an outcome that is not in accord with their projected wants. As they are self-consciously not "bosses", they identify with Marx's "proletariat", even though I'm sure they don't live or work with genuinely low-skilled, low-income, low-education people which were what Marx was considering in his deliberations.

Davidf doesn't like Marxism because he's Jewish and two of the more egregious examples of totalitarian States based on Marxism (or at least, claimed to be so based) were also historically tough on the Jewish people within their control. This was principally because the Jewish people have held themselves as somewhat separated from the state and Marxist socialism decries such class-distinctions. I find this fascinating, since I'm sure that David wouldn't identify himself primarily as a Jew on other economic/social issues.

"Why should they disapprove of their special yoke if they approve of the general yoke?" to quote Marx in "On the Jewish Question".

Peter Hume doesn't like Marxism because he is committed to a different form of totalitarianism - that of the "Market" and he likes the idea of a Libertarian state, in which one rises or falls based entirely on one's own capacity to make oneself useful to others.

All fairly predictable so far, but where does it take us?

In the world today we have Euro-zone nations failing economically because they have spent far too much on social welfare and not nearly enough on structural supports for industry. The US is in similar trouble for almost diametrically-opposite reasons. Both are responses to Marx and the economic philosophers who informed his work.

Isn't it time we looked at some things differently?

Dear Antiseptic,

We have very different views on this list. However, you seem to be the only one capable of reading our minds and telling why we have those views. I can't read your mind so don't know why you are so presumptuous as to claim to read other people's minds.

I'm simply doing a precis of what I've read here, David. Do you disagree with my summation? If so, why? As I said, I'm happy to be corrected.

Dear antiseptic,

You are not doing a precis. You are taking one factor that you know about us and saying that is why we take the positions that we do. Human beings are more complex than that. Marx claimed we are motivated by our class position. That is true. However, to say that is our only motivation is not true. That is oversimpliflying, and that is what you have done.

One of my motivations is due to my Jewishness. I am also an American,an Australian, a democrat, a war veteran and a lot of other things. As a democrat I object to dictatorships whatever ideology supports them. I really don't care whether they are Marxist, fascist, authoritarian or what. Marx was a Jew hater. However, if his ideology had produced decent societies which gave equal rights to all and eliminated injustice then I would have to support those societies regardless of Marx's personal prejudices. Voltaire was also a Jew hater. However, his general philosophy advanced freedom. I do not condemn Voltaire. I condemn Marx.

However, I am a Jew. To ask me as Squeers did to look at Jew-hating bilge with a sympathetic eye is a bit much.

Anticeptic,
your "precis" of my position is wrong.

I haven't bothered replying to the last nonsense from Peter and davidf as it's like banging one's head against a wall, they both seem hopelessly beset by their isms; capitalism, rationalism, egotism...

btw, david, your statement that "The famine was not caused by the means of production being in the hands of the rulers. The famine was caused by blight hitting the potato monoculture which the Irish basic diet depended on. England could have relieved the Irish suffering by sending food and supplying the Irish with seed to grow other foodstuffs, but England didn’t" goes beautifully with your defence of nuking civilians because it obviated an invasion. The slightest research into the potato famine reveals that it was the result of far more complexity than merely the blight; it was the product of capitalism and colonial indifference.

Marx was decidedly not a bigot and, moreover, he was right about capitalism.

David, a precis is intended to try to capture the essential points in some larger piece of work. There are 20 pages in this thread: of course it's a simplification.

You have called Marx all sorts of things in this thread, mostly to do with his anti-semitism and that of regimes which purported to follow his dogmatic lead. Therefore, it's the take-home message from your stuff here. I'm not at all suggesting that it's the only thing to inform your views, but in this case I don't think your American, Australian or democrat hats are as important as your Jewish one. Fair enough

I agree with you that Marx doesn't offer any solutions. It's interesting to read, but not something to use as a model when it so easily lends itself to oligarchical control. Look at the horrible abuses of power being revealed within the Unions, which draw their inspiration directly from Marx,via Trotsky.

squeers, thanks for that. As always, a model of self-defensive minimalism. Yes, I know you "don't care what anyone thinks"...

Dear Squeers,

One can call a cow a horse, but it will remain a cow.

One can deny Marx is a bigot, but his words condemn him as nothing but a bigot. You have kept trying to wiggle out of the fact of his bigotry. You have written that he merely had the prejudices of his time. Then you claimed he was no more bigoted than the ordinary person of his time. Now you simply say he was not a bigot.

You keep switching your arguments.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, Mininimise, minimise, minimise. Deny, deny, deny.

That's the way it goes. He remains a bigot who advocated tyranny.

Antiseptic,

I do care what you think and I realise my perspective is only one, though I do try to see things from the other's point of view (that's what Marx succeeded so well at doing), but you have to admit that your "precis" of not just mine, but Poirot's and Mollyduke's as well, was a tad insulting, and dare I say "minimilist"?

David,
I have conceded that Marx was probably unconsciously imbued with the prejudices of his day (as are we all), though I've also opined that that he was remarkably free oif prejudice compared with us and human history in general.
Marx was not a bigot and all you have adduced to the contrary is innuendo, with lots of adjectives to help it pass. Scholarly opinion is overwhelmingly of the opinion that On The Jewish Question is not bigoted and I agree with them.
The burden of proof lies with you to establish "your" prejudice as valid!

squeers, I'll accept that charge as fair. I'm also probably wrong, at least about mollydukes and possibly about poirot in regard to income, although not about education.

The point that I was trying to make was that you 3 seem to have a view of socialism as a necessity and capitalism as something that is dispensable. I can't see how that is in any way a sustainable argument, unless you can come up with some entirely new formulation of the relationships between people. I can't see how it is possible to sustain a large welfare state in the absence of a capitalist economic base. Once again, I'm happy to be corrected.

I quite like Peter Humes's case for a primary capitalism based on the individual, with corporations restricted to specific purposes as "companies" rather than as quasi-autonomous entities that have no limit to their longevity or their acquisition of both capital and political power. I'm not sure how you'd put that particular genie back in the bottle though.

Dear Antiseptic,

Who are the three who see socialism as a necessity? I see socialism and capitalism as economic systems which are neither good nor bad in themselves. Capitalism is good in Scandinavia and other places and oppressive in other places. Unfortunately the bigot's type of socialism predominates, but that does not mean socialism in itself must be bad.

Actually, I favour private ownership of the means of production where there is a market and competition. Where there is no competition or the consumer is locked in I favour either public ownership or benchmarks. Franklin Roosevelt set up a benchmark in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA provided power to an area in the US which had not been electrified. However, it was also a benchmark in that it set standards for service and prices for other similar utilities whether publicly or privately owned.

Antiseptic:
<you 3 seem to have a view of socialism as a necessity and capitalism as something that is dispensable>

I, shall get back to you later, but just briefly, I see nothing of the kind and have no dogmatic view of how things "should" be at all! I'm only critical of how things "are", and that they needn't be.

David,
you say "Capitalism is good in Scandinavia".
Capitalism in Scandinavia is not limited to or the product only of Scandinavia. Scandinavian capitalism has its greedy roots intermingled with others around the globe, where they also have detrimental effects. Part of the problem is seeing capitalism as national phenomena. It's not.
Nor is capitalism uniformly good in Scandinavia. You can surely see how facile such up-beat nationalistic capitalism is?
Marx saw the big picture!

Antiseptic,

Thanks for joining the fray.

I suppose my interest is more of a social-anthropological one. We've only been following the industrial paradigm for a few hundred years. I'm curious about the ways it has changed human behaviour, expectations and interaction. After all, the peasant who possessed a spinning wheel owned the means of production....and most people produced their own things. Industrialisation has robbed the common man of skills and a belief in his own resourcefulness.

Peter and David are only interested in one aspect of Marx - and remain ready with a deluge of name-calling if you put your head up and say that you take any motivation from Marx's philosophies regarding human nature and motivation.

(David - 5 references to "bigots" in one paragraph - congratulations!)

Dear Squeers,

Of course you are right. Capitalism is not uniformly good in Scandinavia and has its effects outside of Scandinavia. To expect any system to be uniformly good and have no deleterious effects outside of the nation is unreasonable utopianism. The Marxist tyrannies were good for the nomenklatura and those who were close to them but were not good for most others. I am not looking for a utopia. I think we can hope for societies which allow most people to fulfill their potential, where there is not great disparity between rich and poor, where almost all people have the necessities of life, where there is free expression, an independent judiciary and freedom to leave and come back to your country. The last three were absent in the societies inspired by the bigot.

As I have pointed out before few people fled the capitalist countries to go to the Marxist countries. It is still true. People are not queueing up to get into Cuba, China or Vietnam. Russia has still not recovered from 70 years of Marxism. The Soviet could have remained Marxist if the people had wanted it. The masses in this case are wiser than the intellectuals who are looking for a second coming which will somehow be better than the first. Next time the followers of the great bigot take over there will be no concentration camps, a good life for all, no secret police and a democratic society. Wanna bet?

I attended courses at the University of Queensland while the USSR was still operating. In our library were the works of Marx, Lenin and other Marxist theorists. A visiting student from the University of Moscow remarked on how well worn those works were. They were in mint condition in the U of Moscow library. One of my uncle was a Bolshevik who was arrested by the czarist police. IN 1921 he got out no longer a Bolshevik and lived a much better life in the US.

As Keating said the soufflee doesn't rise twice. Under the USSR it didn't rise once.

*if you put your head up and say that you take any motivation from Marx's philosophies regarding human nature and motivation*

Well to me that is really the crux of this debate and exactly what
Marx got so wrong.
Squeers and Poirot, being altruistic types, think that Marx was
correct and that human nature will change without that evil capitalism
and if people are reeducated in the correct manner.

Instead, people in general continue to be driven by enlightened
self interest. When the State owns the means of production, there
is really no good reason or reward for effort, so people become
complacent and lazy. In the end the means of production collapses.

We see that in our own public service. Without competition, they
really don't have to be too careful about spending our money, unlike
if it was their own. We see that in businesses where corporations
have a monopoly, they feather their own nests, much like public
servants.

Rather then Marx, Poirot and Squeers should be reading a bit about
evolutionary psychology, for Marx's understanding of human nature
is clearly outdated.

david..your uncles story
would be an interersting study

did he 'manage'
to take anything of his 'wealth'
with him

i seem to recall that jews
were allowed to leave the nastie natzies
only by leaving all their 'stuff'.. behind

but that some cleverly sold their cooking pots[so to speak]
for diamonds/stamps..or other valued securities..held in swiss banks and such

ie capitaism..is easier if your able to capitalise

i note that in the collapse of the commies..the 'people'
were allocated shares...[that ignorants sold off immediatly

that the new oligarchy...swapped for a tv comes to mind]..
so much so that one huge oligarc
owned the then..depleted
petrolium industry
nearly overnight

by being a 'clever capitalist oppertuinist'
with holdings hiden in a corperate mask

limited lie-ability of course

anyhow it would help if you have assets

anti said...""unless you can come up with some entirely new formulation of the relationships between people.""

how about this one mate
govt cant own anything..but what it holds by trust

on behalf of
all the people..

[ie cant sell off the nbn..nor telstra..
nor water/roads/power..or even water

yes people..can adminerster them
but only we..the people hold ownership

and we..*all share..in the dividends..
and price is based simply on cost recovery

big users pay the most
small users get the best price
use more pay more

'"I can't see how it is possible
to sustain a large welfare state
in the absence of a capitalist economic base.""

thats too easy
govt generates..'money'..by servicing..the peoples needs

it pays out to repair..restore...
and ensure the survival of the least
[equally as it supports the most]

we as far as govt is concerned..are all equal
we all deal exclusivly in coin..or credit..with local currency

issued specificly to local
councils to expend locally

that local banks can collect and lend locally
but that can be nationalised..then traded by capitalists..[as credit]

that is taxed by transaction and according to
the mass of it..'on the move'..

if it leaves..the state..
or council or cuntry
it has a different...

'transaction tax/rate'

kiss

keep it
simpleton'esque..ly..simpl

govt uses..[issues]..coin
business uses paper

both interact..via credit
local counties..can even barter with exchange rates

use a lot..pay a lot
use less...pay less

get greedy

please explain

we begin with staking a claim
have a ownership local census

we must declare
egsactly..what we claim to own
then what remains unclaimed..is run by the state

because only the living can own
dead corperate intrests...are patent rights

only the living can own..
no ltd/..corperations..owning corperations..ltd

anti said...""unless you can come up with some entirely new formulation of the relationships between people.""

how about this one mate
govt cant own anything..but what it holds by trust
on behalf of all the people..

[ie cant sell off the nbn..nor telstra..
nor water/roads/power..or even water

yes living servants..can adminerster them
but only..we the people hold ownership

and we..*all share..in the dividends..
and price is based simply on cost recovery

big users pay the most
small users get the best price
use more pay more

'"I can't see how it is possible
to sustain a large welfare state
in the absence of a capitalist economic base.""

thats too easy
govt generates..'money'..by servicing the peoples needs
it pays out to repair..restore...and ensure the survival of the least[equally as it supports the most]

we as far as govt is concerned..are all equal
we all deal exclusivly in coin..or credit..with local currency

issued specificly to local
councils to expend locally

that local banks can collect and lend locally
but that can be nationalised..then traded by capitalists..[as credit]

that is taxed by transaction and according to the mass of it 'on the move'..if it leaves the state..or council or cuntry it has a different...'transaction tax rate'


govt uses [issues]..coin
business uses paper

both interact via credit
local counties can even barter with exchange rates

use a lot..pay a lot
use less...pay less

get greedy
please explain

we begin with staking a claim
have a ownership local census

we must declare what we claim to own

because only the living can own

dead corperate intrests...are patent rights
only the living can own..no corperations owning corperations

Yabby,

My point about the peasant owning the spinning wheel was that he owned the means for his own production. Industrialism usurped his autonomy in this respect by taking the means out of individual hands and placing it with those who possessed the capital. What they did in the communist model was to follow an industrial model where the state held ownership on behalf of the people.... to go forward with a foot n both camps.

I believe "industrialisation" has radically altered man's state and his relationship with material reality. My idea of owning the means of production is one where an individual impacts his environment in a self-motivated and creative way.

But, of course, I'll be accused of wanting to send us back to caves, peasantry or smoking dope in Byron Bay......I'm merely making an observation of the way humans throughout most of known history have interacted with their environment

Dear OUG,

Most Jews in Russia were desperately poor and had no wealth to take with them. My father and the family lived in a hut with a dirt floor.

Antiseptic,
I can't speak for anyone else but I have no sense that socialism is a necessity, or that capitalism is expendable. As Peter says, we already live under socialism, or big government, only it also incongruously maintains disparities between rich and poor. I say we have to find other ways for people to distinguish themselves, rather than accumulation, or rewarding them with obscene amounts of money and concomitant power.
I haven't said capitalism's expendable. I've even said the opposite many times, that capitalism is now "too big to fail". That doesn't alter the fact that fail it will if Marx is correct. It's humans that are and ever have been expendable!

davidf:
<To expect any system to be uniformly good and have no deleterious effects outside of the nation is unreasonable utopianism>

David, I don't believe in utopianism and neither did Marx. Neither do I see discrete "systems" (called countries); I see one system that disparitely connects all countries in a grossly unfair, inhuman and unsustainable dispensation, and I do believe the inequities could be addressed, though certainly not by capitalism!
As I've said ad nauseam, I don't defend or support any of the corrupt regimes you keep invoking, and neither did Marx.

Yabby:
<Squeers and Poirot, being altruistic types, think that Marx was
correct and that human nature will change without that evil capitalism
and if people are reeducated in the correct manner>

I've never said that and neither did Marx. Marx didn't believe in "human nature". In his early works he talks about "species being", but that was tied up "precisely" with its evolutionary development! Neither Marx nor I have romantic notions of human goodness, only human "potential". You forget that Marx, like Freud, was "part" of that materialist world-view that Darwin heralded. We are not "motivated by enlightened self-interest", we are psychically-constructed by our culture and motivated according to that culture's dictates, which includes being conflicted by its institutions (like the church, patriotism, heterosexuality..)
Why do you assume those you disagree with fit the intellectual cliches that you've collected in the place of genuine understanding?

Poirot & Squeers,

So, concerning the peasant at her spinning wheel ........ the Enlightenment philosophers' attention to the individual was progessive ? Yes, I would assert that it was/is, and that any future society must take into account the legitimacy of individual aspirations, and individuality generally.

My reading of Marx's 'On the Jewish Quesiton' is that he is totally hostile to this, and for this reason, opposes any move towards equal rights (so bourgeois) for Jewish people, indeed for all people: only under socialism would there ever be genuine equality, with all individuals mashed into a sort of people's soup.

If socialism means the suppression of individual foibles, then I've been following the wrong star for fifty years. Limitations on excess, yes, but not suppression.

Joe

Dear Squuers,

You wrote: davidf:
<To expect any system to be uniformly good and have no deleterious effects outside of the nation is unreasonable utopianism>

David, I don't believe in utopianism and neither did Marx. Neither do I see discrete "systems" (called countries); I see one system that disparitely connects all countries in a grossly unfair, inhuman and unsustainable dispensation, and I do believe the inequities could be addressed, though certainly not by capitalism!
As I've said ad nauseam, I don't defend or support any of the corrupt regimes you keep invoking, and neither did Marx.

Dear Squeers, I never said that Marx supported corruption. I wrote that he supported tyranny and cited passages in the Manifesto such as government control of expression and the elimination of bourgeois protections against state oppression to demonstrate that contention. The bigot might have expected the tyrannies he advocated to be free from corruption.

The bigot prescribed tyranny, and Lenin did his best to fill the prescription. Some leftists with open eyes such as Emma Goldman saw right away that the Leninist state she and my uncle left in 1921 was a tyranny. Marx did not support corruption, but he supported tyranny. That's what he got. The tyranny was supposed to lead to something better in the future. I'm afraid that if you start out with tyranny you're going to end up with tyranny.

There is much that is unfair in our present system, but the bigot advocated stripping the protections against state tyranny that existed in the current system. I have cited those passages. Whatever he wanted he simply made things worse.

*Industrialism usurped his autonomy in this respect by taking the means out of individual hands and placing it with those who possessed the capital*

Only to a point, Poirot, because of course in small business, which
is a huge part of the economy, workers still own the means of
production. But with industrialisation came technical complexity.
A spinning wheel and financing it, cannot be compared to an oil
refinery. Thus we invented the shareholder.

*We are not "motivated by enlightened self-interest", we are psychically-constructed by our culture and motivated according to that culture's dictates*

Of course we are motivated by enlightened self interest. We are
also social beings so need to belong. If culture dictates what goes
against our self interest, we may pretend to accept the rules, that
does not mean that we mean it. Its the old question of nature versus
nurture and nurture is only going to change so much, try as we may.

They soon realised all this in the Soviet Union, when it came to
agriculture. Much as culture tried to impregnate them with producing
for the good of the nation, it was a hopeless situation and it was
the tiny owner plots which produced more and more of the food.

At the end of the day Squeers, even you act out of enlightened self
interest. You love your partner for how she makes YOU feel, you
love your children because they carry your dna. So even you are
tribal by nature

Joe,

I can't for the life of me see how you arrive at such an interpretation; Marx was fundamentally for the individual. If you want me to offer a counter-argument you'll have to substantiate your position citing passages from the text. If you put in the work to make your case, I'll put in the work to refute it, presuming it is refutable.
I might also suggest, since you've read On The Jewish Question, that you read "The Communist Manifesto" (more carefully than David). It gives a good account of Marx's individualism.

David,
though it seems a pointless exercise, since you are inflexible on the subject, I make you the same offer; if you can lay out your argument in detail and support it with references to the text, I'll respond in kind.
Marx did not advocate tyranny!

You may both want to look at this and some of the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Program

Yabby,
these are deep waters. As for myself, I don't pretend to be above my cultural conditioning.

in case it is missed, here is the primary text, which I recommend everyone read carefully if they want to discuss these matters in an informed manner:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm

david..i dislike going personal
on these complicated global issues

you lived your life as i lived mine
i hesitate to say we are both well off

my youngest life memory
is being tied to a tree
while my parents milked the cows

not a dirt floor
and im guessing..you personally
didnt live..with a dirt floor neither

its just..your own words confuse me

""My father and the family
lived in a hut..with a dirt floor.""

so the fathers family
lived on dirt floors
not you

""I attended courses..at the University of Queensland
while the USSR..was still operating.""

ok 60's...70's..?

""One of my uncle
was a Bolshevik""

so uncle means
your fathers brother?

""IN 1921 he got out
no longer a Bolshevik
and lived a much better life..in the US.""

so as only 'he' got out
we may assume...your father..got out too

so what..
both in their twenties...[in 1921]?

and you in your 20;s in 1971

so you were born
to a 60 year old..father in 1950's?

""As Keating said
the soufflee doesn't rise twice.""

yep same age
as keating

""Under the USSR..it didn't rise once."'

yet the capitalists need the ruskie elite space program
just to visit the capitalist..slush cow..[space station]

built concieved and designed
by natzie rocket engeneers
now destinctly fathers...
of capitalts..

and other capitalist
slush cows

we both..came a long way
yet why am i still..confused at your words

you got the best mind..really
but sometimes come across as a traditional blochovic party supremistie..a [capitalist]

noting that the bolchovics..in the main
killed 25 million xtians
on the 'death marches'

and the natzies
worked to death
6 million..

one third were jew

jews
chosen by capoes..[fellow jews]

""Most*..Jews in Russia..were desperately poor
and had no wealth to take with them.""

but not all jews.

it much depends on what type of jew
the blue eyed blochovic kind..or the brown eyed semite jew

i will not ask about you

only about mark'z
the bolchivic das-capital..[ist]

Dear All,

We go round and round. I'm leaving. Goodbye.

Squeers,

Thank you, but this train of logic in Marx's paper is instructive:

" ... we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society – i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community."

" ... Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is determined by a boundary post. It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself.... "

" .... But, the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself.

"The practical application of man’s right to liberty is man’s right to private property.... "

"... The right of man to private property is, therefore, the right to enjoy one’s property and to dispose of it at one’s discretion (à son gré), without regard to other men, independently of society, the right of self-interest. This individual liberty and its application form the basis of civil society. It makes every man see in other men not the realization of his own freedom, but the barrier to it.... "

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of individuality, only of its limitations, as if they were the be-all and end-all ?

"... There remain the other rights of man: égalité and sûreté.

"Equality, used here in its non-political sense, is nothing but the equality of the liberté described above – namely: each man is to the same extent regarded as such a self-sufficient monad."

[TBC]

[contd.]

Marx continues:

"And security?

"Article 8 ([French Republican] Constitution of 1793): “Security consists in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property.” "

"Security is the highest social concept of civil society, the concept of police, expressing the fact that the whole of society exists only in order to guarantee to each of its members the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property. It is in this sense that Hegel calls civil society “the state of need and reason.”

"The concept of security does not raise civil society above its egoism. On the contrary, security is the insurance of egoism.

"None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community...."

Not a great deal of support for the concept of individuality there, nor much appreciation of the potential value of civil society either, Squeers :)

Marx's chapter on 'Co-operation', Ch. XIII in Capital Vol. 1, (which could have been titled, 'The Benefits of Economies of Scale') dovetails somewhat with this lack of concern for the individual, in its approval of capitalist innovation.

BTW, this is an interesting paper:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/marc-stears-anthony-barnett/everyday-ed-labour-can-win-by-leaving-democracy-to-us?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=0

Hi again Squeers,

These comments of Marx seem to wrap up his attitudes to both individuality and to Jewish civil rights:

"None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bond holding them together is natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves.

"It is puzzling enough that a people which is just beginning to liberate itself, to tear down all the barriers between its various sections, and to establish a political community, that such a people solemnly proclaims (Declaration of 1791) the rights of egoistic man separated from his fellow men and from the community, and that indeed it repeats this proclamation at a moment when only the most heroic devotion can save the nation, and is therefore imperatively called for, at a moment when the sacrifice of all the interest of civil society must be the order of the day, and egoism must be punished as a crime. (Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc., of 1793) This fact becomes still more puzzling when we see that the political emancipators go so far as to reduce citizenship, and the political community, to a mere means for maintaining these so-called rights of man, that, therefore, the citoyen is declared to be the servant of egotistic homme, that the sphere in which man acts as a communal being is degraded to a level below the sphere in which he acts as a partial being, and that, finally, it is not man as citoyen, but man as private individual [bourgeois] who is considered to be the essential and true man."

[TBC]

contd.}

Not much there about people [men], free and equal individuals, coming together voluntarily to build and defend a better society.

So, in Marx's view, are people to be nothing more than citoyens, citizens, with no rights or legitimate interests, no rights to private lives, beyond what they share with other equally-circumscribed citoyens ? Doesn't sound like it. But it does sound like a full-on approval of all manner of Oprichniki, gulags, and lao gai, perhaps even of Pol Pot's killing fields. All for a good cause, of course.

I was raised as a Marxist, and I was given my name after Uncle Joe. I went Maoist in about 1962, but was always uneasy about Mao's pamphlet, 'On the People's Democratic Dictatorship', or something like that. "Democratic", I was okay with, but I tended to ignore the "dictatorship" part, to my shame. I still don't know how such a circle was to be squared, but I fear that it was certainly not by allowing or enabling the 'hundred flowers' of individuality to bloom.

In my view, unless socialist ideology can genuinely encompass the legitimacy, the NECESSITY, of individuality, then it doesn't deserve to get off the ground. Not individualism - individuality in all its creative potential.

Joe

Working all day today, Joe, but will get back to you when I can. In the meantime, what about page or paragraph numbers and texts cited? and a bit more of your own interpretation rather than just quotes?

*these are deep waters. As for myself, I don't pretend to be above my cultural conditioning*

Ok Squeers, thats an easy cop out. But hardly up to date with
what we know today about human behaviour. The Tabula Raza theory
is well out of date.

Yabby,

You're a great one for trumpeting the theories of others (or their debunking)...do you have any of your own?

Are you saying that humans aren't conditioned by the culture in which they are immersed?

*Are you saying that humans aren't conditioned by the culture in which they are immersed?*

No Poirot, what I am saying is that both genes and environment have
an affect on human behaviour. To think that you can just train
people to be what you want them to be, is a fallacy.

What affect each have on what, is an ongoing debate in science.
Twin studies for instance, on identical twins separated at birth,
make for fascinating reading. But the whole field of neuroscience
is unlocking how the mind works and it pays to take all of this
knowledge into account, not just outdated hypotheses.

Hi Suqeers,

A bit pedantic perhaps ? I don't know how to reference page numbers etc. for an on-line article, but I gave a reference for the quote from Capital.

Perhaps I'm mixing up Bauer and Marx, it's sometimes not clear who is saying what in his article, but Marx does not go out of his way to refute the assertion that, if Jews want full political rights, they can't have both full rights AND want to remain Jews, they can't demand general rights but also seek to protect their 'special' rights, whatever they may have been: exemption from military service perhaps ?

It's an interesting argument but let's translate it to our time, in relation to, say, Aboriginal people:

Aboriginal people shouldn't demand general rights like other 'citizens' and at the same time retain their Aboriginal identity. This might have gone down well with the conservatives back in the 1920s-1940s (and perhaps the Left since the 1970s) - that 'real' Aboriginal people have 'their' special rights and shouldn't want, or be recognised as exercising, general political rights: that would be tantamount to the dreaded assimilation. After all, the only genuine Aborigines are the ones out in the sticks, practising their culture, living off the land, eschewing Western values and the evils of consumerism, as well as the illusory bourgeois notion of 'equal rights'.

Or perhaps in the case of women, he is suggesting that they already have 'special' rights, that it would be absurd for them to demand 'general' political rights, as if they were men. Maybe I'm taking this too far ?

In defence of Marx, he may have been criticising the demands for specific national rights, the rights of small captive nations, as championned by the Romantics and the Counter-Enlightenment - in that light, he could just as easily have written 'On the Galician Question' or 'On the Ruthenian Question'. Or perhaps I'm being too forgiving :)

[TBC]

[contd]

But his denigration of the 'homme' in favour of the 'citoyen' does seem to disallow the right of everybody to their private foibles in the context of equality of political rights. 'Equality' of course was a bourgeois fantasy, only realisable under socialism, so it was idle, just on those grounds, to demand 'equal' rights, until the day of socialism had arrived.

And it does seem that, to Marx, civil society was not genuinely possible under capitalism or any other system but socialism, when in any case it would be superfluous, given that everybody, Jews, Christians, Galicians, Aborigines, women, would be subsumed in a common social soup, and individual opinions and foibles would be, if anything, harmful to the smooth running of his Utopia, the New Society of Socialist Man.

Question: have we moved one millimetre in that direction ? In 160 years ? Has it worked ? Is it more likely to be viable now than when Marx was writing ? If not, then what ? [Okay, five questions].

With respect, Squeers, we need to be careful we don't treat Marxism as if it were gospel-truth religion: we need to hold it up to the light and examine its record, just as we do with capitalism.

Both ideologies have/had fatal flaws. What might be better than both ?

Joe

you explain it well
the difference between..

""the so-called rights of man, the droits de l’homme
as distinct from the droits du citoyen,""

is the same as the right of person hood
awarded to a created fiction..{person under the act}
[like a govt incorerated coorperation]..under the corperations act

and a freeman..[ie not a slave]

the issue has become confounded however
in the main..NOW..a person..is anyone..seeking advantage under any govt 'act'

affectivly..the begger..is by law
is presumed to know..for what he begs

and it is further assumed..that no one deliberatly
choses tyo forgo his freebon status..unless seking some advantage[under the act]

affectivly govt has subverted us all into a clever scam
to the point where corperations now have subverted the fre born standing..usually acorded to only the living

see the lie begins
when you emerged from the waters[at birth]
just like a ship emerging from the waters of the seas..berths

and is then accorded for its cargo
a berthing or landfall certification[under the act]

by telling your mother or father
to apply[apply means beg]..to apply for a birthing ceryification
a legal 'person'..is created...[a cityzen][legally equal in lawfull standing to a slave

ie not a freeborn free man any more

[cause you app-lied/begged..
for this lower..[under],standing

cause your a person..
under ther births/mariages act

thus your a legal 'person',..created by the state

in reality..the person
created under the act...isnt you
[its the certification..of birth]

in time
you as a person/UNDER..the act
need beg for fuerther licences..[drivers licence etc]

all having a lower..
[under],standing..under the act

when you go to court
your called mr...[as in an army rank]
see they are persons[under the act too]
and the person [licence]..is presumed to be you

its a rather clever sceme
but god gave you rights

[equal enjoined freeborn men;..heirs of all creation]
but because no one told you..[ie informed concent]
your contracted[bound]..by personhood..
ie a slave under the act

you begg to regester your car..etc
but you have ONLY a right to use it
because the govt holds the certificate of landing

they securitised these
and these are some of them 'securities'
they bought with your compusory super..[also under the act]

in fact everything you sign
is a security...and has been bundled
by those more clever than you...knowing as a slave..theres nothing you can do[limited lieabilty its great mate]

thus the quote goes on
rights..""are nothing but the rights
of a member of civil society..i.e.,the rights of egoistic man,

of [FREE]man separated...
from other men..[persons/'cityzens]..and from the community."

but how to explain..to a slave he us free
only when..he sets himself free

Loudmouth, I think you're taking the issue of special pleading in the wrong direction.

Nizkor (the holocaust memorial project) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html says this:

"From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them."

and

"There are cases which are similar to instances of Special Pleading in which a person is offering at least some reason why he should be exempt but the reason is not good enough to warrant the exemption. This could be called "Failed Pleading." For example, a professor may claim to be exempt from helping the rest of the faculty move books to the new department office because it would be beneath his dignity. However, this is not a particularly good reason and would hardly justify his exemption. If it turns out that the real "reason" a person is claiming exemption is that they simply take themselves to be exempt, then they would be committing Special Pleading. Such cases will be fairly common. After all, it is fairly rare for adults to simply claim they are exempt without at least some pretense of justifying the exemption. "

Is Jewish religious/ethnic identification a relevant difference? Marx said it is not and I agree. The Nazi regime said it was and committed terrible acts on that basis. Many Jewish people say it is and the state of Israel was created and has committed terrible acts in its turn as a result. At best such special pleading is an example of the second quote I gave above.

[cont]

Is Aboriginality a relevant difference? I would say that it is, but only for those Aboriginal people who live in rural and remote areas in a traditional manner, since their lifestyle is very different to non-Aborigines who live in the same areas. Having chosen to mainatain a traditional lifestyle they have chosen to emphasise their difference and they do not have the same level of interaction with society at large, or the support from that society.

Urban Aborigines have no such relevant difference. Their ethnicity is not the defining condition for their interaction with broader society. There is no reason that their Aboriginality should preclude them from the opportunities or the obligations that membership of society implies.

Something that has become a standard feature of Australian public debate is this special pleading on the basis of claimed difference. So today we have special treatment for all sorts of groups that have absolutely no structural impediments to being treated the same way as everyone else. Being a "minority" is treated as synonymous with being oppressed or repressed or suppressed and therefore demands special treatment to redress.

That's not Marxist, but I suspect a great many of those who take it upon themselves to be "advocates" in such matters would claim to be sympathetic to his views. Trotsky (and Alinsky) have a lot to answer for.

good info anti

look at the words we are using

what is 'pleading'
[its begging to a higher power
but who gave those in 'power'..any higher power

we did..but how can they have MORE power..than we got
because they conned us into allowing them..to excersize this power

we gave govt the power..to rule over persons[under the act]
to get into business..you must regester under the act
because your under the act..the act stands over you
your 'subject'...[a subject]..under the act

just like some are subjects under the crown
or subject to the law

see the word immagrant
stating clearly..im a grant
ie granted to be a person under the immagrations act

ie a person accorded 'benifits under the act
gotten by begging [app-lying]..to FALL..under the act

why do i keep on trying

oh well
here goes

the transport act..regulates transport
transport is defined under the act..as carrying goods or people for money

if your not transporting
your not under the act

anything defined under the act
[ie that carries goods or peoople for money]
is a vehicle..[under the act]

but if your not carying[transporting]
you cant have a vehicle..[as defined under the act]

the transport act defines creates a 'driver'
but if your not transporting..you cant be a driver
thus cant fall under the transportation act

are you seeing a pattern
how about this one

there is wage,...[money earbned by value adding]
and income..[earned not by adding value

we got the income tax act
not the wage act

heck you person got no idea
that wage ISNT income

so you were made to regester for a tax file number
but by not being a business,..is not earning 'income'
you lied..when you applied

so we go back to the maxim
we are presumed to know for what we beg
ie we seek an advantage..[under the act]..ie by lying
that we are a 'person''..even worse lied as to our day/date of birth

WE DONT KNOW IT FROM OUR OWN KNOWING
thus lied when we app-lied

we dont got income
we arnt a person

we are only BOUND..by the mark of the beast
sign here..put your mark here

its a unilateral; contract
under unfair terms

your a slave because you applied
and got egsactly what you deserved

by signing you became a ward under the act
the legal term is 'inbisile'..in compitant to manage your own affairs

thus the govt trust
lord it over you..the trustee of the trust

we form a trust
to look after the needs of a child

thus the state..is your nanny
thinks for you..and tells you what to do

and so we got enslaved
by killing off those who knew the truth

ever since the true messiah
tried to set you free

oh lord jesus
will they ever learn

like saul/paul said..
its time they stopped drinking milk
learn to think..eat more meat

Joe,
not "pedantic" at all; a quote lifted from its context can be misleading.
In your initial post of Monday, 26 September 2011 8:46:32 PM you cite a few quotes and then say:
"Not exactly a ringing endorsement of individuality, only of its limitations, as if they were the be-all and end-all". In the next post you cite more quotes and then comment:
"Not a great deal of support for the concept of individuality there, nor much appreciation of the potential value of civil society either, Squeers :)",
The smiley face presumably indicating triumph? Yet all I can see to this point is the effrontery of a superficial reading of a complicated text. Marx uses the phrase "so-called" liberally in On The Jewish Question because he is interrogating civil society’s vaunted freedoms and individualism. Marx criticises “Bauer's” ultimate sophistry on the Jewish question because in criticising State religious-favouritism he doesn’t go far enough, either to solve the so-called problem of the Jewish question (not the problem for Marx!) or individual freedom. Bauer wants religious preferentiality purged altogether from the State, like modern secularists, naively supposing that would instantiate true emancipation:
“The Jewish question acquires a different form depending on the state in which the Jew lives. In Germany, where there is no political state, no state as such, the Jewish question is a purely theological one. The Jew finds himself in religious opposition to the state, which recognizes Christianity as its basis. This state is a theologian ex professo. Criticism here is criticism of theology, a double-edged criticism – criticism of Christian theology and of Jewish theology. Hence, we continue to operate in the sphere of theology, however much we may operate critically within it.

In France, a constitutional state, the Jewish question is a question of constitutionalism, the question of the incompleteness of political emancipation. Since the semblance of a state religion is retained here, although in a meaningless and self-contradictory formula, that of a religion of the majority, the relation of the Jew to the state retains the semblance of a religious, theological opposition”
cont..

..cont.
Marx is fomenting “precisely” for “the potential value of civil society”, and for “true” individuality within it! He is saying that purging the State of religious considerations, and ergo of religious strife, does not purge the State of its pseudo-divinity; that is, worship of private property and attendant egoism, or alienation.
“The perfect political state is, by its nature, man’s species-life, as opposed to his material life. All the preconditions of this egoistic life continue to exist in civil society outside the sphere of the state, but as qualities of civil society. Where the political state has attained its true development, man – not only in thought, in consciousness, but in reality, in life – leads a twofold life, a heavenly and an earthly life: life in the political community, in which he considers himself a communal being, and life in civil society, in which he acts as a private individual, regards other men as a means, degrades himself into a means, and becomes the plaything of alien powers. The relation of the political state to civil society is just as spiritual as the relations of heaven to earth. The political state stands in the same opposition to civil society, and it prevails over the latter in the same way as religion prevails”.

Marx is trumping Bouer’s critique of the religious State with his own critique of the earthly divinity that needs purging just as urgently: inequity (and the obsession of private property), which is not only unethical, but the source of egoism, or “faux individuality”.
cont..

..cont.

In Marx’s transcendence of “Bauer’s” Jewish question, the Jew is "metonym" for civil society as it stands: an alienated condition in which “so-called” individuality is vested in a vicious and loaded contest over private property, rather than in a communal reality that reflects an “ideology” of political community. Thus the modern secularists are striving for precisely the same limited freedom and delusionary individualism as Bauer was. The “ideology” of modern secular humanism too, is made ridiculous by the reality of human enslavement to a doctrine of acquisitiveness, and all that it entails (otherness, viciousness, egoism, wealth and poverty, megalomania--delusionary life at the individual and social level).
Thus Marx’s offensive conclusion:
“Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism”,
is only an offense against political correctness, figuring the Jew as the stereotypical personification of the capitalist (Judaistic) individual.
Marx does deal in On the Jewish Question with the limitations of individualism, “as they stood (and stand!)”, and those limitations “are” “the be-all and end-all” of the deluded individual in the capitalist system. Marx “does” support “the concept of individuality”. The “concept” is all that currently exists! Marx wanted political community to be the seedbed of true individuality, vested in equality and community.
If I get the chance I’ll comment on your other posts later.
Yabby,
Not a copout, I just don’t see the value in glib comments and I don’t have the time to do the topic justice. Besides, it’s off-topic and more in the nature of baiting me, as usual, than genuine discussion

Thank you, Squeers, but can you stand back a bit and examine what you have written ? What Marx writes is almost obscene - as I understand your quotes, he is suggesting that a person can't be Jewish or Aboriginal or have any specificity or identity, it's all illusion, that civil society is all illusion, that genuine society, civil society, and human diversity can never be properly achieved until the Day, and even then, I don't know how human diversity is meant to go, perhaps there will be no 'historical' need for diversity, therefore it will be seen as subversive of The Good Society and purged. Hello, gulags.

Of course, it's no longer 1830, or 1848, or 1871. We've learnt a great deal, through a multitude of bitter experiences, since Marx's time. So perhaps Marx's message needs to be paraphrased (or distorted?): that socialism will, if anything, need to supersede democracy, to do better than democracy, that the limits of democracy have to be reached and then transcended, rather than avoided and denigrated. I.e. socialism, to be at all valid, must build on democracy, with all its imperfections and annoying diversity, i.e. built on the fuzzy and imperfect aspirations of the Enlightenment, in spite of all its illusions which only a select few can clearly understand.

A socialism built on, and superior to, the best aspects of democracy - that might get my vote.

Oh I keep forgetting - under genuine socialism, there isn't any need, ever again, for the vote ? Once we have 'chosen' The Good Society and its apparatchiks, we are stuck with it forever. Now, where have we seen a party being elected and then immediately banning future elections ? Or am I being unnecessarily provocative ?

Joe :)

Joe:
<What Marx writes is almost obscene - as I understand your quotes>
well then you don't undestand them--but a charge of obscenity is always a useful rhetorical device when substance is wanting, isn't it?

As I've said, Marx used Jewishness metonymically for civil society under capitalism; we are figuratively all Jews, according to the stereotype. If you read the text closely, he is not denigrating the idea of cultural distinctiveness (quite the opposite!), but asserting that the ideology of political community (including such verities as "cultural diversity" lol) is confounded by the lived-reality of civil society, where each "acts as a private individual, regards other men as a means, degrades himself into a means, and becomes the plaything of alien powers".

Whether Christian, Jew or Aboriginal, the individual must play the only game in town, and live counter to his professed ideals. This is manifestly so for the bourgeois Christian, who lives utterly counter to the teachings of Jesus and (ab)uses religion as a kind of idealistic counterweight. It's equally true for the Jew, whom, however, Marx puns and tropes with.
How on Earth can the aborigine claim his distinctiveness when he leaves the land and his culture to embark on the same demeaning and futile pursuit as the rest, to live utterly at odds with any notion of indiginous culture. Indeed to compete in a vicious world where his aboriginality is a material disadvantage, since western ideology is not only at odds with civil society, but also with itself! Ergo intolerance.
Assimilating aborigines into the system, while simultaneously patronising them with a trumped-up sense of their cultural-distinctiveness, which is supposed to be a comfort! rather than a reminder of what they've lost, or an identity for which they've endured centuries of humiliation, deprecation and disadvantaged, takes my breath away in its brazenness.
cont..

..cont.
At this stage of late-capitalism you're deluded if you think there's much cultural distinctiveness left. Distinctive cultures are almost extinct, and live-on only as commodities. Anyone can buy a didgeridoo. But you can't live the life any more than you can be a real Christian and live a reality of viciousness.
Marx was trying to make genuine individualism and cultural distinctiveness a civil possibility rather than an ideological contradiction!

Antiseptic,
I would say urban aborigines most certainly do have a relevant difference. It's called skin, and aboriginal skin and features have a history of being the most despised of all. I asked my racist friend in Mt Isa once, six foot six, good looking, white and very successful, if he thought he'd have been as successfull if he'd been born an aboriginal. Still waiting for an answer.
Skin is also the organ of sensitivity, and not just pigment. The skin is a mass of sensitivity and so is the human being. I've often wondered how I'd feel if I was an aborigine to some prominent outward degree, in a white world that mistrusted me at best and loathed and despised me at worst. I think I would be an utterly "dysfunctional" and paranoid individual.
The book to read is Lerissa Behrendt's "Home".

On this subject, I noticed this article recently.

Apparently Aboriginal Australians have been here around 50,000 years and perhaps up to 75,000 years and have had a longer continuous association with the land than any other race of people.

"...the study shows that when ancestral Australians began their journey, the ancestors of Asians and Europeans had not yet differentiated from each other and were still in Africa or the Middle-East."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-23/aboriginal-dna-dates-australian-arrival/2913010

Slightly off track but I thought it was interesting.

Squeers,

Obscene, yes - and with respect, you provide examples of this callousness towards non-majority people, that if they can't forget who they are, then they can bugger off, until the Great Day:

What it is to be Aboriginal is simply, in my view, whatever Aboriginal people are doing, WHILE REMAINING ABORIGINAL. Ask them, when they are working, playing, shopping, enjoying a movie - 'are you still Aboriginal ?' and they will look at you as if you are crazy. Of course they are, they'll respond.

And as such, they are entitled to the full rights of participation in Australian society, Australia's civil society, no matter how flawed and illusory those rights may be.

What's your alternative - that any Aboriginal people who wish to keep asserting their Aboriginality might as well keep out of town - that, if they want to stay Aboriginal, illusory equal rights for them will have to wait until the Day? I thought such Right-wing ideas went out fifty years ago [forty years ago in Queensland].

Colour is not the only criterion - many of my relations-by-marriage are paler than me, but have grown up knowing only Aboriginal relations, day in, day out, mothers, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts dropping in, grannies. No white fellas within cooee. So, pale or dark, and accepted by all of the Aboriginal people around them right through their childhood, and usually slagged by many the non-Aboriginal people around them, it's no mystery if Aboriginal people raised in that way take their Aboriginality for granted, no matter what they are doing, how they are living, who they marry.

And surely it is progressive to recognise their equal rights to participate in society, as 'citoyens', as whatever they damn-well like, or should they wait to be liberated by the revolutionary working-class ? How long might that take ?

To get back to topic .....

[TBC]

[contd.]

My point is that, pace Marx, civil society is better than no civil society. If it the arena for illusory equal rights, then so be it, it's a damn sight better than none at all, and as a woman, surely you would agree ?

The Arab Spring is in the process of building civil societies, as opposed to the dictatorships that they are striving to displace, and yes, that's called 'revolution'. Civil society, no matter how defective and partial, is the space between the isolation of individuals and the intrusion of the state, the space for voluntarily coming together with common purposes, the space for discussion and debate.

OLO is an expression of civil society - imagine a society without it, where the state dictates directly to us 'citoyens', and tells us what and how to think. Identity, diversity and unruly discussion find expression in civil societies. It appears that in your Utopia, Squeers, they will be absent, or have I misrepresented you, yet again ?

Joe

I understand your point, Joe; you prefer the blue pill.
I'm too busy to go on wasting my time anyway.

Joe,

I'm curious as to why you think Western society is so accepting of individuality? It seems to me, like all societies, to behave as a collective organism. It moves forward in step. It's extremely psychologically challenging to go against the herd...I know because I'm a homeschooler. Psychologically, I have to constantly look outside the square to justify my stance - it's an ongoing process and one where I tend to look beyond the paradigm and just take "life" into account. Every time, however, I come up trumps, but I'm unusual in that respect and most people wouldn't dream of deliberately seizing that sort of "individuality".

Regarding aboriginality in a mainstream setting. Yes, they are people making their way in Western society. They maintain close family ties as is their tradition, but also as a buttress against a society that has always marginalised them - or, as Clive James once wrote, regarded them as something between "a side-show and an embarrassment".

Yes, they are moving forward and attempting to take their place in mainstream society, but to do so they are required to "blend". Distinctiveness is a two-way street. Pride in their aboriginality is the proud psychological link they retain, but the reality is that they've been forced, in the main, to to rely on the close-knit fabric of kinship as a defensive mechanism against the mores of mainstream society.

Hi Poirot,

Spot-on ! Yes, individuality is difficult to maintain in any society, impossible in some, but at least in post-Enlightenment liberal democracies such as Australia, for all their faults, there is that space, the latitude, to think for yourself, to have your own preferences and opinions and interests. In concert with others, it allows for the fostering of that social space called civil society, or open society in Popper's terms, where people are relatively free to come together, act together, relatively free of the constraints imposed by state, religion, economy, ethnic group or family. Without the freedom to foster a civil society, how would unions or sports clubs or choral groups or rev-head groups or whatever ever get organised ? And without some room to move for individuality, with all the hassles it may cause and obstacles which may be put in its way, there would be no development of any civil society.

Yes, you're right, it's a constant struggle for Aboriginal people to negotiate their way in the mainstream, but in a real sense, that's 'OUR' problem, because after all, it's THEIR mainstream too, and if 'we' are uncomfortable with that, if 'we' think that Aboriginal people are just some sort of side-show, then 'we' have a lot of re-thinking to do to broaden our society and make it more hospitable - not just for Aboriginal people, but for all Australians: 'we are one, but we are many', as the song goes. A non-Anglo presence is legitimate and 'we' have to get used to it: it's not 'our' society alone, and never has been.

I'm not so sure that people have to blend, or even feel that they have to: they are what they are, they have the kinship that they have, that's how it is, and if other people don't like it, they can go to buggery. It's not really any of their business.

Joe

Joe,

As I said to a friend of mine recently, my thoughts are that Aboriginal people in mainstream Australia identify with a shared feeling of marginalisation and even downtroddeness, and because they are suffering that sense of isolation together, they form an alternative bond in concert with their indigenous consciousness....but it's not a step towards individuality - it's a collective idea as a defence in response to the mainstream paradigm.

The theory that we're all free in this society to choose which clubs, etc. we like is like being in a chess game. There exists a canon of appropriate moves and choices, but the reality is that those choices do operate under an umbrella of constraint. All human societies operate like that to a greater or lesser degree...and it's not possible to retain a sense of distinctiveness amidst the majority unless you stand either above or below the norm.

Poirot,

Well, people are many-sided - yes, they can form close bonds with other people, merging their individuality to an extent. But we all are individuals as well, we have our own experiences, thoughts, attitudes and private spaces, as well as our associations with others. Thank Christ.

Yes, in isolated settlements, Aboriginal people may tend to submerge their differences, at different levels as circumstances dictate: between siblings, within nuclear families, within extended families and within the 'community' as a whole. I guess we all behave like that if the circumstances permit or compel it.

But no two families, particularly those who have moved away from settlements to towns, and from towns to the cities, have the same experiences, or react to circumstances in the same way. Everybody is unique in that way, Black and White, each of us has to negotiate life within the framework of our own experiences and coping mechanisms. Just look at the differences between close siblings.

There is a rich spectrum of arrangements that we negotiate simultaneously, serially, unconsciously, between our individual privacy and our need to be with other people who we are comfortable with, who we may love. It's not either-or, individuality/individualism OR association/collectivity. In our daily lives, yours and mine, we experience a range of relationships across that spectrum.

Sorry, Poirot, you can't really squeeze Aboriginal people into a convenient 'collective-only' category for ideological purposes. They have individual attitudes and feelings, just like you :)

Cheers,

Joe

Nice try, Joe,

"They have individual attitudes and feelings, just like you."
Thanks for the patronisation, perhaps you might learn to debate one day without resorting to that particular tactic. : )

I'm not attempting to "squeeze" Aboriginal people into any paradigm - other than the human one.

Like it or not, when they participate fully in mainstream society they (or individuals from any culture) are taking part in a collective waltz. They jettison their distinctiveness with every step they take.
Individuality and collectivity are dual qualities that merge to make society. As a culture, you can't maintain distinctiveness while merging with another more encompassing than your own. Things alter and little bits are continually shed by the wayside.

: )

Well Poirot, it's horses for courses: it depends who you are with, and who brung you. If I could modify your quote: 'They jettison their [public] distinctiveness with every step they take.' But it depends who somebody's 'public' is: for Aboriginal people, it is highly likely to be other Aboriginal people, most of the time. And when it isn't, people can easily put on their public persona, or a particular public persona, if you like, without losing their other persona/s. We all do it, it's part of our social skills.

So I wouldn't call it necessarily a 'collective' waltz: more like an associative one, for particular purposes at a particular time. After all, even when you are dancing with someone, you still have to think about your own feet. Well, I certainly do, to little avail.

Joe

*It seems to me, like all societies, to behave as a collective organism. It moves forward in step. It's extremely psychologically challenging to go against the herd...I know because I'm a homeschooler. Psychologically, I have to constantly look outside the square to justify my stance*

That really depends on you, Poirot, and your need to belong to
your particular "tribe". Which is really the people in your phone
register.

Take a closer look in most cities and you'll find that people of
similar minds hang out together, but they are quite different
from other groups or tribes. The religious hang out together,
the yachties and other sports types hang out together, the surfers
do their own thing, the list goes on.

You can even head for Nimbin and become a full time dope smoking
hippie and be well accepted by that group.

The thing is in our society people do in fact have choices, its
when behaviour becomes compulsory that there is a problem.

In fact people in our society who ignore society completely and
do their own thing, are often huge winners. Richard Branson is
a great example. Its common behaviour for all sorts of entrepreneurs.

Yabby,

I know you think you know "my type", but none of the people in my "phone register" homeschool. It truly was a decision I came to by myself. I've met people since who do it, but they are not part of my "tribe" even though we obviously have things in common. It's just that it was particularly difficult to okay it with myself because as a member of society I felt compelled to conform - to send my kid to school...

But I do agree that vying for a modicum of individualism is rewarding - sort of liberating in its way....but even people who manage to grab a bit of individualism are still, for the most part, tethered to the mainstays of their culture.
It's difficult to ignore the model set up in your head, as I found when I first thought of home education. I found I had to look at "education" itself in a whole new light.

Exactly, Poirot ! We are all individuals, no matter how much we may have common with other people. As you say about home-schoolers (who have all manner of idiosyncratic reasons for home-schooling), "... they are not part of my "tribe" even though we obviously have things in common."

But clearly, you didn't conform to some diktat. You thought for yourself. You made your own decisions. Would you want it any other way ?

Of course, we are all constrained by many factors, not least the right of others to as much freedom and choice as we have: one person's freedom of action is bound to abutt up against that of somebody else, or of society's in general. Isaiah Berlin's 'negative freedom' describes precisely these necessary limits on our freedom, that in a liberal society, everyone - at least formally - has similar limits on their freedom, i.e. not to intrude on somebody else's equal right to their freedom, and vice versa.

But we don't 'solve' or get around those constraints by submerging ourselves in some collective soup, and forgoing any individual choice at all. We can't solve the problem of constraint, if you like, by abolishing the very foundations on which we make our individual, and constrained, choices. I guess this in one of my beefs with Marx, that there are limits to the rights of the collective, as well as those of the individual. One can't abolish one by granting supreme power to the other.

To be fair, even Marx noted this ultimate primacy for the individual, in his description of what sounded to him like the ideal life: eight hours work, eight hours sleep, and eight hours to go fishing, or read, or sit under a tree and do nothing. Not much room there for the collective: so in his view, we work in co-operation, but what we do in our leisure time is our own business. Sounds fair enough.

Joe

Joe,

I think "culture" and individuality and collectivity are wide-ranging in scope and meaning.
My point was that in choosing to homeschool, I was acting way outside the prescribed paradigm. It took much psychological effort on my part to realise that I actually was in possession of such freedom.
I probably do most other things within the canon of accepted cultural conduct. It's the culture in which I'm embedded which dictates the norm. Many people in the world would think one nuts to shut a child in a room all day to "educate" them - because their culture is different and a child is educated in the things s/he needs to know in other ways.

I deviated from the norm - most people don't.

Oh, I think you'd be surprised, Poirot ;)

pure oh..im tempted to say pure rot
but mor re what the gabby yabby sumised
that you later ajoined into

i have been in those groups that the gabby one named
and them groupings are as diverse as each are unable to be typecast

but where to begin without naming names
so i will list types..not all hippies are hip

and not all nimbinites use drugs
as for a cluster of religionists...[lol]

yabby ol mate
all old men are.....[to say anytghing will be wrong]

all single mothers are ....[go on i dare you]

all kids are rebels
all politions are....[well you know..they really are]

how about all musitions only want to be loved
or all rollong stone fans are old fogies

only late nigh owls..watch black and white classics
and only nurds buy collectable dolls..[sorry figures]...lol

anyhow all olo's are unique
even those why fly together..on occasion..
yet find we disagree at other times..on many topics

heck..god gave everyone..their own face
their own unique dna..their own unique fingerprint
their own unique face code..that allows them majic camera's..[tp keep us safe]..not track us

of course we know all muslims are errorists
and al greenies are fools..and only mugs trust a politition saying no more new taxes..[were only having an inquiry to hide it..from toney and the mug voters]

look karl might be a fool or a hero
but he is dead..[as far as you mere-mortals are concerned]

dont trust any ism's
and ps to david
im sorry

and as as asside
those who said that hole in the ozone
didnt know a few years later..we would find a new tax sceme
to blame for the warming..the adverts then predicted

not all scientists have sol us out
but those with big bank accounts

well you just gotta wonder

eh?

*I know you think you know "my type", but none of the people in my "phone register" homeschool*

I was thinking of going against the "herd" in general, Poirot,
not homeschooling as such. Personally I can't see why the herd
should even think of objecting, thats your business really.
I'm just glad that I was not homeschooled, for the purpose
of school was to be with your mates and escape the motherly
apron strings as much as possible.

Fitting in to seek approval is an individual thing, IMHO.
Some people yearn to be accepted and belong, some don't.

I once had a friend comment that he'd noticed that I never gave
a hoot what people thought and just did what I thought was right
and indeed his observation was correct.

Women might have it tougher. If you wear the blue dress, they'd
be bitching that you'd look better in yellow and if you wear
yellow, they'd be bitching that you'd look better in green.
The more attractive that you are, the more other women will
bitch about their "friends". Just another human foible.

Yabby,

It's not so much that the herd objects - it's whether an individual can justify to themselves the value of doing something different from the herd. I know I bang on about my experience, but it really was a revelation to me just how confronting deviation is.

Btw, our little guy is friends with the neighbourhood kids. We have a vacant block next door with an excellent 'clubhouse" tree, where they meet after school, on weekends and during school holidays (to get away from their mums : )

OUG - sorry I don't follow - what's pure rot?