NationStates Jolt Archive

(Because this took me a while to type.)

I think it's important to separate Marx from Marxism. He famously said that he was not a Marxist in order to disassociate himself from what would be added to his work later on. Marx also wrote for two different audiences. The educated scholars and the people. The communist manifesto is an example of the later; it was intended for the masses and features slightly different arguments then his higher level work.

Marx has been said to be an advocate of cyclical history. He thought that history would go through several phases in which different economic interaction would prevail. 1) First primitive socialism exists before civilisation truly comes together. 2) Feudalism takes off as the means to work the land and create specialists becomes viable. The ruling class here are the aristocratic land owners. 3) Capitalism replaces feudalism as industrialisation and urbanisation begins to make what you have built on the land more important then the land itself. . The factory owners now control the means of production. This group is the Bourgeoisie and they displace the aristocrats which Marx considers a GOOD thing. Capitalism is also valuable because it push up technology as capital is reinvested. 4) When a state has become advanced enough then Communism or Socialism become more efficient systems as this method of trading reduces social instability.

Marx believed that Western Europe was ready for this however these states forestalled revolution by negotiation Social Democracy, Sociology et.al and later on by exploiting the undeveloped nations to swell the middle classes and decrease instability.

Later scholars have added a great deal of theory to Marxism causing it to break into several branches and Marx has influenced many sociologists.


(This is just a quick response with a few holes. I have no problem with mature criticisms of this summary. Also I tried to keep it so that you could skim it if you like)

I have no problem with mature criticisms of this summary.

Check punctuation.

And for the rebound!!!

In before the lock.

No point in locking it.


Yet.


But really, he's no Andaras. Unless he secretly is. Damn ninja-disguise commies.

Can we try to discuss the topic and not get the thread locked? Can we? Pweese?

Like I said. First draft and it's morning here.

In the end the most important thing about communism and capitalism is that they are theories that revolve around the physical rather then the spiritual.

Good summary, very efficient. Marx was indeed wise to disassociate himself from Marxism, look at what happened to it, even before he died it had broken down slightly.

Can we try to discuss the topic and not get the thread locked? Can we? Pweese?

I'm actually serious in my criticism of punctuation. I pay attention to such details. Attention to details as a poster makes for better arguments.

Also, as I've mentioned somewhere before, putting latin phrases in your post means you win. You should use some of those.

I'm actually serious in my criticism of punctuation. I pay attention to such details. Attention to details as a poster makes for better arguments.

Also, as I've mentioned somewhere before, putting latin phrases in your post means you win. You should use some of those.

Can you focus for a second? Marxism´s the topic, not punctuation. Although your argument is valid, Marxism´s the subject of the discussion.;)

I was reading Fredric Jamieson recently and noticed that he is already complaining about "the Vulgar Marxists" which I understand was a particular interpretation of Marxism.

If any one would like to explain how this differs from classical Marxism then I wouldn't mind knowing.

(Also I read through that first post again and Oh yes the punctuation is shakey and there are a few errors in how it's been put together : ( ah well, not being graded on it.)

I was reading Fredric Jamieson recently and noticed that he is already complaining about "the Vulgar Marxists" which I understand was a particular interpretation of Marxism.

If any one would like to explain how this differs from classical Marxism then I wouldn't mind knowing.

(Also I read through that first post again and Oh yes the punctuation is shakey and there are a few errors in how it's been put together : ( ah well, not being graded on it.)

I would like to know too. I mean, in a more detailed way. I found this in Wikipedia. It sums up several basic ideas in Marxist philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy

I suppose we should also discuss alienation.

Alienation is the idea that when a person creates something then they use their creative nature and that this invests a portion of their "species being" into their creation. The species being is the ability to produce functional and artistic objects outside of themselves and is the closest that Marx gets to the soul.

Alienation occurs because the objects that the worker creates are taken away by the Bourgeoisie to be sold and that the worker is given only a small portion of its value, critically this is not enough to buy back what they have produced. The people must work to feed themselves but they do not enjoy their work, they only do it to survive.

As a result the worker's creative sense becomes twisted and warped and they are 'Alien' to that which they produce.

Can you focus for a second? Marxism´s the topic, not punctuation. Although your argument is valid, Marxism´s the subject of the discussion.;)

Socialism fundamentally breaks down because it requires everyone to do X+ work for X pay, and most people realize that they get X pay regardless of the amount of work they do. Points 1-3 are historical and prove nothing except to restate what has happened historically. Communism in Russia was nothing like Marx said it should have been, as Russia was a backwards, underdeveloped dog of a nation, and the revolution was accomplished primarily by the farmers, whom Marx held with contempt. The revolution never happened in America because 1) America has a middle class which should not exist according to Marx, which exists because 2) the US market is not, strictly speaking, entirely free, with efforts by the gov't to prevent monopolies and utter exploitation of lower classes (by upholding labor laws, upholding the rights of Unions, and minimum wages laws). This provides a stability within the market and allows more mobility between classes, lessening tension in the lower classes (since they have every opportunity to become successful). Socialism does not fail because all people are lazy or greedy, but rather because some are, and with them comes its downfall. Further speculation on Marxism remains speculation, as China, Russia, and others do not represent true socialism or Marxism, and today's reality would show that the most successful nations are Capitalist nations, or at least nations with Capitalist elements (ie: China leaves Hong Kong as a somewhat separate capitalist sector), perhaps proving that Socialism as a thought experiment is a wonderful idea but in realistic practice it simply does not hold up. Let reality be the proof: Marx said socialism would happen; it hasn't - Marx was wrong.

Does this satisfy?

Socialism fundamentally breaks down because it requires everyone to do X+ work for X pay, and most people realize that they get X pay regardless of the amount of work they do.


To restate that in more Marxist terminology: The idea was you would do the work you were able to and recieve what you needed.

Also Marx did write a little on the middle classes though you are right that it is a weakness in his work.

Regardless it isnt as open and shut a case as you put it as Marxist ideas are used within sytems and left wing parties do exist in many democratic states.

As for points 1-3 they show an interpretation of history which should be looked at in order to find bias. Do we accept this reading of the past.

To restate that in more Marxist terminology: The idea was you would do the work you were able to and receive what you needed.

The weakness is when people realize they still get what they need even if they are "unable" to do quite as much work. More importantly, perhaps, is that people realize that even if they are able to do a great deal, they still only get what they need and nothing more, so there is no incentive to work harder. Which works fine as long as everyone is not greedy. But one person is greedy, stops working, still gets fed. Another person says, screw this, he stops working, so on and so forth. Thus, Stalin wanted X tons of shoes made by Y date. So they made lead shoes. A problem with Stalin's 5-year-plan specifically, but indicative of the problems in Marxism.

Also Marx did write a little on the middle classes though you are right that it is a weakness in his work.

Regardless it isnt as open and shut a case as you put it as Marxist ideas are used within sytems and left wing parties do exist in many democratic states.

I was paraphrasing with the intent to show that I am very capable of remaining on topic and contributing intellectually to a discussion (I just think it's more fun not to). Of course it's much more complicated than what I've said, but then, when is something not incredibly complicated? The simplified version proved the point I was trying to make, so I left it at that.

As for points 1-3 they show an interpretation of history which should be looked at in order to find bias. Do we accept this reading of the past.

I meant to criticize Marx's assertion of the process being cyclical. He merely stated what happened before, which is no guarantee that it will ever happen again. Nor do I think his assumptions trace a logical path. IE: "Because 1) happened, 2) happened, then 3) happened, (which is all well and good, as they did happen), and therefore 4) will happen." Which is how we logically go about making predictions, of course. However, in these points at least, Marx is merely restating past events, and should not be given credit for predicting anything.

As a side note, it does not logically follow that just because the Sun has risen several billion times in the past, that it will necessarily rise tomorrow. With that in mind, sociology is infinitely less predictable than the motions of the planets. That Marx tried is somewhat commendable. That he failed (and he did fail, as today is nothing like what he said it would be like) is not to be overlooked. He did fail, never forget that.

Socialism fundamentally breaks down because it requires everyone to do X+ work for X pay, and most people realize that they get X pay regardless of the amount of work they do. Points 1-3 are historical and prove nothing except to restate what has happened historically. Communism in Russia was nothing like Marx said it should have been, as Russia was a backwards, underdeveloped dog of a nation, and the revolution was accomplished primarily by the farmers, whom Marx held with contempt. The revolution never happened in America because 1) America has a middle class which should not exist according to Marx, which exists because 2) the US market is not, strictly speaking, entirely free, with efforts by the gov't to prevent monopolies and utter exploitation of lower classes (by upholding labor laws, upholding the rights of Unions, and minimum wages laws). This provides a stability within the market and allows more mobility between classes, lessening tension in the lower classes (since they have every opportunity to become successful). Socialism does not fail because all people are lazy or greedy, but rather because some are, and with them comes its downfall. Further speculation on Marxism remains speculation, as China, Russia, and others do not represent true socialism or Marxism, and today's reality would show that the most successful nations are Capitalist nations, or at least nations with Capitalist elements (ie: China leaves Hong Kong as a somewhat separate capitalist sector), perhaps proving that Socialism as a thought experiment is a wonderful idea but in realistic practice it simply does not hold up. Let reality be the proof: Marx said socialism would happen; it hasn't - Marx was wrong.

Does this satisfy?

Yes, it immensely satisfies me. Now, do provide the link to the information you so blatantly plagerised.:D

Yes, it immensely satisfies me. Now, do provide the link to the information you so blatantly plagerised.:D

Plagiarized.

I suppose we should also discuss alienation.

Alienation is the idea that when a person creates something then they use their creative nature and that this invests a portion of their "species being" into their creation. The species being is the ability to produce functional and artistic objects outside of themselves and is the closest that Marx gets to the soul.

Alienation occurs because the objects that the worker creates are taken away by the Bourgeoisie to be sold and that the worker is given only a small portion of its value, critically this is not enough to buy back what they have produced. The people must work to feed themselves but they do not enjoy their work, they only do it to survive.

As a result the worker's creative sense becomes twisted and warped and they are 'Alien' to that which they produce.

You mean like, they become immune to what they generate? Well, that would explain the apathy workers feel about what they produce.

Plagiarized.

Thank you, Lord Grammar.;)

Thank you, Lord Grammar.;)

I prefer "God of Spam" or "Poseidon, God of the Sea" but Lord of Grammar works, too. On that note, no self-respecting God of Spam would be caught plagiarizing.

I prefer "God of Spam" or "Poseidon, God of the Sea" but Lord of Grammar works, too. On that note, no self-respecting God of Spam would be caught plagiarizing.

Ok, then instead of God of Grammar, I shall call you Demi-god of punctuation. Better? And please, remember that spamming isn´t well looked at here.;)
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/469758086_051b1dd752.jpg

Ok, then instead of God of Grammar, I shall call you Demi-god of punctuation. Better? And please, remember that spamming isn´t well looked at here.;)
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/469758086_051b1dd752.jpg

Please note my join date, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13546923&postcount=51) post, my sig, and that this is not my first nation. I am in fact well aware of the attitude towards spam.


That never stopped me before.

Please note my join date, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13546923&postcount=51) post, my sig, and that this is not my first nation. I am in fact well aware of the attitude towards spam.


That never stopped me before.


Ok, continue your views on Marxism, please. You contributed to the mods closing the last thread, even after AP´s departure and Tsarine´s warnings. Don´t do the same to this one, please.

I found this article (http://www.redflag.org.uk/articles/isfive/is5marx.html) on Marxism and I think it´s very interesting. Notably, the dialectical materialism in Marxism. Dialectical materialism is, according to Marx and Engels: Dialectical materialism is often defined by reference to two claims by Marx: first that he "put Hegel's dialectics back on its feet" and second, that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." (The Communist Manifesto, 1848). Dialectical materialism is essentially characterized by the belief that history is the product of class struggle and obeys the general Hegelian principle of philosophy of history, that is the development of the thesis into its antithesis which is sublated by the "Aufhebung" (~ synthesis, a term not employed by Hegel in describing his dialectics.) — which conserves the thesis and the antithesis while at the same time abolishing it (Aufheben — this contradiction explains the difficulties of Hegel's thought). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism)

You mean like, they become immune to what they generate? Well, that would explain the apathy workers feel about what they produce.

I don't know about immune, more like casual hatred.

Also RhynoD I appreciate the first post of yours that didn't make me feel that you had nothing but contempt for me : )

Also I agree that the greed thing dosen't work out. The Socialists believed that without the rich and their dead capital that it would balance out. Flawed in the end perhaps because, as you say, they romanticised the working classes.

Oh one thing though, where did you get the idea that Marx despised farmers? And do you mean peasant farmers/farm workers or land owners?

That was a pretty good summary of Marxism...but what exactly is this thread debating.

Just talking about which bits we do an don't understand.

i see a few problems with marx.

he thought he could predict the future. this is so much bullshit. he took the history of europe, the theories of hegel and decided that this is the way human history HAD to happen for every society. thats a huge load of crap.

alienation seems to me to be a concept of psychology. what did marx know about psychology? nothing.

there is value in analyzing class. there is no value in using the class structure of the 19th century to analyze class in the 21st century. things have changed too much. to analyze class you would need a new non marxist approach.

Also RhynoD I appreciate the first post of yours that didn't make me feel that you had nothing but contempt for me : )

I rarely have contempt for people. Mostly it's just a vague apathy in his or her general direction with a small amount of sarcasm.

Also, I happen to think I'm more intelligent than the vast majority of people.

Because it's true.

Oh one thing though, where did you get the idea that Marx despised farmers? And do you mean peasant farmers/farm workers or land owners?

He believed that the revolution would come from the factory workers, not from the farmers. He simply had no interest in peasants from the country. He actually disliked them a bit, as he thought they got in the way of the true revolution by the factory workers.

Ok, continue your views on Marxism, please. You contributed to the mods closing the last thread, even after AP´s departure and Tsarine´s warnings. Don´t do the same to this one, please.

I didn't want to make myself a liar. Can't blame me for that.

I didn't want to make myself a liar. Can't blame me for that.

You´re hard headed, eh?
Anyway, here´s something I don´t get about the Marxist ideal. If farmers produced what was then taken to factories to be processed, and I´m only talking about fresh produce, not manufacturing, how was it that they had no place in Marxism? Aren´t farmers part of the proletariat too, part of the same class Marx assumed the revolution would come from?

You´re hard headed, eh?
Anyway, here´s something I don´t get about the Marxist ideal. If farmers produced what was then taken to factories to be processed, and I´m only talking about fresh produce, not manufacturing, how was it that they had no place in Marxism? Aren´t farmers part of the proletariat too, part of the same class Marx assumed the revolution would come from?

Farmers are not exploited the way the proletariat are. Farmers have always been self-sufficient: that is, it is hard to starve the people making the food. In feudalism, of course, this was possible because farmers were more like factory workers in that the land did not belong to them (and therefore, neither did the food). That said, farmers are almost a separate class: they are poor, but they don't care because they don't need money, because they grow their own food, and farming is hard work regardless of how much money you have.

Farmers are not exploited the way the proletariat are. Farmers have always been self-sufficient: that is, it is hard to starve the people making the food. In feudalism, of course, this was possible because farmers were more like factory workers in that the land did not belong to them (and therefore, neither did the food). That said, farmers are almost a separate class: they are poor, but they don't care because they don't need money, because they grow their own food, and farming is hard work regardless of how much money you have.

I´m beginning to understand this better. Thanks.:)

Socialism fundamentally breaks down because it requires everyone to do X+ work for X pay,

Actually, a major point of socialism, in the Marxist understanding, is to give to workers the full value of their labor (though as a matter of practical fact, as Marx notes, some would be kept for social expenditures.)

and most people realize that they get X pay regardless of the amount of work they do.

Not in all forms of socialism. Certainly not from the moment the means of production are converted into collective property. Marx only saw "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as the final stage of communism, and only--crucially--when labor has become "life's prime want."

Actually, a major point of socialism, in the Marxist understanding, is to give to workers the full value of their labor (though as a matter of practical fact, as Marx notes, some would be kept for social expenditures.)



Not in all forms of socialism. Certainly not from the moment the means of production are converted into collective property. Marx only saw "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as the final stage of communism, and only--crucially--when labor has become "life's prime want."

Then, can you explain to me the difference between Marxism and Communism? I know there has to be a difference.

Aren´t farmers part of the proletariat too, part of the same class Marx assumed the revolution would come from?

Propertyless farm laborers constitute a "rural proletariat" of sorts, but land-owning farmers, no, because they have property in means of production.

Propertyless farm laborers constitute a "rural proletariat" of sorts, but land-owning farmers, no, because they have property in means of production.

So, Marx was only referring to the ones that own land as not being part of that revolution he expected? Sorry if my questions seem odd. I just want to understand this better.

Then, can you explain to me the difference between Marxism and Communism?

Communism the ideology, or communism the economic system?

Marxism is one form of communism the ideology. The final end of economic development, according to Marxist theory, is communism the economic system, where the state's repressive machinery can disappear in a classless society and distribution is "to each according to his need."

Communism the ideology, or communism the economic system?

Marxism is one form of communism the ideology. The final end of economic development, according to Marxist theory, is communism the economic system, where the state's repressive machinery can disappear in a classless society and distribution is "to each according to his need."

Both, but you´ve explained it already. Thanks.
Now, does Marxism and Communism, as ideologies, differ in any way? And what truth is there in that Communism is Marxism, but watered down?

I´m beginning to understand this better. Thanks.:)

Yep.

The proletariat, however, relies heavily on the wages they receive, since they have to grow their own food, and possibly more important at the time, they actually have to pay money just to live at the factory (farmers don't have to deal with this problem: no one cares about collecting rent from the family living out by themselves). As well, farmers set their own work hours and working conditions: if they don't like how they do it, they do it differently. In factories, however, these things are set by the factory owners, and the workers have to deal with them because they have to work: no work means no money, which means you live on the streets and starve because you are not a farmer.

The end result is this: in Capitalism, the farmers get poorer, but this means going from 3 cents to 2 cents, which is just fine because they have what they need, and anything else is just fluff. Factory workers, however, go from several cents to several less cents which means they can either pay for food or shelter, but not both. They get upset, revolution happens.

Yep.

The proletariat, however, relies heavily on the wages they receive, since they have to grow their own food, and possibly more important at the time, they actually have to pay money just to live at the factory (farmers don't have to deal with this problem: no one cares about collecting rent from the family living out by themselves). As well, farmers set their own work hours and working conditions: if they don't like how they do it, they do it differently. In factories, however, these things are set by the factory owners, and the workers have to deal with them because they have to work: no work means no money, which means you live on the streets and starve because you are not a farmer.

The end result is this: in Capitalism, the farmers get poorer, but this means going from 3 cents to 2 cents, which is just fine because they have what they need, and anything else is just fluff. Factory workers, however, go from several cents to several less cents which means they can either pay for food or shelter, but not both. They get upset, revolution happens.

I see, and this revolution is Marx´s ultimate goal. From this revolution of the proletariat then he can establish Communism. A government for the people and by the people, where you get according to your need.

So, Marx was only referring to the ones that own land as not being part of that revolution he expected?

Well, they wouldn't be... as for the landless farm laborers, it probably would depend on the economic conditions they were in--crucially, how much they were associated with one another in production.

Revolutionary consciousness, and the collective action that is its expression, can't be done in isolation. Marx saw the collective labor processes of industrial factories as offering the opportunity to develop such a group strength--and it's not clear to me, at least, how easily transferable that logic is to any group subordinated by property relations.

Now, does Marxism and Communism, as ideologies, differ in any way?

Marxism the ideology is a subset of communism the ideology. Marxism adds to communism as such a theory of capitalist economic relations and of materialist history (to put it briefly.)

And what truth is there in that Communism is Marxism, but watered down?

None at all. The statement makes no sense--though there are perhaps some forms of communism that are watered-down Marxism, Marxism itself is a form of communism, and there are many forms of communism that have nothing to do with Marxism (like the various religious utopian communist theories.)

I see, and this revolution is Marx´s ultimate goal. From this revolution of the proletariat then he can establish Communism. A government for the people and by the people, where you get according to your need.

Yes. The revolution happened in Russia the way it did because Russia was not as industrialized well enough, so the Bolsheviks realized they had to have help from the farmers. Which was just as well, since the farmers were somewhat POed that they and their food were being taken by the Czar for WWI.

The reason it didn't happen in the US (among other places) is because the government does not allow for the absolute exploitation of workers. As well, the US developed a middle class that Marx never said should have existed. This middle class means that the "exploitation" is passed down more mildly, and that most Americans have enough money to sustain them as well as buy a little extra, which means they hold a lot of political power (they have something of the numbers of the lower class, and some of the money of the upper class). It is these people that ultimately control revolutions, and since the middle class is content, the revolution does not happen. The reason the middle class controls the revolution is this: when the poor people get poorer, they don't particularly notice (because they were already used to being poor. Fifty percent loss means jack when you have 4 cents). The upper class doesn't particularly notice a loss either (50% means jack when you have several million. In the end, you still have a lot more than you could possibly need, so you still have a very good buffer zone, and anyways you can always just tax the poor people more). The middle class suffers the most, since they do not live the subsistence existence of the poor and do not have the means of the rich. According to Marx the middle class shouldn't exist because everyone should eventually be taken control of by the upper class, leading to absolute exploitation and causing them all to become either very poor or very rich.

Well, they wouldn't be... as for the landless farm laborers, it probably would depend on the economic conditions they were in--crucially, how much they were associated with one another in production.

Revolutionary consciousness, and the collective action that is its expression, can't be done in isolation. Marx saw the collective labor processes of industrial factories as offering the opportunity to develop such a group strength--and it's not clear to me, at least, how easily transferable that logic is to any group subordinated by property relations.

That´s why the working class was ideal to Marx.

Marxism the ideology is a subset of communism the ideology. Marxism adds to communism as such a theory of capitalist economic relations and of materialist history (to put it briefly.)



None at all. The statement makes no sense--though there are perhaps some forms of communism that are watered-down Marxism, Marxism itself is a form of communism, and there are many forms of communism that have nothing to do with Marxism (like the various religious utopian communist theories.)

Oh, I see. Marxism is a form of Communism. Thanks for clarifying that. I was under the impression that Marxism was the father of Communism and not another type of Communist variation.

But really, he's no *snip*. Unless he secretly is. Damn ninja-disguise commies.

This kind of lightweight mockery would be fine but for the fact that the poster you're referring to was under a ban (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13546841&postcount=24).

If you didn't know that, fine. If you did, well you should know better.

=============

i see a few problems with marx.

he thought he could predict the future. this is so much bullshit. he took the history of europe, the theories of hegel and decided that this is the way human history HAD to happen for every society. thats a huge load of crap.

Yes.
For me, it's summed up (paradoxically perhaps) in the phrase "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." He succumbs to wishful thinking, building a theory ass-about, from conclusions to reasoning to basic assumptions.

=========

You´re hard headed, eh?
Anyway, here´s something I don´t get about the Marxist ideal. If farmers produced what was then taken to factories to be processed, and I´m only talking about fresh produce, not manufacturing, how was it that they had no place in Marxism? Aren´t farmers part of the proletariat too, part of the same class Marx assumed the revolution would come from?

Farmers are not exploited the way the proletariat are. Farmers have always been self-sufficient: that is, it is hard to starve the people making the food. In feudalism, of course, this was possible because farmers were more like factory workers in that the land did not belong to them (and therefore, neither did the food). That said, farmers are almost a separate class: they are poor, but they don't care because they don't need money, because they grow their own food, and farming is hard work regardless of how much money you have.

This is certainly not true today in developed countries, with mechanized farming and engineered crops. Any farmers who are self-sufficient (which includes carrying no debt to banks) are still living at 19-Century levels of prosperity, and in any case are a tiny minority even among the very small demographic who are farmers today.

Marx would have done well to look at the development of agriculture, at the effect of technological progress, and foreseen that it was becoming an industrial process.

===========

Actually, a major point of socialism, in the Marxist understanding, is to give to workers the full value of their labor (though as a matter of practical fact, as Marx notes, some would be kept for social expenditures.)

Do you mean that some would be lost in inefficiency? Because surely "social expenditures" means spent on the only social class, workers.

Not in all forms of socialism. Certainly not from the moment the means of production are converted into collective property. Marx only saw "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as the final stage of communism, and only--crucially--when labor has become "life's prime want."

==========

OK, I keep reading now. I'm about half-way through the thread I think.

Because surely "social expenditures" means spent on the only social class, workers.

That's exactly what it means. Class-wise, it stays with the workers. But it doesn't go directly into their pockets.

Marx is often mocked for getting his predictions of 'inevitable history' wrong.

So, I'm wondering if we can do any better?

Anyone here want to speculate on the broad social and political future? It needn't be original work ... quote from the sci-fi writer of your choice ...

Marx is often mocked for getting his predictions of 'inevitable history' wrong.

So, I'm wondering if we can do any better?

Anyone here want to speculate on the broad social and political future? It needn't be original work ... quote from the sci-fi writer of your choice ...

Xenu will guide us to a better future ;)

This kind of lightweight mockery would be fine but for the fact that the poster you're referring to was under a ban (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13546841&postcount=24).

If you didn't know that, fine. If you did, well you should know better.

Did and do.

Marx is often mocked for getting his predictions of 'inevitable history' wrong.

So, I'm wondering if we can do any better?

Anyone here want to speculate on the broad social and political future? It needn't be original work ... quote from the sci-fi writer of your choice ...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/may2005/180505bush.jpg

Xenu will guide us to a better future ;)

We just need to free him from galactic prison. Gather the thetans.