At 4/8/09 08:07 PM, MrCrawford wrote:
It has absolutely everything to do with government, and more importantly an eventual lack thereof. Marxist philosophy emerges in the time of classical liberalism, an ideal closer to laissez faire fiscal conservatism than the current connotation (just in case somebody gets their wires crossed... classical liberalism is NOT today's liberalism). Without a government, either centrally planned as we have them no or simply a government composed of all people, one cannot oversee the process of wealth redistribution, as well as the implementation of government programs and construction.
A little throw down of the gauntlets I see. Now I think you have me wrong in my words dear sir. I did not say that Marx imagined a world without government, I said that his philosophy applied more to a social concept than a political concept. But herein lies the problem with your idea, we can't have everyone govern. You can't have a government of all people. That's why we elect officials, and as truly corrupt as most officials might be, they are still more effective than all people trying to run the government together. It simply would not work. There has to be a leader, because people like to look up to a leader, and need a leader to direct them as to where they should go. Too many people means too many directions.
Secondly, there is an error in your summation of "like most communists do". There are no communist nations on the earth, no matter what Cuba or China decides to call themselves. A man without a PhD can call himself Doctor, it still doesn't make it so. None of these countries espouses a purely Marxist form of government. True Marxists are not totalitarian dictators who absorb wealth, it is an economic organization in which corporations and enterprises are held accountable to the government and their wealth is redistributed to create equality of condition (as opposed to the out and out lie of equality of opportunity).
There is no error. I do mean by that, those governments that consider themselves "communists" because they are essentially more communist than we are. It is simply a label. Trust me I'm not stupid enough to believe that communism could actually exist, you don't need to point that out. The flaw in your argument here lies in that you say that corporations and enterprises should be held accountable to the government. Corporations should and could only be accountable to the people that own these corporations. In this case, I would rather see many workers with an interest in the company they work in a/k/a a cooperation, than a government running many companies. I truly think Marx saw it that way more than he did having a controlling government.
Ah, the old panis et circus notion that without competition, society stagnates. How droll.
It's not droll, it's true. Do you think that early man decided to build weapons or fire out of thin air. With necessity there comes creation. Without necessity, there comes stagnation. Feed the people and they shall not be hungry. Do not feed them, and they shall compete for their food if need be. We cannot keep having a growing population without competition for resources.
Capitalism does not push people to be better, it systematically represses them. Ignore, if you will, those who are merely rich, but focus on those whom are wealthy. These are the people who line the pockets of your government and lobby it to the point of legislative deadlock. These are the people who will spend half their fortune to protect their riches, or worse, to grow them.
I agree that there is greed in this world, but I do not object to it. We would not be where we are today if it wasn't for greed. It is both our demise and our premise. But I think you see more evil than there actually is. There is lobbying and lining of the government, but who wouldn't want to see their interests flourish. Humans are egocentric because your needs come first before others needs. If you were about to starve and had one meal, you would not share it with another, you would eat it for yourself, because you are an animal.
This system you espouse desires only to continue squeezing the few dollars out of the lower classes by any means necessary. Why else is the Western economy collapsing? It is built on immaterial wealth and credit, the hallmark of capitalism's apogee. Consumption is the end result of your failing ideology, and it threatens to devour society.
You think this is the first time this has happened? I think I remember something called the depression. Fluctuations in the economy are part of the system. If you think this is our doom, you are too caught up in your anti-capitalism crap. Consumption comes simply from human need for security, approval, etc... An utopia of people living in equality is an utopia my friend. I won't call a sheep a lion.
Let us imagine a society in which we do not work for ravenous desire for more, but rather desire to improve ourselves. The main failing of capitalism is the over-focus on the "individual", interpreted as aesthetic choice and not the liberty to consume, but the God-given RIGHT to consume. How dare you set gas a little more expensive? How dare you say I can't buy more, more more? Me me me me me me me me me me me.
It is exactly as you say, naught but a figment of imagination. Why? Because it cannot exist. Capitalism does not focus on the individual because of the concept, it focuses on the individual because the individual focuses on himself. Supply and demand is a simple concept. If you want my cow bad enough, you'll have to give me your house for it, if I want to sell it bad enough, i'll take a penny. But why would you want it? Depends simply on your needs.
A communist society does not destroy the individual by rendering us autistic consumers, alone in our Platonic caves, but renders it purposeful in the body of a collective. Our society will not be based on the premise of survivalistic drive applied to mass production, but towards collective self-improvement. It is the ultimate overcoming of our Darwinian origins and using our minds to transcend this animalistic mindset.
You think for some reason that there is no collective self-improvement? So long the days of many many problems that we have learned to overcome. You truly are pessimistic about what this world is all about. I think that you give less credit to people than they deserve as far as finding a greater meaning goes and certainly getting out of their caves.
Sadly, there is no getting out of an animalistic mindset, because for as far as we have gotten from the days of living in caves, we are still so close to the same being.
It is because we are animal, not because we are human. It is our rationality, our humanity, that will propel us past this drudgery.
Our rationality only takes us past a certain point. I am sure that you are ready to give up all your goods and stop being a consumerist. If you weren't such a hypocrite about living out of this capitalistic world that lets you live in a comfortable home that your parents so gladly let you live in, with your nice computer, and your nice bed, and you nice tv, and you nice video games, then maybe you could try to teach me about the rationalistic sense of human kind into becoming more than consumerist. Become one with nature sir, and I shall believe you are truly unlike me.