lol Sorry to say dude but I didn't even read completely what you wrote.
Printable View
lol Sorry to say dude but I didn't even read completely what you wrote.
Neither Plato or Socrates advocated slavery, I am sure of that, I have read a lot through Plato since he is one of my favourite thinkers, in fact I believe him to be the greatest thinker ever. Aristotle did though. Plus, it's preety normal to quote them, though it dosen't mean you agree with them. Hell, Marx was a philosopher, no great philosopher has ever died without writing anything in reference to the classic Greek philosophers. Hell, I am a philosophy student, and there is not a single day where any of those names dosen't come up (I am not exagerating, unless I am far away from the university, there is no single day where any of those three comes up, and I do bring up Plato in most conversations too, mainly because I believe he has many brilliant ideas). But I don't think Marx really liked Plato that much, although frankly I don't believe Marx read Plato correctly, or he would have not said so many things against him, then again, I believe Plato hasn't been read correctly until Fichte, Hölderlin or Hegel, who- in my opinion- unveiled the light in his best book, Fedro (I guess it's written something like "Phedroe" in English).
Oh, and even if I mention Plato a lot, I don't agree with him on many things either.
As for Marx saying it would not work, I never heard that either: I heard he was skeptical about it in his latest years. However, I haven't read him say that directly, I've just heard from unreliable references, but I would not be surprised, I mean, it makes sense, he had a very good theory, but not a dogmatic one, and as any rational person would, Marx also believes the possibility of failure is there. I don't think Marx's thought is definite and irrefutable- mainly because I don't believe such thing exists- but I do believe his theory is preety good, and sadly it has never been taken seriously into practice, mainly because of the corruption of leaders...wich may be very well impossible to avoid, as the anarchist philosopher Bakunin pointed out. Is it impossible to avoid? I couln't know, I really don't have that much faith in humanity, but hey, I may be wrong.
I did read them, yes. What I was referring to was this:Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
To claim that Marx at one point or another lost faith in the practical application of his system is one thing, but to state that he never believed in it, full stop, is folly. No one can know that but himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Ok, I'll bite that one. But he never stated that he believed his system would work, and he did state he didn't believe it would. It was his "utopia". He did want it to be workable, maybe he once did believe it would, but he never publicly acknowleged that he believed it could. You can thank a couple of psychotic russians for not paying attention to that detail.
Yup, communism is a great concept. Its not that it doesnt work, it just doesnt work for humans- emotions get in the way etc... laziness and corruption are just too tempting. But then, pure versions of any governing framework don't seem to function very well. Nowadays the way countries are run seem to be mixture of philosophies and theories- which is nice cos it makes for interesting viewing. :)
Urm...actually, he did, in the First International, where he had quite a hard discussion with Bakunin around that, and such thing lead to the International to be divided into two: Anarchist and Communist International.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Hmm.... I'll have to check up on that, I always got the impression that it was more him disliking their ideas than the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
Modern capitalist democracies work in the same lines as fascism, as I've explained before. The only different is that the ideological and repressive state apparatuses are more balanced, in order to maintain the social situation for a prolonged period of time. The only real difference between fascist and modern capitalist systems is the fact that fascism relies too much on the repressive state apparatuses: a police state, a media controlled by the government, tight control of the unions by the government, etc. Modern laissez-faire capitalism relies on the private sector much more, as those in power have realised that consumerism as an ideology is just as powerful as anything a politician can come up with. As such, instead of state-controlled media, you have a media that is for the most part controlled by the very powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
Don't be deceived by the overly controlling nature of a fascist state. You're taking it as if it was a socialist state, and it isn't. The point of a fascist state is to stress the differences between people, differences of race, nationality and social class, to keep them divided and controlled. A fascist state only cares for its citizens as long as those citizens are willing to support it and never object. A socialist democracy advocates, granted, a semi-paternalist state that tells people what to do sometimes, but it is a state where opposition is allowed. In fascism, no opposition is allowed, and it's met with persecution and violence. In capitalism, opposition is met with false argumentations, forged evidence and different forms of non-physical violence against the opposition, because beating someone up just because he opposes the multinationals is not accepted in a place like America (whereas the multinationals support governments that do it in the rest of the world).
Believe me, people have everything to lose under fascism. At least under capitalism you have the chance to express your view and hope you can at least change the system slightly. Fascism would drop you in a prison and send you away.
Communism has some good points to it that look good on paper but are hard to put into actual practice. In theory, it would provide complete equality and democracy. Any government system can work in theory with good leaders. The Soviet Union, communism's poster-boy was cursed with a dictator who put Hitler to shame. In the Soviet Union the Communist party was the dictator. All in all Humans aren't cut out for Communism. Some species like Ants use it to great effect, but Humans are too individually centered.
Communism is scientifically flawed. Its primary hypothesis - that people are shaped by experience; and, hence fall into either the bourgeois or proletariat mindset is false. If it were true then a member of the bourgeois could never understand a member of the proletariat. Secondly, the litmus test for 'class' has never been established, that is to say, how do you differentiate the bourgeois and proletariat? The definitive answer is ... You cannot! Wealth is relative, and from this measure the bourgeois from North Dakota would be considered a mere proletariat in California. In the same light, the Lords Proletariat would be deemed quite affluent when compared to his counter-part in Coventry (would this make him bourgeois? Well only the tyrannical mob of the revolution could determine that). Neo-Marxism attempts to deny some aspects of this psychological tenet ... but how many times does 'Das Kapital' - the commie’s handbook - need to be revised? ;)
P.S. Capitalism has never translated into freedom; and, on that note, neither does globalization ... but that's another story. The diffusion of wealth - or lack there of - and the marginal productivity of labour, dictate that capitalist societies cannot achieve egality. ;) The degree of freedom merely depends on the mobility of capital ... this is at least preferable over communism - in which freedom (and life or death as a matter of fact) are determined by the mob. :eek:
Ascot, you make interesting points, but I believe you are confusing terms. Capitalism is basically an economical system, and it is partly compatible with fascism. Take, for example, Spain after the 1936 war, under the dictatorship of Franco. Well, it was a fascist country, I mean, just ask anyone who had lived such situation and you'll see how they will reply. However, the economical system started with fascism, yet slowly adapted into capitalism.
Democracy works in the same way. A democracy could never turn into a fascism, because in the moment it did, it would not be a democracy. Oh, but modern democracy is not what I could call democracy: bewcause democracy under capitalism is something that looks contradictory. Democracy is meant to be a goverment of the people, not "vote a pig every four years". Yet, capitalism is a system where economical benefit and individualist egocentrism (I'm not against individualism, I am against this type of self-centered narcissistic individualism) are natural consequences, and well, what can I say? In an economical system where large differences of wealth appear, it is natural for some, the high classes, to try to keep their wealth and attempt their domination over the majority, leading to an aristocracy of wealth. It is hard- or should I say impossible- for an economical system not to influence the political system, and of course, considering the goverment and the multinationals are very related because of the whole structure of the market, the ones in power end up being the multinational CEOs, not the dumbasses elected by the people, who are only asked for opinion once every four years, bombed with idiotic propaganda.
Um...the difference between burgeois and proletariat is more a question of domination or dominated. Wealth is a medium. And it should be applied to the place with speak of, of course wealth is relative, but jerarquization is obvious: the king of medieval Spain is in the same position of the king in medieval England: the top.Quote:
Secondly, the litmus test for 'class' has never been established, that is to say, how do you differentiate the bourgeois and proletariat? The definitive answer is ... You cannot! Wealth is relative, and from this measure the bourgeois from North Dakota would be considered a mere proletariat in California.
Are you sure about that? We learned in history classes, that he considered the whole thing as some kind of historical determination. So he thought, it couldn't work in a different way, after the capital/money was in the hands of only a few and the great masses of workers were on the breadline.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
It is strange, how the word 'Nazi' turned. Nazi comes from national socialism and in the beginning there were really some members in that party who meant, what they were called: they wanted a socialism on a national basis. So, in its origins the national socialism is more similar to communism than many communists would like to...
Well, but what Hitler got out of it wasn't much socialism... okay, I guess, he didn't want to do so...
"And it should be applied to the place with speak of, of course wealth is relative, but jerarquization is obvious: the king of medieval Spain is in the same position of the king in medieval England: the top."
But I was speaking of the difficulties on has in the face of revolution. The kings of various nations are indeed bourgeois (which I might add, I have no problem with as statecraft should be learnt for childhood and should never have been given to career politicians or even worse ... the common man - the latter being the expectation of communism)! Anyhow, what about the varied degrees of wealth? Is the marginally better-off neighbour bourgeois? Or what about the guy down the road, who owns two houses rather than one? Is he more bourgeois than say another?
This is the core dilemma of communism ab initio. Marx reduces the complexities of economic predisposition into two distinct classes, in which nobody - except the extremities of wealth and poverty - can be classified. ;)
Hence, the true value of Marx is not found in his alternative to capitalism, but his critique thereof.
Fascism only went sour when it took on a racist connotation. Initially, the doctrine regulated corporate structures and inconvertible capital supply via increased government ownership. Potentially, this system overcomes many out-of-control market mechanisms that cause volatile growth areas that outpace the rest of the nation; these forces create situations of economic prosperity and deprivation - disproportionately.