 |
 |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| christoftwer wrote: | | What I would have believed would have been to a very large degree shaped by my social and material circumstances, not by moral or intellectual inclination or ability. |
| byebyeblackbird wrote: | | Man, I don't know. I always meet people that know better than to believe or do some of the things that they do, but they use social and material circumstances to excuse it. I always find it more an excuse than a real mold-maker. |
Well ideas aren't bound by the conditions of the idea-haver. But they are inevitably shaped by them. Like I said, Marx had never seen a socialist society. But he was still cognizant of such a possibility. So does that mean he was better than everyone else? No. It means he figured out how such a society could reasonably come into existence: the proletariat. Most scholars try to ignore it, but Marx learned from workers.
| Quote: | | before it was easy for the lower class to gain information, do you think it was easier for the rich to blindside them? |
It might have been more difficult back then. Remember that the bourgeois class controls the media of information in a capitalist society, which has become quite sophisticated in the last 50 years or so.
| Quote: | | And do you ever think capitalists know that their system isn't healthy for ALL people and are just okay with making sure they alone are taken care of? |
of course they do! but if they don't, that's just pathetic. anybody who controls society and doesn't know the effects of their power doesn't deserve to be in control anyway!
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
REVOLUTIONalreadyUNDERWAY
The Fly Guy
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2247
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hahaha yeah.
i can't stand it when people have opinions on things they don't fully understand. especially when people dismiss things as being "socialist" and when asked "so what?" they have nothing else. its like they're programmed to hate anything socialist even if it would benefit them. the propaganda over the last century in the u.s. has been so effective that ive even talked to members of the lower class who are again socialist ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
they're against "socialist ideas."
but if you put some of those basic ideas in different terms, they're suddenly in favor of them. not 100%, of course, but more than you'd think.
it's pretty well-known that the vast majority of working class people are dissatisfied with the status quo (capitalism) - even in a nation-state with a relatively prosperous "middle class" like the US. Still, many do not channel that dissatisfaction so healthily or constructively. but i think there's an explanation for that.
i think that, really, everything boils down to race in the US. i mean, you can point to other things that supposedly make America "exceptional," but what's really unique about America is its youth and its fragile national identity. Especially since America's identity has been shaped by racial conflict and what still often amounts to a giant elephant in the room in most historiography written by white historians: slavery.
To an alarming degree, race is still class in the US. And in that context, social progress can never be achieved until that issue is resolved. White, black, latino, etc. But many white people - especially aging, lower middle-class white people - unfathomably believe that black people are slowly "taking over" the country or are already actually "oppressing" them. Although few will affirm these sentiments in "polite company." They also believe that "illegals" are doing all sorts of awful things to our country's cherished hymen.
But this is really just a giant smoke screen that's blocking their view. what's really happening is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. simple as that.
You see the following sociological developments in America during the period of neoliberalism (late 1970s - present) which i think help explain how it's all come to this:
1) mainstream society sees the Civil Rights movement as a "complete success." enters the history books as such; mainstream society doesn't understand why black people are "still complaining."
2) working class white people begin to see their interests as more in line with the white bourgeoisie (and especially the white petite bourgeoisie) than with their working class black brothers and sisters.
3) black people are alienated by this and turn to identity politics (often in collusion with gender identity politics) as refuge. meanwhile, traditional labor groups and organizations completely break down and splinter. the weakening of the already weak American left.
4) the white liberal bourgeoisie sees "postmodernism" and racial identity politics (the era of confusion) as an opportunity to further pit white workers against black workers by pretending to champion the cause of black liberation and betterment.
5) these ideas seep into mainstream culture via the academic system. race, gender, and lifestyle politics begin to obscure class in progressive political discussion (i.e. it all becomes about changing consciousness rather than changing conditions). Thus, self-styled "progressives" alienate themselves from working class ambitions and real progress. They align themselves - in the eyes of the disgruntled white working class - with the liberal bourgeoisie (a.k.a. the traditional enemy). And of course, this all culminates in what's going on with the Democratic Party, the Tea Party, and Obama at present time in national politics.
*edit* I don't know if that all reads like a cluster fuck, but i wrote that while really fucking tired. so if some of that doesn't make sense, i can probably flesh it out better tomorrow or something.
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
DallasShalDune
Turbo Geek
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 386
Location: Kansas City
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daydream set wrote: | they're against "socialist ideas."
but if you put some of those basic ideas in different terms, they're suddenly in favor of them. not 100%, of course, but more than you'd think.
it's pretty well-known that the vast majority of working class people are dissatisfied with the status quo (capitalism) - even in a nation-state with a relatively prosperous "middle class" like the US. Still, many do not channel that dissatisfaction so healthily or constructively. but i think there's an explanation for that.
i think that, really, everything boils down to race in the US. i mean, you can point to other things that supposedly make America "exceptional," but what's really unique about America is its youth and its fragile national identity. Especially since America's identity has been shaped by racial conflict and what still often amounts to a giant elephant in the room in most historiography written by white historians: slavery.
To an alarming degree, race is still class in the US. And in that context, social progress can never be achieved until that issue is resolved. White, black, latino, etc. But many white people - especially aging, lower middle-class white people - unfathomably believe that black people are slowly "taking over" the country or are already actually "oppressing" them. Although few will affirm these sentiments in "polite company." They also believe that "illegals" are doing all sorts of awful things to our country's cherished hymen.
But this is really just a giant smoke screen that's blocking their view. what's really happening is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. simple as that.
You see the following sociological developments in America during the period of neoliberalism (late 1970s - present) which i think help explain how it's all come to this:
1) mainstream society sees the Civil Rights movement as a "complete success." enters the history books as such; mainstream society doesn't understand why black people are "still complaining."
2) working class white people begin to see their interests as more in line with the white bourgeoisie (and especially the white petite bourgeoisie) than with their working class black brothers and sisters.
3) black people are alienated by this and turn to identity politics (often in collusion with gender identity politics) as refuge. meanwhile, traditional labor groups and organizations completely break down and splinter. the weakening of the already weak American left.
4) the white liberal bourgeoisie sees "postmodernism" and racial identity politics (the era of confusion) as an opportunity to further pit white workers against black workers by pretending to champion the cause of black liberation and betterment.
5) these ideas seep into mainstream culture via the academic system. race, gender, and lifestyle politics begin to obscure class in progressive political discussion (i.e. it all becomes about changing consciousness rather than changing conditions). Thus, self-styled "progressives" alienate themselves from working class ambitions and real progress. They align themselves - in the eyes of the disgruntled white working class - with the liberal bourgeoisie (a.k.a. the traditional enemy). And of course, this all culminates in what's going on with the Democratic Party, the Tea Party, and Obama at present time in national politics.
*edit* I don't know if that all reads like a cluster fuck, but i wrote that while really fucking tired. so if some of that doesn't make sense, i can probably flesh it out better tomorrow or something. |
That's some really interesting stuff. It makes sense to me, and it wasn't really that clusterfucked. Good job.
I'll have to think on it more. I'm a newbie to politics/sociology/economics/ect. Stuff's freaking interesting, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Xevallah
Turbo Geek
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 321
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're right that race is a huge factor in all of this, but I think you're kind of implying that there was at some point some working class solidarity between racial lines. There are a handful of instances where these kind of divisions were overcome, but these are exceptions.
Maybe that speaks to the failure of worker movements or the success of business interests, but I think fundamentally racial divisions are just an inherent barrier to (skipping ahead here) any serious welfare state. Everyone's favorite European countries were able to implement all of their nice socialist institutions because they did not have a large, visible portion of their society that could be pointed to as receiving a disproportionate amount of the benefits.
Now that many of those countries have adopted the American system of imported labor, it will be interesting to see whether or not the public approval of these institutions start to erode. But I mean, maybe they wont because these countries are all still 90% white. America is fucked beyond any hope because it's 75% and rapidly declining. Yay for multiculturalism!
Don't confuse this with some qualitative valuation of race either. It's be exact same situation if we were in the twilight zone and whites were 30% of the country and owned 1% of the wealth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
byebyeblackbird
Rogue
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 1622
Location: NC
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xevallah wrote: | | But I mean, maybe they wont because these countries are all still 90% white. America is fucked beyond any hope because it's 75% and rapidly declining. Yay for multiculturalism! |
What!?
| Xevallah wrote: | | Don't confuse this with some qualitative valuation of race either. |
Seems like you already did.
_________________
Brandon
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xevallah wrote: | | You're right that race is a huge factor in all of this, but I think you're kind of implying that there was at some point some working class solidarity between racial lines. There are a handful of instances where these kind of divisions were overcome, but these are exceptions. |
Dude! I don't know where you live, but whites and blacks have overcome enormous racial divisions over the last 100 years or so. There are still issues, sure, but to assume that further progress is hopeless is just absurd and the equivalent of digging society a grave.
And this attitude...
| Quote: | Everyone's favorite European countries were able to implement all of their nice socialist institutions because they did not have a large, visible portion of their society that could be pointed to as receiving a disproportionate amount of the benefits.
Now that many of those countries have adopted the American system of imported labor, it will be interesting to see whether or not the public approval of these institutions start to erode. But I mean, maybe they wont because these countries are all still 90% white. America is fucked beyond any hope because it's 75% and rapidly declining. Yay for multiculturalism! |
...is exactly the kind of attitude that plays into the hands of the right and the ruling class. But really, it's just unfounded.
And yes, what is this beef with multiculturalism? Multiculturalism is awesome!
On a more concrete level, Europe has no "socialist institutions." Some of the welfare state economic policies you speak of are products of stronger labor organizations, but they stem mostly from post-War needs and geographic / economic practicality.
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter
Last edited by daydream set on Wed May 19, 2010 12:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Xevallah
Turbo Geek
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 321
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not even sure how to respond to this because I really don't even grasp what you're proposing. Working men of all color need to come together in solidarity...but they can't until we end racism? Or is that how we end racism?
Multiculturalism is a nice idea, I just don't think you can point to any city in this country that lives up to your ideal. Like all of the progressive beacons are significantly whiter than the national average. Especially Portland and Seattle. It's all just an extension of what you described earlier. Los Angeles is a horrible horrible city, etc.
I mean, I love hearing about diversity here in the UW when like 3% of the student body is black. Which I think includes African immigrants. This leads into a whole other thing because they try so hard to get that number higher, and it's like pouring water out on the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xevallah wrote: | | I'm not even sure how to respond to this because I really don't even grasp what you're proposing. Working men of all color need to come together in solidarity...but they can't until we end racism? Or is that how we end racism? |
Yes. Racism is not only wrong just because it's wrong. It is in the working class's interests to denounce racism. Only the capitalist class can benefit from racism. (E.g. pitting workers against each other based on skin color).
| Quote: | | Multiculturalism is a nice idea, I just don't think you can point to any city in this country that lives up to your ideal. Like all of the progressive beacons are significantly whiter than the national average. Especially Portland and Seattle. It's all just an extension of what you described earlier. Los Angeles is a horrible horrible city, etc. |
LA is nothing compared to a city like Cincinnati, which is essentially segregated based on race.
I'm not saying that there aren't serious race-based problems in the country. There are. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to throw in the towel and assume that there's no possible way those problems can be fixed. Because shit was way worse for black people just 50 years ago and nobody was giving up then.
All I was saying previously is that racism is probably one of the key issues that's kept the US working class lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of fighting capitalism and all of its ills.
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter
Last edited by daydream set on Sat May 22, 2010 12:53 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
byebyeblackbird
Rogue
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 1622
Location: NC
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Under socialism, what is the mode of incentive? What incentivizes the people to produce and to compete and innovate?
_________________
Brandon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
IgnatiusJ
Turbo Geek
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 288
Location: Cleveland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| byebyeblackbird wrote: | | Under socialism, what is the mode of incentive? What incentivizes the people to produce and to compete and innovate? |
That is the million dollar question my friend.
It's hard to motivate people now in our current economic structure (i'm stopping short of calling it capitalism), so I can only imagine what it would be like in a socialist society.
It's a neat idea to think workers will unite for a common goal, but it's just unrealistic. Eventually the more competent workers will unite to form their own societies/economies and outproduce the weakest.
Everyone is created with equal rights but not with equal attributes. Incentive for the individual to maximize their strongest trait(s) for THEIR interest(s) is what creates strong economies.
Place yourself in a socialist economy. Let's say your working hard every day and it's obvious you're the best worker on your team. How would you feel if you're not recognized for it? There is no chance for more money, government has capped your incentive and it's in your contract that you cannot get a promotion until a certain age or tenure. Wouldn't you become frustrated? You can't even make your own way and find another job and innovate, because somehow the government has decided you're best fit in this current position based off some personality and IQ tests taken when you were 5 years old.
Now, if you're like me you'll want to make your own way. However, you may find incentive/motivation by sacrificing your own interests to allow almost 100% employment, but have your decisions made for you every day and have a lower quality of life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
byebyeblackbird
Rogue
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 1622
Location: NC
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, you really are uneducated about socialism. I should have just said, "attn: Chris." I have my own ideas about methods of competition in socialist societies, I'd just like his historical take on it.
_________________
Brandon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work." -Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto 1848
Basically, the allegation that work would cease under socialism is a falsification that could only come from the ultra-lazy ruling class. The bourgeoisie's idea of "working hard" is pecuniary employment: putting on the right kind of suit, tricking people into buying things they don't need, supervising / making sure the shit they want done gets done, and generally just figuring out how to squeeze the optimal profit out of the labor of others. they contribute nothing valuable to society while the working class contributes everything - even if the w.c. only sees a fraction of the value of its labor.
If people are inherently lazy and need a mechanized competition-based economic system to do stuff, how does one explain why any group of people would pour hours of time after school or work to make a theatrical production come together? What about the ordinary citizens that came from all over the country during Hurricane Katrina to bring supplies and help rescue people? What was their economic incentive? What about the Red Cross and the hundreds of other charity organizations where people volunteer their time for someone else's benefit?
Also no one is going to take away the right to possessions under socialism. It is only property that is used to exploit others that is prohibited. You can have more or less of the things that truly make life worth living. Progress and innovation will not cease because all technological innovation inevitably reduces work hours and improves everyone's quality of life.
And while capitalism has spurred economic growth, it is also extremely wasteful. Advertising, the military-industrial complex, etc. Socialism can be just as productive without destroying the environment, exploiting workers, or spawning highly destructive and wasteful wars.
_________________
-Chris | LastFM | RYM | Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daydream set
kinda my penis
Joined: 07 Dec 2001
Posts: 12814
Location: Atlanta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
tingky
The Fly Guy
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 2126
Location: Philippines
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
It irritates me that my knowledge in socialism is extremely limited, so this thread has been really helpful. Keep posting guys.
Found this amusing:
EDIT: Should anyone expect socialism to take over society sooner? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
REVOLUTIONalreadyUNDERWAY
The Fly Guy
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2247
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tingky wrote: |
EDIT: Should anyone expect socialism to take over society sooner? |
No, however I'd surely embrace it.
I mean, there will always be isolated examples but I could not see it consuming the globe in the next century.
First of all, people need to become aware of exactly what socialism is and how it is contrasted with capitalism (not democracy - you'd be surprised how many people contrast socialism with democracy).
If people finally realized that capitalism isn't working in this world and then turned to socialism, a socialist movement would need two things: a leader and support.
A socialist movement - or revolution - would need a Lenin of sorts, a smart passionate leader. Furthermore, he would need to gain support from the masses and take control of a capitalist country and with a smooth transition create a socialist society that flourishes in the world. He would need full support of people, as I'm sure he will experience much resistance from the very influential and powerful bourgeois (upper class).
On top of interior interference, I would expect a country (USA) to go out of their way and thwart any socialist uprising.
Also, it seems that socialist societies need a certain level of autonomy. In an age where there is so much interdependence and globalization this autonomy seems impossible.
The main thing is, people need to realize that it's not right that there are people who have more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes, when their neighbours are sleeping in the streets.
Then again, maybe capitalism is necessary to lower the world population. Are there enough resources to evenly distribute to 6 billion people anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
tingky
The Fly Guy
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 2126
Location: Philippines
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The main thing is, people need to realize that it's not right that there are people who have more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes, when their neighbours are sleeping in the streets. |
The thing is, when socialism is in place, maybe there won't be any "money that can be spent in 10 lifetimes" to be made from unneeded consumer products which I think cost alot more than basic commodities. It would probably be phased out anyway in favor of basic commodities to cater to the "people sleeping on the streets". Fashion, cosmetics, electronics... lots of megamillion businesses we can do away with / significantly trim down.
But I guess it only means the existing businesses (turning from private to public) will divert their resources to produce needed items, that is if those resources prove to be still of value, if they're lucky (a gown made by Versace cannot feed a starving kid). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
