Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for 'Marxist Conference'

reply to post by Banananananana


yes there is no absolute form of any ideology in practice, but saying that we have this inherent human nature and then somehow correlating it to negative aspects of one system in particular makes no sense. It is just as true for any other system where humans govern humans.

I still would recommend the system where you can grow over the system where you are encouraged to stay as you are, good or bad as that situation may be.

Look to Europe, they have unofficial yet MANDATORY strikes where they force close businesses that open on strike days for lack of "solidarity" with the worker. They do so with the threat of violence or vandalism against operating businesses from markets to taxis, to truck drivers. In a democracy I can open or close my business and do as I please, eve be a fool.


In a capitalism that supports a democracy I am more free to use MY own personal power as I choose. In a socialism and communism I have no personal power and must adhere to the rule of the mob, and their puppet master. All that topped with a moral charge of "going against society" for doing as I am legally "encouraged" to do in a democracy, supposedly .

Great thread btw.
The level of disgust some people have towards the notion of socialism (equality) smells somewhat of 'methinks the lady doth protest too much'. In other words, the capitalists realise that there is only a certain amount of wealth to go around, and they have the lion's share. That would agree with previous comments about human nature.
Marxism merely criticises the system by which the self-perpetuating wealth at the top also serves to limit opportunity at the bottom.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
communism and socialism are exploitive since the power of acquisition is never yours. In capitalism, you work, save, sacrifice and then you can buy your business, and employ others that can do the same.

The mentality under capitalism is to grow and become your own boss. In socialism it is to stay a worker for ever.

What you're talking about is a myth. It is extremely rare for a working person to become a capitalist owner.

Why should the majority of people be exploited simply because of the slim chance of becoming the 'boss', as you put it? Do you think life should be a lottery?

It's not true that you stay a worker. Most worker owned companies rotate their positions, so everyone works every job, from the supervisor to the floor sweeper. There are many ways we can change the capitalist model of industry to make it more worker friendly. Remember it's YOU the worker who owns the company, but you still seem to think there is going to be some overall authority controlling you. Once the workers own the means of production it is the workers who decide how to run their company.

I know it's hard to grasp the concept when all you've known is hierarchical authoritarian capitalism. Capitalism has conditioned people to accept, and expect, a boss lording over them. That is not how worker ownership works. When you own your own workplace, and you earn directly from your labour, you don't need a boss to tell you to work. The whole workplace attitude and construct changes from one of authoritarian dictatorship to direct democracy. Yes, the capitalist workplace is an authoritarian dictatorship.

Private property is in many ways like a private form of state. The owner determines what goes on within the area he or she "owns," and therefore exercises a monopoly of power over it. When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority...

How does capitalism affect liberty?

The biggest threat to liberty is not the state, it is capitalism. The reason we have an authoritarian state is because of capitalism. The state evolved around capitalism. The only reason it's not as brutal as say the USSR's state was is because you're all a bunch of passive sheep and no threat to TPTB. As soon as people step out of line, you see the state put the boot in...

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Again, you fail to understand me. I am attributing limitations to ANY system under human influence, control and dominance. In socialism or communism you would actually be freer to pursue different avenues of capital, as it requires more of a broad range of skill and knowledge than capitalism, which requires a depth of skill and very narrow training. Also, in a highly capitalistic society you would be hard-pressed to do what you pleased, unless of course your fellow competitors were doing exactly as you were, or you would be losing out on profits. Your notion of capitalism, and democracy, for that matter, are tightly controlled, and still dependent on the ideological models versus the actuality of them, as are my descriptions of socialism and communism. And therein lays the point that I have been making all along. This continues to evade you, so at this juncture, I would have to suggest that we are at an impasse. Though I do appreciate your participation and input.

reply to post by chinaski77



there is actually more "disgust" for capitalism since most implications of its negative attributes are based on morality, where as the critique of socialism is often based on logic and math.

There is only so much wealth to share if only some are producing it.

reply to post by ANOK


I did, my dad did as an immigrant.

I worked for several Latin immigrants that started from dish washers and bus boys, to managers and owners of several nice restaurants.

It is not a myth.

it happens all the time.

I know too many to list them all, but just ask most small business owners if their family were rich before they bought their business.

In socialisms, mostly the old money does the buying and the old poor the hiring.


I live in a socialism now. Western Europe. There are miners revolts for misappropriated funds given by the EU to replace the mining industry. A hotel was made down the street from my business with a small part of the funds...lol...spent millions. Only one miners son works there so it qualifies. The family that owns the hotel is filthy rich, always has been.

I am happy to be leaving to say the least.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


But money isn't created, it is moved around. Money is an embodiment of labour. The problem is with how it is distributed.

reply to post by Banananananana

In socialism or communism you would actually be freer to pursue different avenues of capital, as it requires more of a broad range of skill and knowledge than capitalism,

absolutely not.

You get more skills and you get paid the same as someone who is not as skilled if you work in the same field or have the same position. You may even do more work.You are not motivated to do more than the minimum since your effort is on you. You will receive the same for your efforts as the guy just coasting by.

education is not constant anyways under any system in any measurement of time.

your wealth is determined as far as salary all the way back to the day you choose your major in college, if you can afford to go. Schooling is not usually cheap no matter the situation.

In a capitalism you have the sky as your limit, acording to your drive and imagination.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
absolutely not.

You get skills you and you get paid the same as someone who is not as skilled. You are not motivated to do more than the minimum since your effort is on you. You will receive the same for your efforts as the guy just coasting by.

education is not constant anyways under any system in any measurement of time.

Where are you getting this nonsense?

Socialism is worker ownership. Workers earn directly from their production, they are not hourly paid workers like in capitalism. Also if you read my other reply to you, workers do not get stuck in the same job, they rotate. So if they all receive the same pay (it doesn't have to be that way) it is because they all do the same job, just not at the same time.

But again under socialism the capitalist system of wages and money is changed. With the means of production released from the monopoly of capitalism we would be free to produce as much as we need, without the constraint of having to make profit. Poverty is a lack of resources not a lack of money. Capitalism has just conditioned you to believe the economy has to revolve around making profit.

reply to post by ANOK


where on gods good earth do socialist workers own their production and get paid a cut of the profits. They produce more and earn more?

where?

last I checked they get nice "packages" in their contracts (Which they got taken away recently)....
but someone else employs them.

If they owned their production then the government could not enact austerity measures without their consent, YET, they are almost up in arms because that was the very thing done. Now they not only have no ownership, but horrible contracts with cheap express firings.

Public funds would not go to private financial entities if those funds belonged to the people and they in their vast majority do not approve, YET, that happened. Still think they own something. I see only illusion.

At least in a capitalism, you can learn the illusion, and work around it to protect yourself with security you earn.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Western Europe is not socialist. Do the workers own the means of production? No they don't. A government calling itself a socialist government does not make the economy socialist. Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Western Europe, like most of the world, have capitalist economies. Unless the workers own the means of production it is not a socialist economy, regardless of what the government calls itself.

You need to learn what socialism is, and stop arguing against something you obviously do not understand.

What you are referring to is Liberalism and...

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be" Winston Churchill

reply to post by ANOK


then how come they have socialist policies? I hate arguing over definitions. In practice, they have a form of socialism.

for example

The majority of Danish politicians intuitively believe that capitalists are an unpleasant necessity to generate the revenues to fund the social welfare state. Denmark has the highest total tax pressure in the world and is towering far above the European average. It also has the smallest private sector in Europe, one that supports one of the biggest public sectors. Add to that a generous entitlement system allowing unemployed and unemployable citizens an income well above that achieved by full time employees in the private sector in many European countries, and you will observe a need for tax revenues nearly unmatched anywhere else in the world.

www.forbes.com...

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by ANOK

 

then how come they have socialist policies? I hate arguing over definitions. In practice, they have a form of socialism.

They do not have a form of socialism. Once again socialism is 'the workers ownership of the means of production', that is it. How that plays out depends on many factors, but it has to be a worker owned and controlled economy to be correctly called socialism or communism.

Liberalism has been incorrectly called socialism for decades. The social welfare state is not socialism, it is liberalism. Socialism does not mean social programs.

And yes it is extremely important for people to have their definitions correct if they're going to debate this stuff, because you are arguing against socialism, like most people it seems, based on liberalism. By doing that you are doing nothing but spreading the lies of the capitalist class and doing yourself a disservice. If you don't like the system in Western Europe then learn what socialism really is and become part of the solution.

From the Socialist Party UK...

Are there any socialist countries in Europe?

Sometimes countries have governments that call themselves 'Socialist,' but they do not carry out genuine socialist policies.

For instance, in the past the Labour Party in Britain was often labeled "socialist". When the Labour Party was in government, people sometimes used to say "We have a socialist government," and even that Britain was socialist.

But this was not true. Labour governments did not go beyond the boundaries of capitalism. The country remained capitalist.

In Spain and in France, and elsewhere around the world there are parties that go by the name of 'Socialist' and they have been elected into government.

When the French Socialist Party was in government, it was called a 'Socialist government', and we were told France had 'gone socialist.' This was not true.

When the Spanish Socialist Party was returned to power in 2004, (because of its opposition to the invasion of Iraq,) it did not and will not bring about a socialist society.

In Germany and other countries, parties going by the name 'Social Democratic' were sometimes referred to as socialist.

But this was not true either.

These countries remained capitalist through and through.

Socialist Countries Which countries are socialist?

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


And you have a problem with what your Forbes quote describes? Why? Under socialism you can still have your own business, and still make a profit, just not to the Nth degree. Run a business under capitalism and you don't only want your slice of the pie, you want everyone else's too.

reply to post by chinaski77


You can have your own business but you can't hire wage labour. All employees would have to be equal partners, and have equal say in the company.

reply to post by ANOK


no that is ONE point of socialism. The main point is communal effort for a common good where social pressure is distributed over the whole of society rather than on any one group or classes shoulders.

Like there is more than one type of communism, there are several interpretations of socialism. How they vary is not important. That they all try and serve the same goal is.

"I'm not turning my back...
You might push me."
Kind of looked fake to me.

And there's nothing as good as a good "Marxist conference". We should all get a good "Marxist conference" once every 2 months or so. Oh yes, a "Marxist conference" is just what we all need after Obamas win.
How do I host a "Marxist conference"? Do I need to go to a "Marxist conference" to learn how to have a "Marxist conference" of my own?
So how was your last "Marxist conference"?

reply to post by ANOK


Yes and any proceeds would go back into public services where it is needed. I don't have a problem with the Denmark model the quote describes, as I didn't with the Swedish model of the 70s. While I personally have socialist ideals, I don't think the term is constant; it is 'socialisms'. Liberalists sit on the fence and will not commit, I think that is the practical difference, but to be realistic we cannot believe that the capitalist world will change - it is too reliant upon the current system; all we can hope for are more socialistic policies within capitalism, hence my previous post.

reply to post by chinaski77


actually many businesses are on the verge of collapse in countries with socialist practices, hence why they had to make austerity reforms. If I can't afford an employee, I would then have to pay him for a life of service to me I already paid him for?

OR if he is depressed, I have to pay him for being sad?

You can't run a business like that. It is hard enough as it is.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
no that is ONE point of socialism. The main point is communal effort for a common good where social pressure is distributed over the whole of society rather than on any one group or classes shoulders.

Like there are more than one type of communism, there is several interpretations of socialsim. How they vary is not important.That they all try and serve the same goal is.

No it isn't. Socialism is worker ownership, period. That is the goal, nothing else.

There is not more than one type of socialism/communism. The goal of all true socialist organizations is worker ownership, free association. If their goal is not worker ownership, and they call themselves socialist/communist they are lying, using the term to manipulate.

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association (communism and anarchism)