I wish I had my notes in front of me (I just covered this material the other day...but my notes are in my car somewhere :( but as I recall Marx said that the Communist revolution would come about on a global scale because the working classes would have more in common with their fellow workers around the world than they had in common with their fellow countrymen of different economic classes (something Marx got totally wrong...Nationalism trumped economic class). Anyway increasing globalization is making a more and more homogenous population (including what we buy and languages), and if cultural differences seize to exist, the cultural/racial issues may no longer become a way for the capitalists to divide the working classes. This isn't going to happen tomorrow (and I doubt it ever happens)....but I believe Marx's argument is more relevant today than it was in 1847.
And you do, of course, jest Bond. Tell me this is an attempt at comedy.
Now, no such revolution has ever occurred. There has never been any such thing as a proletarian revolution, led either by the working classes or agrarian classes. All the revolutions that have ever occurred were coups led by a small cadre of intellectuals and professional revolutionaries who took power by force or by default when the time came.
Marx's crackpot economic and social theories were stillborn at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and have only had the effect they have had because, as Mao said, "politics grows from the barrel of a gun". Why Bond, why would workers in the affluent west, and workers in the poor developing countries, who desperately need the economic development and growth that only democratic capitalism can provide, want a Marxist revolution that would guarantee both of them not only permanent economic want, but deprive them of any chance at political and personal liberty as well? Marxist economic policy would destroy the affluence of the West, and solidify the poverty of the Third World (as it has already done in a number of countries).
This does not make any sense.
Cogs would you care to zip it while I have a hypothetical discussion with monkeys about something that probably won't happen. Please let me spitball a bit and think without having to listen to your stuff. I get it...you don't like or agree with communism. Geez.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
barrelomonkeys wrote:Oh, that's a pretty interesting theory. Hmm.. the net certainly does bring about greater ability to organize. Although it would appear to me that those most likely to revolt would have the least access to this instrument and likely to use it. Of course those organizing the revolution would. Interesting.
And - this is one of the 1% of posts you make that I don't beam (:D) at. ;P
That's why I said it's not happening tomorrow. In a distant future where people speak or understand one language and are technologically connected (and more homogenous culturally/racially) via the Net (or whatever). I also think the ability to produce food surpluses (which was something Marx also wrote about-in order to sustain order by feeding the population) and distribute said surpluses to the entire population is something that is more feasible as technology continues to develop.
Okay - I can see that I suppose. I mean in theory it seems like a possibility... I think Europe would more likely be open to such a possibility. I would doubt it would sweep the Middle East though and definitely would have trouble in the West.
barrelomonkeys wrote:Okay - I can see that I suppose. I mean in theory it seems like a possibility... I think Europe would more likely be open to such a possibility. I would doubt it would sweep the Middle East though and definitely would have trouble in the West.
But, again, it's interesting to consider it.
Yeah. The Middle East would be difficult (considering that they have no sort of economies beyond "ruling class has oil...everyone else is screwed") but who knows what the future will bring. Like I said....in my opinion Marx is more relevant today than it was in 1847, and in my opinion it will become more relevant as technology and communication threads more and more into everyone's daily lives.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
barrelomonkeys wrote:Okay - I can see that I suppose. I mean in theory it seems like a possibility... I think Europe would more likely be open to such a possibility. I would doubt it would sweep the Middle East though and definitely would have trouble in the West.
But, again, it's interesting to consider it.
Yeah. The Middle East would be difficult (considering that they have no sort of economies beyond "ruling class has oil...everyone else is screwed") but who knows what the future will bring. Like I said....in my opinion Marx is more relevant today than it was in 1847, and in my opinion it will become more relevant as technology and communication threads more and more into everyone's daily lives.
Of course it's also likely with the spread of democracy and capitalism this will become less likely as well. You see in China now, and even in Vietnam, where there is a spread toward capitalist ideals where more and more people are embracing the trend. Seems more and more countries are seeking global trade and with that comes the necessity to look to human rights.
I see more of a tide away from the sort of revolution that would occur. Of course, perhaps, I'm naïve in this view.
barrelomonkeys wrote:Of course it's also likely with the spread of democracy and capitalism this will become less likely as well. You see in China now, and even in Vietnam, where there is a spread toward capitalist ideals where more and more people are embracing the trend. Seems more and more countries are seeking global trade and with that comes the necessity to look to human rights.
I see more of a tide away from the sort of revolution that would occur. Of course, perhaps, I'm naïve in this view.
Wait a tick...didn't Marx believe that Capitalism was a necessary phase that places had to go through in order to create the proletariat? Remember the Dialectic went:
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
barrelomonkeys wrote:Of course it's also likely with the spread of democracy and capitalism this will become less likely as well. You see in China now, and even in Vietnam, where there is a spread toward capitalist ideals where more and more people are embracing the trend. Seems more and more countries are seeking global trade and with that comes the necessity to look to human rights.
I see more of a tide away from the sort of revolution that would occur. Of course, perhaps, I'm naïve in this view.
Wait a tick...didn't Marx believe that Capitalism was a necessary phase that places had to go through in order to create the proletariat? Remember the Dialectic went:
Which goes along with my argument about the global capitalism game we got going right now making Marx more relevant than he was back in the 19th century.
(PS: Somebody note at this time on this date I was actually right about something.....it's been a while and I like to remember these little milestones in life)
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
barrelomonkeys wrote:Of course it's also likely with the spread of democracy and capitalism this will become less likely as well. You see in China now, and even in Vietnam, where there is a spread toward capitalist ideals where more and more people are embracing the trend. Seems more and more countries are seeking global trade and with that comes the necessity to look to human rights.
I see more of a tide away from the sort of revolution that would occur. Of course, perhaps, I'm naïve in this view.
Wait a tick...didn't Marx believe that Capitalism was a necessary phase that places had to go through in order to create the proletariat? Remember the Dialectic went:
Okay, but let me just make a serious statement about this for a moment. Marx viewed capitalism as an extreme form where there were no protections or rights for workers. Human rights must be checked against the social darwinism seen in pure capitalism. With capitalism left unchecked I could see that revolution may result.
Often we see countries being put on the spot that they must temper their human rights violations (not enough for my liking) to enter the global trade. Of course this could go into an entire debate on the good ole USA and where it stands in its own treatment of prisoners of war etc... oh sheesh. You're gonna really get ole Coggins riled. ;)
Okay, do I need to explain what communism is? It is NOT the control of the many in the hands of the few- it is the EXTREME opposite of fascism! I want to say "good grief" ;) But I'll resist.
Are you actually serious about this? I thought I read here that you said, communism is not the control of the many in the hands of the few. Perhaps I need new glasses...
And this is why Americans (with barrelomonkeys and a few other chosen people being a notable exception) piss me off. I'm pretty sure you're American, right? Coggins, your ignorance and Cold War brainwashing are an embarrassment which you should keep to yourself instead of making them public knowledge. I could perhaps excuse your inability to differentiate between socialism and communism (since most Americans can't), but lumping communism together with fascism because a few countries that claimed to subscribe to various political ideologies happened to be totalitarian in practice is plain moronic. Just because Nazism started out as national socialism does not mean that fascism and communism are similar ideologies.
I'm so glad I haven't been following this thread. I try to get rid of my stereotypes, but they just keep getting reinforced.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney