Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto » Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto

Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto

Page: First 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Capitalism its evolution & the Communist Manifesto

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

Posted 11/05/09 - 04:36 PM:	#121
thewatcher wrote: The recognition that the system cannot change but must be replaced altogether is precisely Marx's great insight and, indeed, is why the idea of the Revolution has such appeal. I would contend, however, that Marx was not aware, necessarily, of the precise nature of the change necessary. And I ask you to simply provide the quotations of Marx where he supposedly laid out this idea. Edited by davidasearles on 11/05/09 - 04:41 PM

willem
starchild

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 295

Posted 11/06/09 - 01:42 AM:	#122
Two political ideas emerged and developed in the wake of Marx: To change the system from within (socialism) and revolution (communism). I reckon it can be judged by means of history which has turned out for the best.
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

Posted 11/06/09 - 05:06 AM:	#123
Socialism is not communism and does not imply revolution? Those more than 600,000 websites which contain the phrase "socialist revolution" simply must be be notified. And not Marx but "the wake of Marx." Just as clear as mud.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

Posted 11/06/09 - 09:08 AM:	#124
NY Times column +++++++++++++++++++ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/why-not-a-wpa/ November 6, 2009, 10:44 am Why not a WPA? By Paul Krugman A question I’m occasionally asked at public events is, why aren’t we creating jobs with a WPA-type program? It’s a very good question.... +++++++++++ Dave comments: Have that WPA set up enterprises with collective worker control, set up enough of them where these enterprises are producing a wide enough array of goods and services (food, medical, transportation, yada, yada) so that workers can access them on a labor in labor out basis, and a big chunk of my life's work will have been accomplished :-)

willem
starchild

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 295

Posted 11/07/09 - 03:19 AM:	#125
davidasearles wrote: Socialism is not communism and does not imply revolution? Those more than 600,000 websites which contain the phrase "socialist revolution" simply must be be notified. And not Marx but "the wake of Marx." Just as clear as mud. Well, yes, that's how I always learned it, but hey, all this is silly semantics anyway. I'd rather think about how to better the actual and future reality than split hairs about the he said she said of a long gone past.
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 421

Posted 11/07/09 - 07:51 AM:	#126
willem wrote: Two political ideas emerged and developed in the wake of Marx: To change the system from within (socialism) and revolution (communism). I reckon it can be judged by means of history which has turned out for the best. Perhaps: Changing the system from within - evolutionary socialism Tearing down the system and constructing a new one in its place - revolutionary socialism The words 'socialism' and 'communism' have become mixed together in political language - to me, socialism is the temporary stage where the state takes all property under its control (a bizarre Marxist reading of Hegel's 'synthesis'), and communism is the end goal, a true 'classless society,' which is facillitated by the state. However, Marx is not a Hegelian even in the most basic sense. For a start, he obviously applied Hegel's theories to matter not ideas, but perhaps even more importantly he believed in communism being the end of history because of its abolition of classes. A Hegelian would surely believe that nothing can last forever. It could be argued that Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution is a method to adapt the Marxist view of the communist society with Hegel's notion of dialectics and perpetual change, but his ideas never really extended beyond the political problems of the Soviet Union. His theory certainly needs far more work if it were ever to be put on a par with dialectical materialism. Thats not to say that dialectical materialism isn't a fantastic innovation and one of the great discoveries of political science. Unfortunately. it does suffer from some shortcomings as a philosophical theory.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

Posted 11/08/09 - 04:37 AM:	#127
Yes I would agree with the sentiments above in the two lasts posts (sheps and willem) that trying to distinguish between "socialism" and "communism" isn't a very productive endeavor. I would also add to that, the concept of "tearing the system down" or "changing the system from within." I would even shy away from use of the term "the system" as its use seems never to lead to productive discourse. Tearing down the system? If "the system" is the everything touched or influenced by present day society how could anything NOT system tear it down? It seems to be a logical impossibility. Back when I smoked a lot of pot and consumed massive quantities of alcohol of course these distinctions could fuel meandering discussions well into the early morning hours - but never did I wake up a bit more enlightened than when I started new evening on the day before. So I simply do not bother with those distinctions anymore. What other people do is up to them. As a spoiler I merely point out the inconsistencies. In the past two or three years I have thought more about whether there is some structure within the system that could be altered with little immediate purturbance to the society that over not too much time would alter the general relationship of workers to means of production; and over not too much longer time than that, reshape society itself into a more cooperative organism for the betterment of the entire world's population. To me that would be utilizing the present democratic political processes (as they exist, or to the extent that they exist) to have enterprises of collective worker control of means of production set up sufficient that people can obtain from means of production a large enough quantity and array of goods and services to markedly improve their lives via exchange on a (socially necessary) labor quantity in - labor value out basis. Edited by davidasearles on 11/08/09 - 05:21 AM

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 11/08/09 - 11:48 AM:	#128
davidasearles wrote: But other things that we may feel to be a part of our collective knowledge (our episteme) for as long as thousands of years and longer, especially in the social field are often mere constructions based upon faulty biases and unproven conjecture. The term "episteme" does not refer to anything so totalizing as "collective knowledge." Rather, it refers to intellectual contexts. These contexts are determinative of intellectual, social and economic possibility, and what is possible in the context of one episteme becomes impossible with the rise of another.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 11/08/09 - 03:09 PM:	#129
davidasearles wrote: You had mentioned that ideas of reform might come from poets. I had mentioned that I had gotten my idea from Shelly - but apparently Shelly's poem didn't convey the message of the basic idea that you may ascribe to. Then even your own named poet is no longer sufficient so we go outside of poetry altogether and go apparently to a favorite writer of yours, Foucalt. Expanding the scope of intellectual activity is one thing, explaining said scope is quite another. Your failure to understand the scope of what is intellectually possible (as has been abundantly demonstrated by your repeated references to the limits of our episteme as mere biases, to be overcome by some later enhancement in our knowledge or understanding) is precisely what is at issue here.

yebiga
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 11/09/09 - 01:02 AM:	#130
Civilization = Co-ordination and Altruism Capitalism = Co-ordination but Altruism becomes secondary and a matter of luck Socialism = Altruism but co-ordination becomes secondary and a matter of luck The financial crisis we are currently experiencing suggests capitalism is not only lagging in its altruism but is struggling to co-ordinate itself efficiently in a new global context. We need to challenge the romantic notion that free capitalism is the most efficient and dynamic method to provide for our necessities and our development. Quite frankly, Free CApitalism is entirely impossible! Large multinationals Corps are the enemy of the Entrepreneur. Once an industry is mature, there are generally only a few major players, who all think a like. Any innovative upstart is quickly squashed or purchased. This is simply a self evident fact. It is astonishing that glorified Clerks or at best articulate accountants, now called CEOs, have acquired a celebrity status. Other than the ridiculous money they are paid, what is there to admire? Some predatory move they made to purchase a distressed competitor? Following the advise of some consultancy report? Lobbying Government? Once any entity obtains a certain size and influence it has a social responsibility which must extend well past the ostensible notion of good corporate citizenship. A balance between co-ordination and altruism is an inevitable destiny of civilization. The current form of capitalism has clearly reached a decadent stage in its evolution. The very size of the corporations which now exists has made capitalism a force against progress; a force who's primary objective is the retention of power and an enemy to any and every transformational technology or any transformational re-organization which could in anyway threaten the status quo. "Free Enterprise is Dead"

Page: First 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.