Socialism has lost touch w/ Marx, and why there will be no socialist revolution in US

Remove all ads!

This article gives a description of the background idealogis of the socialist anti-American movement, and tells why it won't accomplish anything.

It is long, and a little complex, but well worth the read if you are interested.

[ January 15, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

An impressive article, and I agree wholeheartedly. The problem with attacking America and Capitalism on the grounds that Marxism always has, is that America does not meet all of the criteria for downfall, most importantly real misery, which will (i should hope)never be widespread enough here to make an uprising necessary, as they may be in the Third World.

 

Interesting article though it didnt really have much to do with the title of it. It was mostly a clarification of Marx' thesis and it pointed out that the current socialists in the world doesnt really go by his 'realistic' approach but are caught in the utopian thinking that Marx himself condemned. Not so much of anti-americanism I must say. More a statement that Marx' view of the inevitable future of capitalism hasnt come to pass and isnt likely to do so. The beginning and the end of the article was pretty strange as it didnt have much to do with most of the article, though it is an interesting thought that the 9/11 was the first step in the communist future of the poor striking back at the rich, even though the writer rightfully dismissed it. Very interesting article and should be read, especially by hardcore socialists but it was kind of dissapointing that as I have said that the heading had nothing to do with the article.

Edit: Darkwolf, you used the same heading as the article had so it wasnt really anything wrong with your heading. It was the article in itself that was a bit misleading.

[ January 15, 2003, 23:24: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

jaocqin,

Does this header fit better?

 

I have just read the article and I cannot say that I agree with all that was written there. Nor can I say that the article is impressive. It does contain impressive scientific terminology, it does contain impressive logical reasoning (where not instrumental), the author is visibly familiar with the subject, but there is too much of propaganda in the article nonetheless. The author does not hesitate before using logical deduction, induction and evidentionating instrumentally. His point of view is not free from the belief in infallibility and sacredness of all that is American and that America stands solely for good and right in this world. As well as capitalism worshipping.

I am no defender of communism. I am a class enemy, ideological enemy, political enemy and any other sort of enemy of the reds you can imagine based on beliefs, convictions, social class, economic conditions etc. Same was my father and his father and my mother and her mother. But I do not believe in the sacred right of those who have more to crave even more and to oppress those who have less and yet less. Even if this happens within the law. For who dictates the law? He who has the money to pay the politicians and the power to make them do what they are paid for. A year ago in Poland one housing clerk signed the sale of a few tenements with tenants inside to a guy who was a friend or in some other way affiliated. For a ridiculous fraction of market price. The tenants were not offered the same price for their flats (would mostly pay, that was very, very little). What's even more significant they had been given the flats as sort of tied locals many years ago from their jobs and their salaries were respectively smaller all the time because of the fact. The man who bought the tenements immediately raised the fees. In fact he multiplied them a few times. There was no one to protect the tenants. That is capitalism and the sacred freedom. For the chosen.

From Poland again: A mentally handicapped (proved mythomania, treated psychiatrically) minor promised to give $1,2 million for charity claiming he has some heritage from his grandmother. Now they are contemplating the possibility of 'penal consequences'. As a law student I clearly see this as a nonsense par excellence, but they still make such attempts. Again - capitalism.

As for US themselves: Does the name United Fruit Company say something to you?

Another US example: How can they claim that they have the right to judge and sentence Polish state for example (American Jewish organisations) or heads of states (tried to sue John Paul II) or simply citizens of different states all over the world. As far as I know American jurisdiction covers US territory only the same way as any other state's jurisdiction.

Yet another example: Osama bin Laden. Trained by CIA and subsidised by US generously up to a certain moment in time.

To sum up, the present order is not to be preserved. It is simply impossible. The tentions will gradually rise and sooner or later, if the issues related are not solved, just about anything is possible in future as the destruction of Twin Towers proves.

[ January 15, 2003, 23:05: Message edited by: chevalier des Trois-Tours ]

 

Chevalier,

I am not sure I understand, but I am assuming that the transaction involved the sale of government held property to an individual, without having any form of auction. I cannot say things like that never happen here, but we do have laws against it. Almost all property sold by the various forms of government must be sold in an open auction. The highest bidder wins. As long as the sale is not made in a way in which certain individuals were excluded, it is fair. If a person buys an apartment complex for a very low price, but that was all that anyone was willing to bid for it, that is what it was worth. If that person can go out and double the rents, that is his choice. If he charges too much, the apartments will vacate and he will start losing money. If they do not vacate, then the market is closer to being in balance.

If the sale was between 2 private parties, then that is just too bad. There was still some exchange of value to the person who sold at a low price or else they would not have sold it.

DW

 

@DW: Government/comunal at the moment of sale. We have such 'communities' still even 13,5 years after the damned red usurpation ended. The guy who bought the flats was the sole bidder in the way that no one else was offered. They just told him the price. The people get their flats from the manufactory in which they worked and which belonged to the state then as a part of pay and this reflected their salaries (on 30 years basis or something). So the legal situation is a bit misty, like always in socialism, I agree. Next trouble is that state's tenants are protected more than private ones, so the raise wouldn't go before the sale and as far as I know those people had the right to buy complete ownership of the flats anytime before the sale. After the sale nothing like that applies. Bad faith is apparent. Decency also, if not the letter of the law, required to offer them the same price as the guy had to pay. The whole thing was illegal but the law here is made up that way that guys like he and his pal the clerk can rape it with ease, almost legally and nothing can be done to them due to lame rules and the system.

I also believe that certain businesses are different to others. Strategic branches (military, heavy industry etc) are (to be) controlled by the state, public services should be as well. It's the states duty. Housing is in some way related. It's not hotels, people just live there. Owners sometimes multiply the fees to get rid of tenants which can't be done other way according to the law. This is called market. At the end, I believe that craving profit is not a legitimate motive. Period. Property is to be protected and preserved, greed not.