Marxist concepts
Class conflict and historical materialism
Main articles: Class conflict and Historical materialism
At the root of Marxism is historical materialism, the materialist conception of history which holds that the key characteristic of economic systems through history has been the mode of production and that the change between modes of production has been triggered by class struggle. According to this analysis, the Industrial Revolution ushered the world into capitalism as a new mode of production. Before capitalism, certain working classes had ownership of instruments utilized in production. However, because machinery was much more efficient, this property became worthless and the mass majority of workers could only survive by selling their labor to make use of someone else's machinery, thus making someone else profit. Accordingly, capitalism divided the world between two major classes, namely that of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.[57] These classes are directly antagonistic as the latter possesses private ownership of the means of production, earning profit via the surplus value generated by the proletariat, who have no ownership of the means of production and therefore no option but to sell its labor to the bourgeoisie.
According to the materialist conception of history, it is through the furtherance of its own material interests that the rising bourgeoisie within feudalism captured power and abolished, of all relations of private property, only the feudal privilege, thereby taking the feudal ruling class out of existence. This was another key element behind the consolidation of capitalism as the new mode of production, the final expression of class and property relations that has led to a massive expansion of production. It is only in capitalism that private property in itself can be abolished.[58] Similarly, the proletariat would capture political power, abolish bourgeois property through the common ownership of the means of production, therefore abolishing the bourgeoisie, ultimately abolishing the proletariat itself and ushering the world into communism as a new mode of production. In between capitalism and communism, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat, a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage.[59] It is the defeat of the bourgeois state, but not yet of the capitalist mode of production and at the same time the only element which places into the realm of possibility moving on from this mode of production.
Dan~ wrote:how did so many people miss the point?
obsrvr524 wrote:Dan~ wrote:how did so many people miss the point?
Marxist propaganda. When you own the media people belief what you arrange for them to believe.
[/quoteMeno_ wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:Dan~ wrote:how did so many people miss the point?
Marxist propaganda. When you own the media people belief what you arrange for them to believe.
Dan~ wrote:Democracy is on more of the issue than Marxism.
Democracy represents the will of the workers,
instead of favoring a minority of rich business owners.
This seems true to me.
If it is true, how did so many people miss the point?
Dan~ wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CommunismIn between capitalism and communism, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat, a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage.[59]
Meno_ wrote:The only way to define class in a supposedly classless society in the US, is by the difference in legal terms: de-jure & de--facto.
Now if that' s not a nominal description, I don't know what is.
Oh forgot a third one: fiction
Silhouette wrote:I thought I'd test if you'd just as easily forsake Wikipedia as you waltzed into the other thread about "what Marxism really is" with Wikipedia quotes that you thought furthered your cause.
Turns out the literature supports Wikipedia when it comes to Democracy and Marxism, which you'd know if you'd read Marx.
That's how you use Wikipedia when you have a healthy skepticism of it: you don't only listen when it supports you and dismiss when it doesn't, you read the actual books and check yourself.
Silhouette wrote:Marxism, as in your own quote, clearly states the transition of Capitalism to Communism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) as a democratic state.
Dan~ wrote:Silhouette wrote:Marxism, as in your own quote, clearly states the transition of Capitalism to Communism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) as a democratic state.
Capitalism and Marxism both can have a sort of voting system, but was Marx really all about democracy?
Also thanks for your big post / reply.
Abolish the ownership of land and put all land to public use. This will eliminate oppression and class conflict.
Create a progressive or graduated income tax. This will spread wealth more equally among all members of the population and eliminate classes.
Abolish inheritance. This will eliminate wealth being held by a few instead of distributed among everyone.
Create a national bank using state capital. Private banks simply hold money. A national bank could use money to improve social conditions.
Dan~ wrote:Some people want their hard work to carry over into the lives of their children.
Inheritance is an essential thing.
Dan~ wrote:Banks are crazy ****. Why on earth would a commie want a bank to exist?
obsrvr524 wrote:I agree that communists utilize banks and money as a means to control the population. The CCP even manipulates its currency in order to shift relative wealth (the Hong Kong banks, the World Banks).
Dan~ wrote:Do we blame the drugs themselves?
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users