8 ms·

> Marx then goes on to argue, that the capitalist class can more easily leverage its interests, and therefore the workers need class conscious to counter this l

by derleth 13y ago

> Marx then goes on to argue, that the capitalist class can more easily leverage its interests, and therefore the workers need class conscious to counter this leverage. And anyone who disagrees with Marx on hearing his ideas is suffering from False Consciousness and needs to be Re-Educated, perhaps in a Camp somewhere.

straight_talk 13y ago
> Marx then goes on to argue, that the capitalist class can more easily leverage its interests, and therefore the workers need class conscious to counter this leverage. Do you have any objective arguments against this statement?
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  I can take a crack at this one. Class lines are not well-defined. A CEO may share certain interests with shareholders but their interests are not all identical. By using the frame of class you create a situation in which those without power pit themselves against those with power, and encourage those with power to reciprocate. That is a horrifically bad position for those without power to be in because you're de facto creating two teams where one of them has an insurmountable initial advantage. The better strategy is to break the "classes" apart so that you can pit the different powerful interests against each other rather than uniting them against you. There is a subset of the wealthy who benefit from a basic income. The masses would do better to ally with that subset and combine their money with your votes to achieve the common goal, than to keep painting them as the enemy for long enough that they start fighting you too.
  - yk 13y ago
    Class lines are not very defined, and never were, but at least for political analysis the exact boundaries do not matter much. What matters is the difference in influence between the main bodies of the classes. And while thinking about Marx one needs to keep in mind, that Marx did analyse the mid 19th century economy. Your example of a CEO is actually a quite good one, since a CEO is controlling capital which he does not own, a arrangement that essentially did not exist in the middle of the 19th century. And I think that this split between capital control and ownership of capital is one of the most important theoretical difficulties in applying Marxist analysis to 21st century finance capitalism. The other problem is, that in the 19th century Labor movement the workers had a nuclear option: If the workers just refuse to work, they will be as broke and unemployed as the capitalist they refuse to work for.
ThomPete 13y ago
Why the strawman? You do not need to be a marxist to agree one some of the basic principles put forward. Marx was not 100% wrong, he was just wrong some very specific and important places.
- peterashford 13y ago
  Very much agreed. I don't go along with all of what Marx wrote but there are some insights in his work that are ignored by a lot of people because they have a knee-jerk reaction about anything or anyone related to "communism". If one does not agree with a school of thought, it is still childish to ignore or misrepresent its ideas.
- derleth 13y ago
  > Why the strawman? The Gulag Archipelago. > Marx was not 100% wrong, he was just wrong some very specific and important places. Of course he wasn't 100% wrong. All modern developed countries have adopted some of his ideas, such as public schools and laws against child labor. His notions of an Apocalyptic struggle between Labor and Management, his totalizing philosophy which seeks to explain all social conditions through one dialectic, and his refusal to admit that capitalist countries could adopt some of his ideas and stay capitalist, however, lead to some of the worst regimes in history, and we can't forget that.
  - mehwoot 13y ago
    ...lead to some of the worst regimes in history, and we can't forget that. Yeah, because without his ideas, Russia would have turned into a well functioning capitalist democracy. The past 20 years have been pure bliss now that the burden of communism has been cast off- since there is now no way for power hungry leaders to control the nation.
    - derleth 13y ago
      > The past 20 years have been pure bliss now that the burden of communism has been cast off The past 20 years were directly preceded by 70 years of the USSR. If modern race relations in the US can be blamed on slavery and Jim Crow, both of which have been dead for longer than the USSR has, then Russia's modern problems can be blamed on Marxism and Leninism.

by derleth 13y ago

straight_talk 13y ago

> Marx then goes on to argue, that the capitalist class can more easily leverage its interests, and therefore the workers need class conscious to counter this leverage. Do you have any objective arguments against this statement?

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
I can take a crack at this one. Class lines are not well-defined. A CEO may share certain interests with shareholders but their interests are not all identical. By using the frame of class you create a situation in which those without power pit themselves against those with power, and encourage those with power to reciprocate. That is a horrifically bad position for those without power to be in because you're de facto creating two teams where one of them has an insurmountable initial advantage. The better strategy is to break the "classes" apart so that you can pit the different powerful interests against each other rather than uniting them against you. There is a subset of the wealthy who benefit from a basic income. The masses would do better to ally with that subset and combine their money with your votes to achieve the common goal, than to keep painting them as the enemy for long enough that they start fighting you too.
- yk 13y ago
  Class lines are not very defined, and never were, but at least for political analysis the exact boundaries do not matter much. What matters is the difference in influence between the main bodies of the classes. And while thinking about Marx one needs to keep in mind, that Marx did analyse the mid 19th century economy. Your example of a CEO is actually a quite good one, since a CEO is controlling capital which he does not own, a arrangement that essentially did not exist in the middle of the 19th century. And I think that this split between capital control and ownership of capital is one of the most important theoretical difficulties in applying Marxist analysis to 21st century finance capitalism. The other problem is, that in the 19th century Labor movement the workers had a nuclear option: If the workers just refuse to work, they will be as broke and unemployed as the capitalist they refuse to work for.

ThomPete 13y ago

Why the strawman? You do not need to be a marxist to agree one some of the basic principles put forward. Marx was not 100% wrong, he was just wrong some very specific and important places.

peterashford 13y ago
Very much agreed. I don't go along with all of what Marx wrote but there are some insights in his work that are ignored by a lot of people because they have a knee-jerk reaction about anything or anyone related to "communism". If one does not agree with a school of thought, it is still childish to ignore or misrepresent its ideas.
derleth 13y ago
> Why the strawman? The Gulag Archipelago. > Marx was not 100% wrong, he was just wrong some very specific and important places. Of course he wasn't 100% wrong. All modern developed countries have adopted some of his ideas, such as public schools and laws against child labor. His notions of an Apocalyptic struggle between Labor and Management, his totalizing philosophy which seeks to explain all social conditions through one dialectic, and his refusal to admit that capitalist countries could adopt some of his ideas and stay capitalist, however, lead to some of the worst regimes in history, and we can't forget that.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  ...lead to some of the worst regimes in history, and we can't forget that. Yeah, because without his ideas, Russia would have turned into a well functioning capitalist democracy. The past 20 years have been pure bliss now that the burden of communism has been cast off- since there is now no way for power hungry leaders to control the nation.
  - derleth 13y ago
    > The past 20 years have been pure bliss now that the burden of communism has been cast off The past 20 years were directly preceded by 70 years of the USSR. If modern race relations in the US can be blamed on slavery and Jim Crow, both of which have been dead for longer than the USSR has, then Russia's modern problems can be blamed on Marxism and Leninism.