PkSanTi

Yes... Except we are not asking wether it would or wouldn't work, but trying to make an approximation to Marx ideas that's, so to speak, washed and cleaned from the interpretations and prejudices that some governments caused on people. A Marx approximation through Marx. That's the first orientation point I made on the post; not all followed it. As Jimmy said, we don't say tomatoes are bad because they were used as ammunition against people, haha. Then returning to the actual question: why MARXISM (not stalinism, maoism or leininism...) is a bad word? Can't we learn to read an author ignoring what people made of him? Because in that case Nietzsche was a son of a bitc* because he was the philosopher of Nazism. But we read him and respect him because we know he is something else than what Nazism made of him. Just trying to re-orientate the discussion.

I didn't say the system functioned against the poor because it functions in favour of the rich. I said it works against the poor because it does, regardless of its functionality for the rich. The fact that the rich get better when the poor get worst is incidental, though part of the system; but that doesn't mean I say that "if it is for the rich it must be against the poor". That would be weak reasoning. To my eyes, what you mean by "western world" is quite an eurocentric concept: Europe and its good sons (the USA, Australia, and some other). What about, just to state an example, Latin America? It is part of the western world, geographically and culturally speaking, and yet doesn't benefit at all by capitalism. It is, actually, the most unequal region of the entire world!! So the statement "capitalism works fine for western cultures" is just ignoring half of the countries of the western world. I know that you said that it works in the western world "in general", but it is a whole continent you were just putting out of the picture, not a few isolated countries. That's not generality! I believe that is quite an English conception (I do not say this contemptuously, I really love England, its personalities and literature) that of trusting the social contracts and formal statements. The poorer the country, the more you notice that those have no match with reality. To legally and formally state equality wont create material, factual equality. That's like the Golem's jewish legend: you wont create a man by just pronouncing some words to a bunch of mud, as god did. All you get is a nasty, not human creature that can barely speak or think. I don't know if my analogy is precise, but it is eloquent. Words, formal statement's and enunciation have a limited power when dealing with reality. I could name hundred of countries in which equality is formally declared and materially denied.

I don't think those that don't want to change things aren't good people, the same way i don't think people who want to change things are necessarilly good. I never implied you weren't good people. I don't blame the rich. The rich people are usually folks who tried to make the best of it. I don't think they are evil and all evils are their fault. They are humans, most of them full of fears, passions and frustrations, just like all of us. So I wouldn't demonize them. All I do is recognize the system works in favor of the rich and against the poor. That's how the system works, not because of evilness, but because of its structure. I am sorry for your personal story, but I don't think that the fact that sone people overcame adversities changes the fact that it is so much harder and unfair for the poor. I would say that you, more than anybody, would know that. I mean, don't you hope that no other kids should have to live a situation like yours? Everyone diserves education; a little kid shouldn't have to work to get it. Anyway, I congratulate you, but a subjective experience does not change an objective reality. And I'll just insist on the fact that I don't believe rich are evil. Manny communist do, though. I just think they are people. I wont demonize them nor will I think poor are good people just because they are poor. I am talking about a system. People just live in it the best they can.

"A poor man's child has the same opportunity for betterment (which includes education) as a rich mans child. There is no legal or social impediment (in modern western cultures at least) to anyone willing to put the effort in. Some of the wealthiest people alive today, started with nothing, and some of the children of past generations of "rich" people have ended up with nothing, because the didn't work for it." Oh, come on! You seriously think that the fact that they are legally, constitutionally and formally allowed to receive education denies the fact that poor kids, or poor people in general, have to work earlier and stop going to school and stop many many many things?? There are no legal or social impediments: there are material impediments: do they live away from school? Do they have money to buy books and pay the bus to the institution? Can they do their homework when they have to work with their fathers? Are they father's educated and capable of providing them the same cultural education? There are so many material things that make it so different for a poor man's child than a wealthy man's child that this list could go on forever. Are you seriously gonna deny this? Did you never see or talk to a poor man, or a poor child? Perhaps some people live in a bubble or something, and never saw true poverty. And that's okay, if it works for you it's fine. But how far can you get into denial? Put yourself in the position of a boy who lives 2 km from school, his father has no job and can't afford even a good pair of shoes to use, and tell me if you'd had the same opportunities than those who live in a nice neighbourhood, near to a decent school, and have money to afford the books and school-uniforms. Please... that was just too much, man. I may sound rude, but I did see poverty as a reality very close from mine, and that statement of your's was just too much. What's next? Are we gonna say that poor boys don't finish their education because they are lazy or don't want to? Because hey, they had the same chances, didn't they! And the fact that some people came out of nothing and became big personalities or rich doesn't change any of the facts I mentioned. Argh. Now we are very far from Marx. I'll just pull myself back from this argument; there's no point of me getting so far away of the topic I myself insisted that was the one to discuss, only because I can't hold my temper.

I do not believe we are far from our ancestors either, neither biologically nor psychologically (Jung's archetypes...). I don't disagree on that; I disagree on using that argument as an excuse to resign to our so called "nature", which apparently is evil and selfish by definition though we can't define it by any means (do you notice the contradiction...?). And if you think science and genetics will tell you what our nature is, you should come to notice that, though they do influence, they are not the whole. Neither of us is only a genetic disposition, but a big amount of factors, among the which genetics is only one, and perhaps not even the most important. So... We can keep telling ourselves we know something about human "nature" as a defined thing. The true is that we don't. Now, if you'd say that we are usually capable of evil and selfishness, I wouldn't deny it, and I would admit it's a huge concern regarding communism; mostly because it pretends to deposit on one individual the power of "the people". And who can say that individual is righteous? It may be Ernesto Guevara, in which case we are lucky, just as it could be Stalin... in which case we are not. So, as you can see, I agree with this argument; but to identify the possibility of greediness and selfishness with the nature of human being is wrong; it's a possibility. If that's the logic, it would be equally fair to say we are good and kind by nature, since we are capable of goodness and kindness; this is, since those are a possibility. Superficially I would say I agree with your concern; but I couldn't say the same when dealing with your argument's strength. Short notes: Capitalism is not equality of opportunities; a labour's man's son with a bad education and forced to work since early age has not the same opportunities that the son of a wealthy man does. That's a reality nobody can deny. Communism is not equality of income. Where did you even get that from? Haha. In the most favourable case, it's superficial propaganda against communism, but has no contact with communism as a theory. That's why people should read Marx's works and see what Marx's proposals were before attribute its theory fake aims and bases. (Actually, with Jimmy we discussed this prejudice before; you can read on those posts the thing with income in communism (basically people getting what their work is worth, and not loosing their work's value in the hand of others...)). We developed "social contracts" as a consequence primarily of "religion", in order to create "civilizations". Well... very arguable. And you didn't give any argument, just throw the enunciation by itself. Don't even know if it's worth the debate anyway; wouldn't be sticking to the point. If your point was that communism handled the religious phenomenon very badly, I agree a hundred per cent: people should be free to practise any religion they want. But, again..., Marx didn't want to kill religious people, or repress them, but hoped humanity would overcome religiousness as a repressive form of life. I don't agree with that point of his, but come on, it's not even the important part of communism, haha. And, in theory, we were debating his ideas, not the mistakes of Castro or Stalin. So... well... that's it.

I might also add -sorry for the double comment- that argument's related to the such called "human nature" are so questionable and week that I wouldn't bother to even use them. We can't be certain of what human nature truly is. The so called "fight" was a law of nature perhaps on a savage state of our development as a specie, but who says it is or has to be a current law? (We may also add that the idea of evolution as the supremacy of the strongest one is mistaken; what Darwin meant was the supremacy of the most adapted one; this is: the one who reproduces the most. Fight and savage competition won't necessary be our evolutionary manner... Lot's of species reproduce more -this is, they are better adapted- through cooperation and society.) How certain are we that we are just deadly animals looking to win on whatever price? How certain are we that me are not capable of caring for the others more than what we care for ourselves? I know that the human kind is capable of evil and disaster: that is certain. But it is also capable of wonderful things. To my eyes, it's just a week and comfortable position: "ah, we are humans so that will never work, why make an effort...". So easy to escape a challenge or even a responsibility that way. Perhaps we should assume that capitalism pushes people to poverty and lack of freedom, instead of just resign to that fact because of our such called 'humanity', which's characteristics and character, by the way, is too complex and uncertain to reduce to a simple animal impulse to win or conquer.

Only to clarify, Aurelius: Marxism is not only a political theory, but a philosophical understanding of reality -which goes beyond-. We should be able to discuss it without falling on this or that government on such and such year of the xx century, since, though reality deserves a place (a quite important one), so does theory. Since it's the lack of understanding of Marx's theory and ideals what made communist governments, in general -I, personally, believe there are exceptions- so bad, I can't hurt to discuss it.

As I suspected, the discussion is turning into a matter of practical communism, of communist governments here and there, or of the absence of such. I will just remind the point 1) which I pretended to use as a guide through the post: the discussion of communism as a theory, as a philosophical view of reality, specially as Marx explained it.

I'm actually from Argentina, so it's a nice coincidence that you mentioned that. Yeah, I don't know if things work so well here in that projects; they did when the crisis (year 2001) arrived, and people did work together to stand over it. Hard times... over 50% of poverty and unemployment among the total of the population. It's impressive how we managed to put those number's down to 16% and 8% per cent respectively just a few years ago... until the last government came. Which is quite what you meant by the banks finding a way to screw things up again... not far from the current situation, haha! Just give us some time and, as things are going, we'll be facing another crisis in a couple of years (crisis are endemic to capitalism, but it amuses me how some politicians seem experts in breeding them amazingly fast). Also repression and violence are back... Well, but times for Argentina. But, to get back to the topic in question, I don't won't to think that communism won't work because we are humans. Yes, we are capable of evilness and corruption, but we are also, in the words of Miguel Hernández, 'The animal that sings, the animal that cries and settles down', so let's not take off all of our credit. We are capable of good. The question is: are we willing to put our efforts to help another human? But this is, in the bottom, a philosophical posture: to believe or not to believe in human kindness. There are fine arguments on both sides, and I won't try to convert anyone, since it lacks a point.

You look like a good candidate, specially since you are in the forum often (lot of folks asked me to participate; with several I shared info and even lines, but most of them end up quitting the project by the means of never answering me again, haha!), which makes you trust-worthy. I am currently in India, which puts the project in stand-by for at least two or three weeks; but we should get in touch trough PM, since there is another project in my mind which requires a good reader and a good voice. So we should discuss in which would you like to participate, if not in both. About your lack of recording devices, it should be something to worry, but not impossible to solve in a practical, convenient way :) Thanks for the good-will!

Regarding what you said about equality: we discuss that with Jimmy in the former posts, very superficially analysing which was the concept of equality that marxism has, and it is different to how you described it. That inhuman way of considering equality among man is a twisted one, applied but some dictators -mostly in China, but they're not the only one-, but not the one Marx and marxism have as a theory. If you are curious on which is the true concept of equality in Marx's theory, just read the posts we wrote, or look for the word "equality" and read just the ones in which that was the topic. Because it would be too long and too much of a waste to write down again what equality means under Marx's theory. (Actually, that's why I didn't want to discuss governments; because they policies, most of the time because of the greed of their leaders, rarely match with Marx's true intentions and theory. Anyhow, you're commentaries of actual governments did made a fair point, so I would not pick you on that.) Bottom line, equality on marxism doesn't want everyone to be the same. If you don't want to read Marx's works, which is understandable -not everyone has to like reading economy or philosophy-, there's as I said a very brief, quickly and superficial explanation on the former posts. It will give you another way of understanding what communism really wants.

Yes, you're right. It'd be so nice if everyone could see, even behind the most economics and hard works of Marx, such as The Capital or the Grundrisse, the sound humanity and true concern for the others that lies on the bottom of his theory. I too think that his diagnoses of capitalism's inner issues and contradictions are today more worth of attention than ever. Thanks, Jimmy!, great contributions.

I think your analysis is precise, though I think marxism's idea of equality is different to yours. Of course giving uniforms and cutting our hairs the same way doesn't make us equals, because of course we are not the same (and neither should be). This is just something the Chinese people thought off, a culture that inherits a very, veeery long tradition of emperors and restrict imperial order, so perhaps it's more a cultural thing than a communist issue (one of Marx's mistakes was precisely that: to underestimate the power of culture and tradition, and to consider them only as dependent's of the economic system and order of property...). I believe that the equality Marx wanted was merely social; this is, to build an order in which no one has to work (this is, no one has to sell it's labour force) for another private individual, but for the interest of all (and himself). This is: I doesn't even believe that marxism requires a society in which no-one posses's more than another, since everyone should get the reward of their work fairly, and those who work more should get more -Marx didn't have a problem with this-. I think it's more a manner of human needs satisfied for all -this is, a floor from which to start- and the recognition of one's work as it is: the fruit of one's creativity and persistence, and not some standarized product that has no relation with it's producer and which plus-value also goes into another one's hand. (This is why is so ironic that capitalism sells that it encourages creativity and personal ideas; it doesn't. It produces mass, unpersonal work, in which there's no true connection between the producer and the product (alienation). Marx is precisely the one who is telling us: I want you to be creative and connected with what you do! And precisely because he wants the individual to reach a full development and overcome alienation, it seeks not individual equality -that everyone would be the same, think the same and use and wear the same- but social equal bases from where to start. It's just a very, very sophisticated elaboration of the liberal principle (which fails under liberalism): no one should be reach enough to be able to buy somebody else, and no one should be poor enough to have to sell himself to others). It's also a misconception the argument that consists on the false fact that under capitalism one get's what he deserves. It's the opposite of that, and anyone that understands the simple concept of surplus value would get why.

Yes, that is correct. In fact, I wont even comment on anything you said, because I could not say it better, and couldn't agree more. See, the only issue I found is the next: rich, powerful people; this is, those that would by badly affected by communism, are not the only ones who reject it. In fact, I met more poor or regular people anti-communist than rich anti-communist -but this is perhaps due to the simple fact that I've met more poor or regular people than rich people, simple statistics-. And of course one could think that the regular man thinks that way because governments and corporations have established the notion of communism as a terrible, threatening thing; and, even one in many cases this is true, not everybody is a puppet controlled by the strings of financial and economic power (at least I don't wont to deny every anti-communist they're intelligence and will, and just say that they're all responding to the established ideas of power, even when, as I said, many may do so). So, leaving rich, wealthy people aside, whose rejection to communism has a clear cause, why do we, the simple guys, the folks that wonder around a mod's forum, or simple not wealthy neo-liberal man, think of communism as a threat? And what should we really think of communism, understood as Marx's theoretical work rather than the selfish and cruel acts of some dictatorships (to whom one might fairly said it would've been the same to disguise they're massacres under the flags of any other ideal, as long as it worked)?

In essence, your thesis is that of Berkeley: the savour of the fruit is neither on the fruit nor in the tongue, but in the contact of both. I tend to agree with that -and also you've explained it very clearly and straight-forward, which is a rare thing, so that's appreciated-. If by 'senses' you meant every sense -that would be the reasonable thing to expect-, a blind man could perceive beauty trough sounds, touch and so. It's just a missing sense, which is a missing source of beauty. But this are conjectures of mine that I didn't think carefully enough to consider worth attention. I would only ask if you could explain more precisely what you mean by "in complete harmony with our awareness", because I think of some objections but am afraid of not understanding fully what you meant, so I'd just reserve them until I am sure we are speaking in the same terms. So... what is to be in harmony with our awareness and what makes an object or a thing to be so?