[demonrail666]

The biggest problem the Left has faced since the fall of the Wall has been in deciding where to focus its efforts. Unfortunately too many have chosen to concentrate on identifying the cracks within capitalism Worse still, many of those within the Left have all but completely abandoned any idea of class in order to focus on issues of race or gender or sexuality and as such have manouvered themselves into a kind of ideological cul-de-sac, unconsciously paving the way for a kind of liberalism which can only articulate itself by trying to make capitalism a bit 'nicer'.

Marxism in the Soviet era failed for a number of reasons, many of which were internal to its own mechanisms. And yet I sincerely believe that as a concept it is superior to capitalism. As such I think the job of the Left now isn't to focus on the inadequacies of its nemesis (inadequacies which anyone, let alone a Marxist, could easily identify, simply by living under it) so much as to withdraw and take a long look at the very reasons why it failed and try and address those reasons so that in the future, when capitalism proves itself to be wholely inadequate to deal with emerging social developments, it can emerge renewed. Even the staunchest of capitalism's advocates, such as Francis Fukuyama, is now forced to revise his triumphalism at what he once saw as capitalism's emphatic victory of communism. He too now sees that capitalism is unravelling. It's the job of the Left not to help it unravel (after all, it hasn't needed the Left's help in that department so far) but to ensure that a viable alternative is ready when it does.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The biggest problem the Left has faced since the fall of the Wall is in deciding where to focus its efforts. Unfortunately too many have chosen to concentrate on identifying the cracks within capitalism (cracks which anyone, let alone a Marxist, could easily identify, simply by living under it). Worse still, many of those within the Left have all but completely abandoned any idea of class in order to focus on issues of race or gender or sexuality and as such have manouvered themselves into a kind of ideological cul-de-sac, unconsciously paving the way for a kind of liberalism which can only articulate itself by trying to make capitalism a bit 'nicer'.

YES. it always cracks me up how american leftists cry for the rights of everyone except for those of the poor. feminist heiresses, trust-fund ecowarriors, suburban vegans, etc. there is no discussion of class. just look at this board as a microcosm.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Marxism in the Soviet era failed for a number of reasons, many of which were internal to its own mechanisms.

inherent to its premises i would say. you really can't breed revolutionary saints.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

And yet I sincerely believe that as a concept it is superior to capitalism.

capitalism as an economic system is much more efficient, capitalism as a belief and ideology is a mental turd.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

As such I think the job of the Left now isn't to focus on the inadequacies of its nemesis so much as to withdraw and take a long look at why it failed and try and address those reasons so that in the future, when capitalism proves itself to be wholely inadequate to deal with emerging social developments, it can emerge renewed.

capitalism will run into trouble once it covers the globe, as marx predicted. so i do not see globalization as an evil force-- it's simply another step in the economic evolution of humanity.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Even the staunchest of capitalism's advocates, such as Francis Fukuyama, is now forced to revise his triumphalism at what he once saw as its emphatic victory of communism. He too now sees that capitalism is unravelling.

he's still an insufferable twat-- maybe not so much as when he proclaimed the end of history, but still.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It's the job of the left not to help it unravel (after all, it hasn't needed the Left's help in that department so far) but to ensure that a viable alternative is ready when it does.

so you're not a maoist, trying to exacerbate the contradictions of the system? good.

yes, we need a viable alternative. again, this may sound pedestrian and not glorious enough, but something like the german model sounds very appealing to me. after all, it was there and not in the soviet union where the worker's paradise was established-- factory workers with great jobs, houses, vacation time, cars, social security, medical care, control over their working conditions, etc. sure, things have gotten a bit rusty lately, but not enough to say you don't get the best of both worlds-- the coexistence of economic freedom and social security.

yes, i know, doesn't sound like some glorious motherfucking science-fiction future, but sounds good enough for me and a lot of 3rd world people who are tired of the false promises of bullshit revolutions.

[floatingslowly]

osol si kommunism.

[demonrail666]

YES. it always cracks me up how american leftists cry for the rights of everyone except for those of the poor. feminist heiresses, trust-fund ecowarriors, suburban vegans, etc. there is no discussion of class. just look at this board as a microcosm.

It's much the same over here. For a lot of people on the Left, class has become a kind of obstacle rather than a foundation stone. I'm not sure why this occured but it seemed to take root in the 1960s when Marxist groups began looking to students (God help them) and the Third World and later, in the 70s and 80s, to women and sexual minorities. Whatever the causes, it has led to a kind of abandonment of what I see as basic core leftist principles in favour of a far easier to manage emphasis on the so-called oppressed - even when by nature these will also include, as you rightly describe them, 'feminist heiresses, trust fund ecowarriors, suburban vegans, etc.'

you really can't breed revolutionary saints.

Wouldn't you say that the US and the UK are doing just that right now, in places like Afghanistan? Not that they'd call them 'saints', of course.

capitalism as an economic system is much more efficient, capitalism as a belief and ideology is a mental turd.

Maybe relative to the epic waste of the Soviet model but let's face it, with its growing need for things like built in obselecence, capitalism is catching up fast.

capitalism will run into trouble once it covers the globe, as marx predicted. so i do not see globalization as an evil force-- it's simply another step in the economic evolution of humanity.

Exactly. Equally, capitalism is wrongly denigrated by sections of the Left when again it was Marx himself who celebrated it as a necessary step beyond feudalism. The only difference in that sense between Marx and today's fiscal-Right is that he saw capitalism as a necessary step towards something better while they see it as a fait accompli. The End of History, as you mentioned.

so you're not a maoist

No. If I'm honest I wouldn't describe myself as a marxist, either. I have definite issues with capitalism and do favour the idea of communism but fail to see the relevance of a re-awakening of a Leninist style of communism. My view is that Marx provided a kernal of brilliance and truth in his analysis of capitalism but that his proposals for an alternative need to be revised dramatically before they can even begin to engage with the current socio-economic climate. I'm not sure what that alternative will look like but, in a sense, that's what excites me. With Soviet style Marxism now resigned to history and capitalism doing all that it can to follow it, now seems like the perfect time for young economists and political thinkers to start trying to iron out what you (I think rightly) see as those internal mechanistic errors inherent within the Soviet model and forge something that, while maintaining Marx's core ideological tenets, offers a radical re-think of what events have shown to be its inadequate infrastructure.

I don't know whether any of this will ever take place and I certainly don't know how it will if it does. I suppose my basic point is that at the heart of Marx was a bloody good idea that we'd be stupid to discard just because the first attempt at trying to put it into operation wasn't a success. There needs to be a revolution within Marxism before we can ever again have a Marxist revolution.

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

communism is not utopian? i regard communism as a kind of godless christian paradise. it would work wonderfully if everyone was a saint. "here, have my coat." the abolition of private property, a central tenet of marxism, is in itself a utopia.

And what about the golden siren songs of class collaboration that capitalism regularly offers the workers - resulting in the vast majority of them falling for the trap - when an economic shake-up takes place? Should we not refer to it as the trap of utopian stability that the working classes fall for regularly, being constantly promised that things will get better once the instability of the markets find a more regular flow, or they work harder at their own individual (nota bene: not collective) emancipation?

Take the current recovery orchestrated by the established and emerging powers: By rights, China, a country that has been wrongly suggested on this thread is communist (it is in name, not in doing), wouldn't have to be dealt with in this crisis because its economic structure would be de facto different than that of the other ''capitalist'' economic powers. The reality is that one of the key points of emergency that all these summits made clear is that in order to repair the sharply falling global economic growth, China and all the other emerging economies (Brazil, India etc), would have to be included in the talks more than before because the global balance is readdressing the distribution of production of capital more than ever.

In promising that things are being looked after, and an actual economical recovery will indeed take place, capitalist powers give the worker the illusion that this will automatically translate in a rise in jobs, which won't happen for years. If it will happen at all.

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

marx and marxists failed to take into account many fundamental traits of human nature

The one fundamental trait of human nature is instinctive survival. The other fundamental ones all stem from how we manage to organize our survival, so traits found in someone in East Germany might not always match those found in someone in Texas, even though overall physical appearance and primal needs make us all the same biological family. Philosophical generalisations too often try to pin down these traits as a unified code of behaviour for everyone at any time, but generalizations they remain and have been proved wrong and wrong again with time.

[pbradley]

So are you saying that communism isn't for everyone? That is, if you see collectivism as a method of organizing our survival.

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by pbradley

So are you saying that communism isn't for everyone? That is, if you see collectivism as a method of organizing our survival.

I don't understand your question.

[pbradley]

Well, what I responded with to that same statement was that communal identity and individual identity were both "fundamental traits of human nature." However, your comment claimed that the only fundamental trait is instinctive survival and other traits are differing methods of ensuring survival.

Thus, collectivism is a method of ensuring survival. Yet, I take the rest of the post to mean that this is not a universal trait but differs across region (East Germany vs. Texas). Communism as a generalization has been proven wrong time and again.

I don't believe this is what you actually mean so I was asking to clarify.