Marx's German birthplace unveils controversial statue of him

[Grouse]

19 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

So much hot air when actually trading with China nowadays. And by the way this so-called evil was easily absorbed by the West supporting Pol Pot when it suited them so go easy on the evil label not boomeranging back.

Have you been away? I have missed your erudite contributions.

[CharlesSwann]

On 08/05/2018 at 3:41 PM, SheungWan said:

Actually no. Marx did not just see one thing. If oppression was the sole thing then you have to ask why would he focus on the proletariat and distinguish them from the peasantry who were not only more numerous at that time but also oppressed? As for 5 year plans and the rest that is one big fast-forward!

I guess Marx and Engels weren't interested in the peasants because they were not really part of the capitalist machine but they were mainly pottering about in the fields, performing an age-old task that they were inured to - yokels not worth worrying about.

 

It was really the new generation of factory workers that Marx and Engels were obsessed with - they were more readily identifiable as victims. It didn't seem to occur to them though that working conditions would improve naturally over time as profits were ploughed back in. Communism was totally unnecessary. The situation just called for some regulation that any government could provide - not wholesale revolution.

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

I guess Marx and Engels weren't interested in the peasants because they were not really part of the capitalist machine but they were mainly pottering about in the fields, performing an age-old task that they were inured to - yokels not worth worrying about.

 

It was really the new generation of factory workers that Marx and Engels were obsessed with - they were more readily identifiable as victims. It didn't seem to occur to them though that working conditions would improve naturally over time as profits were ploughed back in. Communism was totally unnecessary. The situation just called for some regulation that any government could provide - not wholesale revolution.

M+E certainly were interested in the peasantry as a class, just as they were interested in the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as separate classes. Each was looked at and their relationship to the system of production. The 'victims' thing is not really part of the analysis and more a focus of the latter-day movements on the Left which it is better to consider somewhat independently. The factory workers were considered the key to the potential overthrow of capitalism, not because of some victimhood but rather an economic and political potential. Much of this analysis disappeared with the demise of the USSR, but it is still officially adhered to by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). What many see as the antics of the Left today is more Reformism With a Lot of Shouting, but the CCP as an existing Party still remains as an institution to be taken seriously (I didn't say support). I guess you could throw in the North Korean Workers Party if you really wanted to. Now about that statue of Marx in Trier........

Edited May 9, 2018 by SheungWan

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

I guess Marx and Engels weren't interested in the peasants because they were not really part of the capitalist machine but they were mainly pottering about in the fields, performing an age-old task that they were inured to - yokels not worth worrying about.

 

It was really the new generation of factory workers that Marx and Engels were obsessed with - they were more readily identifiable as victims. It didn't seem to occur to them though that working conditions would improve naturally over time as profits were ploughed back in. Communism was totally unnecessary. The situation just called for some regulation that any government could provide - not wholesale revolution.

No, it called for unions and lots of struggles, sometimes violent, before workers were treated decently, And programs like social security and medicare which were both denounced as socialist before they were legislated into existence. . You take a very Pollyanish view of history. In fact, I'd say one of the reasons workers got treated better was because government was afraid of communism and need to placate workers. Not entirely without reason, since many unions were headed by Marxists and Socialists.And now the communism is pretty much dead as a political movement, workers are more and more being treated badly. Especially in those nations that unions are weakest - like the USA.

[underlordcthulhu]

3 hours ago, SheungWan said:

So much hot air when actually trading with China nowadays. And by the way this so-called evil was easily absorbed by the West supporting Pol Pot when it suited them so go easy on the evil label not boomeranging back.

Evil is evil no matter who is taking part in it. I don't understand your point. 

There's no doubt the West has a part to play in spreading this cancer.

[SheungWan]

2 minutes ago, underlordcthulhu said:

Evil is evil no matter who is taking part in it. I don't understand your point. 

There's no doubt the West has a part to play in spreading this cancer.

I have found that those who like to fulminate the most against the 'communist cancer' are remarkably tolerant when it comes to looking at the fascist tide in history. Or even for that matter historical statues erected for slave owners. Foaming only on one side.

[CharlesSwann]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No, it called for unions and lots of struggles, sometimes violent, before workers were treated decently, And programs like social security and medicare which were both denounced as socialist before they were legislated into existence. . You take a very Pollyanish view of history. In fact, I'd say one of the reasons workers got treated better was because government was afraid of communism and need to placate workers. Not entirely without reason, since many unions were headed by Marxists and Socialists.And now the communism is pretty much dead as a political movement, workers are more and more being treated badly. Especially in those nations that unions are weakest - like the USA.

I reduce history to human nature and always find that boils it down to something quite banal. 

 

'Struggle' no doubt, but mainly because M&E couldn't/wouldn't wait for the natural process of economic development. They looked at the world and assumed that was how it would always be, so they called for sudden seismic change. Catastrophic error.

All the remedies you listed could have been brought about by any careful government - as they were in Britain - without the need for communism. 

[SheungWan]

3 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

I reduce history to human nature and always find that boils it down to something quite banal. 

 

'Struggle' no doubt, but mainly because M&E couldn't/wouldn't wait for the natural process of economic development. They looked at the world and assumed that was how it would always be, so they called for sudden seismic change. Catastrophic error.

All the remedies you listed could have been brought about by any careful government - as they were in Britain - without the need for communism. 

That would be 'reduce' as in Reductio Ad Absurdum.

[CharlesSwann]

45 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

M+E certainly were interested in the peasantry as a class, just as they were interested in the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as separate classes. Each was looked at and their relationship to the system of production. The 'victims' thing is not really part of the analysis and more a focus of the latter-day movements on the Left which it is better to consider somewhat independently. The factory workers were considered the key to the potential overthrow of capitalism, not because of some victimhood but rather an economic and political potential. Much of this analysis disappeared with the demise of the USSR, but it is still officially adhered to by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). What many see as the antics of the Left today is more Reformism With a Lot of Shouting, but the CCP as an existing Party still remains as an institution to be taken seriously (I didn't say support). I guess you could throw in the North Korean Workers Party if you really wanted to. Now about that statue of Marx in Trier........

You're saying it was a purely theoretical movement, and all the hand-wringing about worker's conditions, and all the emotionally-manipulative case studies came later and had nothing to do with it? Hmmm. I would have to read up on that, but I doubt communism would have taken hold anywhere without the emotional appeal to the victimhood of the exploited classes.

[underlordcthulhu]

28 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

I have found that those who like to fulminate the most against the 'communist cancer' are remarkably tolerant when it comes to looking at the fascist tide in history. Or even for that matter historical statues erected for slave owners. Foaming only on one side.

When did I claim the statue should be taken down? I say let them have it. And remember it's the socialists who claim tolerance yet their actions speak to the EXTREME opposite of that, especially regarding statues of historical figures. You only have to look at the last two years in the US to see really nice examples of all that 'tolerance'.

And I don't know what fascism has to do with anything here, nobody seems to be defending that either.

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, CharlesSwann said:

You're saying it was a purely theoretical movement, and all the hand-wringing about worker's conditions, and all the emotionally-manipulative case studies came later and had nothing to do with it? Hmmm. I would have to read up on that, but I doubt communism would have taken hold anywhere without the emotional appeal to the victimhood of the exploited classes.

I am not saying that at all. But yes, please do read up on it. Plenty of stuff in the libraries. PS Very few readers manage to finish all 3 completed volumes of Das Kapital, but good luck.

[CharlesSwann]

18 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

I am not saying that at all. But yes, please do read up on it. Plenty of stuff in the libraries. PS Very few readers manage to finish all 3 completed volumes of Das Kapital, but good luck.

My days of reading Das Kapital are over, but I've just had another quick look at the Communist Manifesto and it is heavily loaded with emotive stuff about oppression of the workers - in fact, it's so bitter and ranting that, in tone, it reminds me a lot of Mein Kampf. I'm going back to my original opinion that it's all about victimhood.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, underlordcthulhu said:

When did I claim the statue should be taken down? I say let them have it. And remember it's the socialists who claim tolerance yet their actions speak to the EXTREME opposite of that, especially regarding statues of historical figures. You only have to look at the last two years in the US to see really nice examples of all that 'tolerance'.

And I don't know what fascism has to do with anything here, nobody seems to be defending that either.

 

1 hour ago, CharlesSwann said:

My days of reading Das Kapital are over, but I've just had another quick look at the Communist Manifesto and it is heavily loaded with emotive stuff about oppression of the workers - in fact, it's so bitter and ranting that, in tone, it reminds me a lot of Mein Kampf. I'm going back to my original opinion that it's all about victimhood.

Oh look! Its a Mein Kampf bus coming round the corner!

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

I reduce history to human nature and always find that boils it down to something quite banal. 

 

'Struggle' no doubt, but mainly because M&E couldn't/wouldn't wait for the natural process of economic development. They looked at the world and assumed that was how it would always be, so they called for sudden seismic change. Catastrophic error.

All the remedies you listed could have been brought about by any careful government - as they were in Britain - without the need for communism. 

Really? Are you familiar with British history? To name just one event, does the General Strike of 1926 ring any bells with you? 

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

I reduce history to human nature and always find that boils it down to something quite banal. 

 

'Struggle' no doubt, but mainly because M&E couldn't/wouldn't wait for the natural process of economic development. They looked at the world and assumed that was how it would always be, so they called for sudden seismic change. Catastrophic error.

All the remedies you listed could have been brought about by any careful government - as they were in Britain - without the need for communism. 

Without Marx there would be no NHS, social security, etc in the UK.

 

Trickle down economy has proven time and time again to be wrong.

[CharlesSwann]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Really? Are you familiar with British history? To name just one event, does the General Strike of 1926 ring any bells with you? 

 

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Without Marx there would be no NHS, social security, etc in the UK.

 

Trickle down economy has proven time and time again to be wrong.

 

Seems to me you're confusing socialism with communism again. Communism requires revolution by definition and Britain had no need of such a reckless expedient. In Britain, communism was always a minority, extremist position, always held in check by the establishment. Socialism, on the other hand, has a long, deep-rooted tradition - social philanthropy was a particularly British thing (see Charles Dickens) - and done without all the Teutonic ranting. Trade unions, responsible for the General Strike, long pre-dated communism. I don't buy that Marx had a direct hand in any of that.

 

For what it's worth, my grandmother was a prominent socialist politician in the north of England though my understanding is, admittedly, broadly cultural rather than academic. I won't ask about your credentials.