I would say though that Marx's theories of history and his ideas about alienation are good. Marx hardly talked about the Communist utopia that most people try to invent here. But his main ideas were that history is a line of struggles where on class always rules over another. Then one day, the subjected class overthrows the ruling class and becomes the new ruling class. Eventually, the proletariat will rise up (the Revolution) and we will see the end of class based society.
His other theory is on the structure of society:
Nature is the basis of our production
Our Productive force (tools/technology/skills) and Relations of Production (how we organize ourselves--class) make up the Economic Substructure and Mode of Production.
From these, the legal and political superstructure rises, based on the ruling class.
Our social consciousness (art/novels/science/religion) rises from this and corresponds with the Mode of Production. Society is based on extolling the virtues of the ruling class. The Legal and Social structures are correlated and will validate the modes of production and ideology will become the definition of reality that justifies power.
For example, when we had slavery, the basic belief promoted was that slaves weren't human and therefor, it's good to enslave them.
During industrialization, it was necessary to promote things like social darwinism and sacrifice for profit. "We have to treat our workers like cattle so we can make more money"
(with the softer "socialism" in place of more radical variants of "marxism")
If you're under 20 and you don't believe in socialism, you have no heart.
If you're over 20 and you still believe in socialism, you have no brain.
the 20th century seemed to most reasonable people to prove marxism/socialism a failure everywhere it was tried in all but the most watered-down forms (Sweden and Canada might be described as small-s socialist with regard to some policy areas <universal health care, welfare state, etc>), but each and every country that tried Kapital-S Socialism left a big smoking crater where their economy used to be, or have bailed on the policies in all but name (PRC adopted "Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics" after Deng Xiaoping finally admitted the failure of Maoist/Marxist state-planned economy and noted that "To get rich is glorious")
sadly, many die-hard marxists refuse to acknowledge the seemingly self-evident historical record. for them, the stock response is always "it has never been properly implemented... if people tried real marxism/socialism/communism < read: idealized abstract fantasy world version>, it would work perfectly and solve all global problems"
no recognition of human nature getting in the way of the profitless society, no understanding of cause and effect in the demonstrable case studies from the USSR to NK to NV to...
to paraphrase Joe Stalin (talking about Religion) and R A Heinlein:
(Marxism) is the opiate of the masses.
(Marxism) is the crutch of the uninformed.
there are probably some idealogues who will always rose-tint their vision of Marxism in order to maintain the spirit that sounds so radical in certain circles. to them, i honk harpo's horn.
admitted marxists seem self-delusional to most economists, in much the same way flat-earthers must appear to geologists/cartographers or creationists must appear to many
you're welcome to your ideas... but an implied denial-of-reality might be the external perception to anybody who's read deeper or lived in the last century
For me, the main draw of Marxism is the idea of work. For Marx, we're all prostitutes, selling that which is an inherent part of us (our labor) and for a measly job that we might not be well made for. This was especially true in Marx's time, when people were working in factories that provided no safety, any real reward, and no sense of ownership. For me, the point is that work is an essential part of each person and as such, each person should be able to work a job that they are good at and they enjoy in some part. The problem with Capitalism is that for many people, a job they enjoy or are good at may not pay enough for them to live on. For example, teachers don't always get paid a great amount and so some people may not teach simply because they can't live and support a family (for example) on that wage. In my opinion, a good Communist state would not necessarily be a centrally planned economy, but one where each job would be paid at least a wage a person could live on, and by live, I mean afford more than a one room studio in a bad part of town and can't even afford a bus pass. Unfortunately, people are selfish jerks (myself included) and so it'll never work. Alas.
I believe it was Marx himself. Also, that's only part of the quote. I don't have a real book at the moment, so I hope this is accurate (it's from a website): "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."
(with the softer "socialism" in place of more radical variants of "marxism")
If you're under 20 and you don't believe in socialism, you have no heart.
If you're over 20 and you still believe in socialism, you have no brain.
BTW, I don't want to turn the subject aside, but I've heard this aphorism expressed as, "If you're under 40 and you're not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're over 40 and you're still a liberal you have no brain." Or something to that effect. I guess it's an easy dichotomy to manufacture.
See, this is the thing about capitalism and democracy that's hard for people who haven't been exposed to them: both basically piss off everyone a little bit. And that's why they work: rather than attempting to make everyone happy some of the time, or some people happy all of the time, democratic political structure and capitalist economies don't make anyone (completely) happy (or carefree, etc.) any of the time. Remember, kids, in the USA, you are guaranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself.
I never understood, the strange admiration of Che among the occidental world. The only thing that i remember of his biography, was all the dirty blood on his hands.
His place is more on hell than on T-shirts.
It was rather bizarre, first to see the emergence of pop icons, and then seeing Elvis, The Stones, The Beatles, etc? being joined by Che Guevara.
I think that the admiration of Che is similar to that of various Fascist leaders: a fascination with violence (a very human tendency we all have).
But more often than not, the guys who buy Che paraphernalia are also those who buy that of James Dean or any more recent rebel icon, because he looks suitable for that role.
That addition of a political and warrior figure to the pantheon of pop culture was already part of the tendency of mixing up current affairs with entertainment, which is now much more achieved.
the 20th century seemed to most reasonable people to prove marxism/socialism a failure everywhere it was tried in all but the most watered-down forms (Sweden and Canada might be described as small-s socialist with regard to some policy areas <universal health care, welfare state, etc>)
Even in a watered-down wine, one should a drop or two of wine.
Sweden and Canada are no more ?watered-down forms of Marxism? than the USA. All developed countries otherwise known as ?First World? have a regime of representative democracy and a capitalist economy regulated by the state with frequent state intervention and some form of welfare state, completely inadmissible from the Marxist standpoint.
It is of course common in the USA when seeing a country with more state participation in providing public service as ?socialist?, like many Europeans tend to consider the USA as a ?nineteenth century laissez-faire hell? conjuring up images from Émile Zola's Germinal.
That fault line is imagined, all these countries are basically using the same recipe with slightly different doses.
All jokes aside, as a now relatively ex teacher, I found much to be admired in the writings of Paolo Friere..particularly in regards to the rural uneducated poor of Sth America.
It is a pity that Che could not undertand the basic aspirations of the poor in the same way that Paolo Friere did...
Che chose to the gun........Paolo Friere chose to teach.....
Means & ends always meet, if not today, then tomorrow.
All jokes aside, as a now relatively ex teacher, I found much to be admired in the writings of Paolo Friere..particularly in regards to the rural uneducated poor of Sth America.
I heard about him, but I'm not quite familiar with his writing aside a few broad lines.
Quote:
It is a pity that Che could not undertand the basic aspirations of the poor in the same way that Paolo Friere did...
Che chose to the gun........Paolo Friere chose to teach.....
Means & ends always meet, if not today, then tomorrow.
Given that I come from a tradition which reveres education, and from a political approach which considers literacy and education as a motor for advancing both individuals and societies, among other things; I naturally favour education over the great promises of revolutionary movements.
I heard about him, but I'm not quite familiar with his writing aside a few broad lines.
Given that I come from a tradition which reveres education, and from a political approach which considers literacy and education as a motor for advancing both individuals and societies, among other things; I naturally favour education over the great promises of revolutionary movements.
There are many cultures that revere education, but all too often many use education as a form of mind deadening or indoctrination with little or no relevance to the ultimate needs of the individual or of society at large.
I truly find it strange how so many people are passionate about education, but truly know so little about its methedology....In education..(as in all things ) a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Moving on with regards Paulo Freire....there is a Paulo Freire institute....it is also on the internet..
Look for the "english link " in the toward top right hand corner of the home page..there really isn't much there.
If you are interested, his truly seminal work ( which helped me to understand the alienation & desperate need for "concientization" was his 1968 book " The pedagogy of the oppressed ".
It was banned by many countries..not suprising really....he even ended up on death lists of the left as well as those of the Right.
You can buy it @ Amazon.com or pick it up second hand somewhere or other.....
Seee....I can never step away from being a teacher...once an educator.....it just stays in one's blood forever...
Actually, even if there was a "cure" for my malady..I don't think I would take it.
Sweden and Canada are no more ?watered-down forms of Marxism? than the USA.
...That fault line is imagined, all these countries are basically using the same recipe with slightly different doses.
Exactly. No pure "system," be it Ayn Rand's or Karl Marx's, is very practical or totally responsible. It's a simple matter of degree, what these countries choose to be centralized, decentralized, regulated or open and how much.
I never understood, the strange admiration of Che among the occidental world. The only thing that i remember of his biography, was all the dirty blood on his hands.
I couldn't agree with you more. These rich kids, like Immanuel said, flaunting with that kind of anti-thesis of their very existence. It's hard to look at them and not starting to laugh feverishly. There are little things as painful to behold as uninformed youth.
No, it is an idea that can not work inherently for many reasons, first among them that it assumes an undesrtanding of humanity and then would force us to fit that anthropomorphic and misguided idea of what humanity is: hence it inherently leads to totalitarianism.
Marx, following on from Hegel's dialectic philosophy (the belief that all things were essentially the sum of two parts), attempted to provide an understanding of humanity by reducing human history to dialectical materialism (the ?philosophy of Marxism? - which boils down to the belief that societal an historical change comes from class struggle). I agree that this is an oversimplification in many ways, but I fail to see how it ?inherently leads to totalitarianism?. Also, are you sure you know what anthropomorphic means?.
Quote:
Originally posted by aquafire
Yeah marxism is a cute idea based on the belief that
( A ) No one will be greedy
( B ) Everyone will want to share everything..Hey comrade eat my shorts....
( C ) Life will be blissful in grey walled apartments with 5 people per room..& no plumbing.
Well?the basic ?nice idea? is this: Humanity will evolve socially to a point where each individual contributes to the extent that he or she is able to and each individual benefits to the extent that he or she needs. In a capitalist, feudalist or slave society, relatively small groups of people control the means of production and benefit disproportionately from the efforts of the groups that produce. I agree that human nature makes the Marxist ideal extremely difficult to attain (everybody wants a free lunch - or at least one that someone else is paying for, which is the next best thing), but that doesn?t make it an impossibility.
For what it's worth, and I haven't really been following the discussion, I believe I cannot be considered a communist because I do not believe in the two major tenets at the base of communism: the inherent goodness of man, and the inherent equality of humankind.
The first: I do not believe that people are inherently good. Many will say that society creates bad edges to something internally good. I say no, some people are and will always be rotten. I have no proof for this. It is something I believe. It is not something that provides for an ideal outlook on life. It is, as with all things I believe, subject to deletion if proven incorrect.
The second: I do not think man is equal (with the notable exception of pigs, who are obviously more equal). Man is just not equal. Some people were born to lead, many people were born to follow, and then there's that few who where born for no apparent reason. I do not believe in equality. Equal rights? Yay, for everyone. Equality? Nay. I chuckle when I see malinformed feminists strive for equality. Their struggle will not end until they no longer have healthy breasts, but have a penis dangling instead (and maybe some man-tits).
The question if all people should be rewarded equally for similar labour is a harder one. I for one think (though be it with great difficulty, myself being college educated, and therefore desiring to earn a little more than your basic conveyor belt flunkie) a doctor should not be making plenty more than a blue collar worker, at least, to the degree that they work the same hours. Free market disagrees with me. Offer and demand: many blue collar workers, few doctors, who do YOU think'll make more? This is one of the most ingrained concepts of free market thinking, so ingrained that many do not even realise this as a concept subject to change anymore. It has, for many, become a fixed law of the physical world. Ask your friends, your parents, why does a doctor make more dough than a factory worker, and look at the frowns, the myriad replies, the inconsistency among them. Then try to find why a doctor sits at a desk eight hours, a factory worker is about eight hours, and one takes home 50 bucks, the other takes home 800 bucks, or whatever.
I have the impression, albeit vague, that socialism is better suited to tackle these issues.
Without wanting to risk misunderstanding..I just find the dichotomy between the differing pay levels has more to do withour inherited religious beliefs than would otherwise be given credit.
If we follow the idea that humans were "expelled' from a Nirvana/ Eden of sorts (where our task was to tend the garden & generally be blissful ), then the expulsion .." working the earth ", meant that life was dirty, brutal & short.
Living off the land via farming would be the blue collar equivilant of your factory worker.
For almost everyone, this was the only option given to most rural populations.
The rise of Priesthoods in various cultures offered a way for people to earn a living away from the dirt and hardship of farming the land.
Becoming a priest was the first real "White-collar intellectual" job going.
My parents generation always maintained that an education was the only way to break out of the " Blue-collar" factory tread mill...
How many times were we exorted to find a job that didn't require us to use our hands ? Hands being synonymous with dirt..blue collar..brutish..unintelligent etc etc.
So from that historical perspective Doctors, Lawyers etc all descend from those first Priest White collar workers...
Interesting aside..just how priests wear "White collars"
Marxism: nice idea that doesn't work. Amazing how simple things are when you get down to it.
True, true.
As for Che: be sure to point out the failed & veiled imperialista stints in Africa and South America, and the way his "pal" Castro accepted his "resignation" in order to keep Cuber from losing face.
I always love it when I hear folks talk up Guevara and then make like the "Red Menace" was some kind of conspiracy theory. That good ole "Peepul's Movement" should otherwise be known as "Soviet Imperialism."
Comments
His other theory is on the structure of society:
Nature is the basis of our production
Our Productive force (tools/technology/skills) and Relations of Production (how we organize ourselves--class) make up the Economic Substructure and Mode of Production.
From these, the legal and political superstructure rises, based on the ruling class.
Our social consciousness (art/novels/science/religion) rises from this and corresponds with the Mode of Production. Society is based on extolling the virtues of the ruling class. The Legal and Social structures are correlated and will validate the modes of production and ideology will become the definition of reality that justifies power.
For example, when we had slavery, the basic belief promoted was that slaves weren't human and therefor, it's good to enslave them.
During industrialization, it was necessary to promote things like social darwinism and sacrifice for profit. "We have to treat our workers like cattle so we can make more money"
Just thought I'd add that in
Also, Ernesto's favourite brand of cigar was Monte Cristo #4.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
It might be more accurate to say - Marxism: nice idea, but people keep doing it wrong.
Yeah marxism is a cute idea based on the belief that
( A ) No one will be greedy
( B ) Everyone will want to share everything..Hey comrade eat my shorts....
( C ) Life will be blissful in grey walled apartments with 5 people per room..& no plumbing.
So & as soon as these conditions are fulfilled then:
God will pack up & go on holidays.
Needles won't hurt because the proletariat will have banned sickness....& anyone who is sick willl be shot.
Everyone who dies will surrender their bodies to science for dialectic recycling....Greenies version of Commyland..
[B]Marx is cool,
Yeah, "cool" really puts bread on the table.....
(with the softer "socialism" in place of more radical variants of "marxism")
If you're under 20 and you don't believe in socialism, you have no heart.
If you're over 20 and you still believe in socialism, you have no brain.
the 20th century seemed to most reasonable people to prove marxism/socialism a failure everywhere it was tried in all but the most watered-down forms (Sweden and Canada might be described as small-s socialist with regard to some policy areas <universal health care, welfare state, etc>), but each and every country that tried Kapital-S Socialism left a big smoking crater where their economy used to be, or have bailed on the policies in all but name (PRC adopted "Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics" after Deng Xiaoping finally admitted the failure of Maoist/Marxist state-planned economy and noted that "To get rich is glorious")
sadly, many die-hard marxists refuse to acknowledge the seemingly self-evident historical record. for them, the stock response is always "it has never been properly implemented... if people tried real marxism/socialism/communism < read: idealized abstract fantasy world version>, it would work perfectly and solve all global problems"
no recognition of human nature getting in the way of the profitless society, no understanding of cause and effect in the demonstrable case studies from the USSR to NK to NV to...
to paraphrase Joe Stalin (talking about Religion) and R A Heinlein:
(Marxism) is the opiate of the masses.
(Marxism) is the crutch of the uninformed.
there are probably some idealogues who will always rose-tint their vision of Marxism in order to maintain the spirit that sounds so radical in certain circles. to them, i honk harpo's horn.
admitted marxists seem self-delusional to most economists, in much the same way flat-earthers must appear to geologists/cartographers or creationists must appear to many
you're welcome to your ideas... but an implied denial-of-reality might be the external perception to anybody who's read deeper or lived in the last century
to paraphrase Joe Stalin (talking about Religion)
I believe it was Marx himself. Also, that's only part of the quote. I don't have a real book at the moment, so I hope this is accurate (it's from a website): "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."
Originally posted by curiousuburb
one of my economics profs used to put it this way
(with the softer "socialism" in place of more radical variants of "marxism")
If you're under 20 and you don't believe in socialism, you have no heart.
If you're over 20 and you still believe in socialism, you have no brain.
BTW, I don't want to turn the subject aside, but I've heard this aphorism expressed as, "If you're under 40 and you're not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're over 40 and you're still a liberal you have no brain." Or something to that effect. I guess it's an easy dichotomy to manufacture.
See, this is the thing about capitalism and democracy that's hard for people who haven't been exposed to them: both basically piss off everyone a little bit. And that's why they work: rather than attempting to make everyone happy some of the time, or some people happy all of the time, democratic political structure and capitalist economies don't make anyone (completely) happy (or carefree, etc.) any of the time.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I never understood, the strange admiration of Che among the occidental world. The only thing that i remember of his biography, was all the dirty blood on his hands.
His place is more on hell than on T-shirts.
It was rather bizarre, first to see the emergence of pop icons, and then seeing Elvis, The Stones, The Beatles, etc? being joined by Che Guevara.
I think that the admiration of Che is similar to that of various Fascist leaders: a fascination with violence (a very human tendency we all have).
But more often than not, the guys who buy Che paraphernalia are also those who buy that of James Dean or any more recent rebel icon, because he looks suitable for that role.
That addition of a political and warrior figure to the pantheon of pop culture was already part of the tendency of mixing up current affairs with entertainment, which is now much more achieved.
Originally posted by groverat
Great post, Immanuel.
Thank you.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
the 20th century seemed to most reasonable people to prove marxism/socialism a failure everywhere it was tried in all but the most watered-down forms (Sweden and Canada might be described as small-s socialist with regard to some policy areas <universal health care, welfare state, etc>)
Even in a watered-down wine, one should a drop or two of wine.
Sweden and Canada are no more ?watered-down forms of Marxism? than the USA. All developed countries otherwise known as ?First World? have a regime of representative democracy and a capitalist economy regulated by the state with frequent state intervention and some form of welfare state, completely inadmissible from the Marxist standpoint.
It is of course common in the USA when seeing a country with more state participation in providing public service as ?socialist?, like many Europeans tend to consider the USA as a ?nineteenth century laissez-faire hell? conjuring up images from Émile Zola's Germinal.
That fault line is imagined, all these countries are basically using the same recipe with slightly different doses.
All jokes aside, as a now relatively ex teacher, I found much to be admired in the writings of Paolo Friere..particularly in regards to the rural uneducated poor of Sth America.
It is a pity that Che could not undertand the basic aspirations of the poor in the same way that Paolo Friere did...
Che chose to the gun........Paolo Friere chose to teach.....
Means & ends always meet, if not today, then tomorrow.
Originally posted by aquafire
Immanuel,
All jokes aside, as a now relatively ex teacher, I found much to be admired in the writings of Paolo Friere..particularly in regards to the rural uneducated poor of Sth America.
I heard about him, but I'm not quite familiar with his writing aside a few broad lines.
It is a pity that Che could not undertand the basic aspirations of the poor in the same way that Paolo Friere did...
Che chose to the gun........Paolo Friere chose to teach.....
Means & ends always meet, if not today, then tomorrow.
Given that I come from a tradition which reveres education, and from a political approach which considers literacy and education as a motor for advancing both individuals and societies, among other things; I naturally favour education over the great promises of revolutionary movements.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I heard about him, but I'm not quite familiar with his writing aside a few broad lines.
Given that I come from a tradition which reveres education, and from a political approach which considers literacy and education as a motor for advancing both individuals and societies, among other things; I naturally favour education over the great promises of revolutionary movements.
There are many cultures that revere education, but all too often many use education as a form of mind deadening or indoctrination with little or no relevance to the ultimate needs of the individual or of society at large.
I truly find it strange how so many people are passionate about education, but truly know so little about its methedology....In education..(as in all things ) a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Moving on with regards Paulo Freire....there is a Paulo Freire institute....it is also on the internet..
http://www.paulofreire.org
Look for the "english link " in the toward top right hand corner of the home page..there really isn't much there.
If you are interested, his truly seminal work ( which helped me to understand the alienation & desperate need for "concientization" was his 1968 book " The pedagogy of the oppressed ".
It was banned by many countries..not suprising really....he even ended up on death lists of the left as well as those of the Right.
You can buy it @ Amazon.com or pick it up second hand somewhere or other.....
Seee....I can never step away from being a teacher...once an educator.....it just stays in one's blood forever...
Actually, even if there was a "cure" for my malady..I don't think I would take it.
Shalom
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Sweden and Canada are no more ?watered-down forms of Marxism? than the USA.
...That fault line is imagined, all these countries are basically using the same recipe with slightly different doses.
Exactly. No pure "system," be it Ayn Rand's or Karl Marx's, is very practical or totally responsible. It's a simple matter of degree, what these countries choose to be centralized, decentralized, regulated or open and how much.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I never understood, the strange admiration of Che among the occidental world. The only thing that i remember of his biography, was all the dirty blood on his hands.
I couldn't agree with you more. These rich kids, like Immanuel said, flaunting with that kind of anti-thesis of their very existence. It's hard to look at them and not starting to laugh feverishly. There are little things as painful to behold as uninformed youth.
Originally posted by pfflam
No, it is an idea that can not work inherently for many reasons, first among them that it assumes an undesrtanding of humanity and then would force us to fit that anthropomorphic and misguided idea of what humanity is: hence it inherently leads to totalitarianism.
Marx, following on from Hegel's dialectic philosophy (the belief that all things were essentially the sum of two parts), attempted to provide an understanding of humanity by reducing human history to dialectical materialism (the ?philosophy of Marxism? - which boils down to the belief that societal an historical change comes from class struggle). I agree that this is an oversimplification in many ways, but I fail to see how it ?inherently leads to totalitarianism?. Also, are you sure you know what anthropomorphic means?.
Originally posted by aquafire
Yeah marxism is a cute idea based on the belief that
( A ) No one will be greedy
( B ) Everyone will want to share everything..Hey comrade eat my shorts....
( C ) Life will be blissful in grey walled apartments with 5 people per room..& no plumbing.
Well?the basic ?nice idea? is this: Humanity will evolve socially to a point where each individual contributes to the extent that he or she is able to and each individual benefits to the extent that he or she needs. In a capitalist, feudalist or slave society, relatively small groups of people control the means of production and benefit disproportionately from the efforts of the groups that produce. I agree that human nature makes the Marxist ideal extremely difficult to attain (everybody wants a free lunch - or at least one that someone else is paying for, which is the next best thing), but that doesn?t make it an impossibility.
The first: I do not believe that people are inherently good. Many will say that society creates bad edges to something internally good. I say no, some people are and will always be rotten. I have no proof for this. It is something I believe. It is not something that provides for an ideal outlook on life. It is, as with all things I believe, subject to deletion if proven incorrect.
The second: I do not think man is equal (with the notable exception of pigs, who are obviously more equal). Man is just not equal. Some people were born to lead, many people were born to follow, and then there's that few who where born for no apparent reason. I do not believe in equality. Equal rights? Yay, for everyone. Equality? Nay. I chuckle when I see malinformed feminists strive for equality. Their struggle will not end until they no longer have healthy breasts, but have a penis dangling instead (and maybe some man-tits).
The question if all people should be rewarded equally for similar labour is a harder one. I for one think (though be it with great difficulty, myself being college educated, and therefore desiring to earn a little more than your basic conveyor belt flunkie) a doctor should not be making plenty more than a blue collar worker, at least, to the degree that they work the same hours. Free market disagrees with me. Offer and demand: many blue collar workers, few doctors, who do YOU think'll make more? This is one of the most ingrained concepts of free market thinking, so ingrained that many do not even realise this as a concept subject to change anymore. It has, for many, become a fixed law of the physical world. Ask your friends, your parents, why does a doctor make more dough than a factory worker, and look at the frowns, the myriad replies, the inconsistency among them. Then try to find why a doctor sits at a desk eight hours, a factory worker is about eight hours, and one takes home 50 bucks, the other takes home 800 bucks, or whatever.
I have the impression, albeit vague, that socialism is better suited to tackle these issues.
Without wanting to risk misunderstanding..I just find the dichotomy between the differing pay levels has more to do withour inherited religious beliefs than would otherwise be given credit.
If we follow the idea that humans were "expelled' from a Nirvana/ Eden of sorts (where our task was to tend the garden & generally be blissful ), then the expulsion .." working the earth ", meant that life was dirty, brutal & short.
Living off the land via farming would be the blue collar equivilant of your factory worker.
For almost everyone, this was the only option given to most rural populations.
The rise of Priesthoods in various cultures offered a way for people to earn a living away from the dirt and hardship of farming the land.
Becoming a priest was the first real "White-collar intellectual" job going.
My parents generation always maintained that an education was the only way to break out of the " Blue-collar" factory tread mill...
How many times were we exorted to find a job that didn't require us to use our hands ? Hands being synonymous with dirt..blue collar..brutish..unintelligent etc etc.
So from that historical perspective Doctors, Lawyers etc all descend from those first Priest White collar workers...
Interesting aside..just how priests wear "White collars"
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Marxism: nice idea that doesn't work. Amazing how simple things are when you get down to it.
True, true.
As for Che: be sure to point out the failed & veiled imperialista stints in Africa and South America, and the way his "pal" Castro accepted his "resignation" in order to keep Cuber from losing face.
I always love it when I hear folks talk up Guevara and then make like the "Red Menace" was some kind of conspiracy theory. That good ole "Peepul's Movement" should otherwise be known as "Soviet Imperialism."