Marx did not say revolution was the only way forward; he was cautiously optimistic, for example, that English workers could make changes without revolution. He pointed to the 10 Hour Day legislation as an example. And he was pretty clear after 1848-9 that “revolution” would not look like those uprisings. He had very little to say about what the revolution and socialism would look like. Agree that “Marxism” has been used as mysticism by many. I fear there may no idea that cannot be twisted and used for ill.
You are going to tell us where, I hope?
Nor did Marx suggest socialism would solve everything. He did argue that capitalism was an incredibly productive system. It meant that we had effectively solved the problem of scarcity. Now we could work on the problem of distribution to ensure everyone could have a decent life, which meant the full opportunity to develop our human potential. He also suggested that the class that benefits so immensely from the present arrangement would be reluctant to change it and so would likely have to be forced to give up their wealth and control. That would be the starting point, not the end point, of human development.
If I told you, you wouldn’t learn, but if you look it up yourself…:rolleyes:
Hint: it’s in Chapter 27 of Volume 1, “The expropriation of the agricultural population from the land.”
Kropotkin, you don’t work for TPC, do you? 
Another aspect:
Marx would of been puzzled by our obsession with the latest model of the Iphone, having a closet with 20 pairs of shoes or two wide screens,one for the den, one for the bedroom. In the middle 1800’s such comfort driven consumer items were more rare than they are today. He thought once your basic needs were met, you’d want a few items for comfort, but he honestly thought that beyond that, the demand in the market would not support such lavish tastes of the average person.
I’m afraid I don’t know what the TPC is.
but I do like these smileys!
Though he did understand that human needs (and nature) were not static, and that desires could become needs. He might also see such consumerism as a sign of alienation: unable to meet our real needs, we distract ourselves with consumption.
Though he did understand that human needs (and nature) were not static, and that desires could become needs. He might also see such consumerism as a sign of alienation: unable to meet our real needs, we distract ourselves with consumption. But it’s just a theory.
Sorry, accidental double post. All this is making my head hurt.
Judean People’s Front…:rolleyes:
As John Sayles put it in his short story, “At the Anarchist Convention,” it’s “not divide and conquer, but divide and subdivide!” If it was easy, we’d all be working 2 hours a day and living the good life by now.
I think Marx would be more likely to say it was an example of how the capitalists are exploiting the workers. Having sold the workers all the products they need, the capitalists are maintaining their income by creating an illusory need among the workers that they need to buy more stuff.
That split specifically was over China. When the Soviet and Chinese governments split, the Maoist faction in the Communist Party formed the Marxist-Leninist group.
That matches the impression I had from seeing them at tables in the halls in universities. The CPC seemed much closer to the USSR to a casual observer, while the CPC(M-L) talked much more about anti-imperialsm.
Both had some of the most turgid propaganda imaginable, but I always thought the CPC(M-L) was the worse of the two.
I’m going crazy here.
Is it
or
or the Thomas More quote in the footnotes:
???
…and here, the thread disintegrates from an edifyng, intellectual pursuit to adolescent erotica. (Not saying that’s a bad thing, but still…)
Can we combine the two in dialectical fashion? Conflict leading to a new synthesis?
P. 884 of the Penguin edition, footnote 12, Marx quotes from a manuscript, “The large grant of lands in Ireland to Lady Orkney, in 1695, is a public instance of the king’s affection, and the lady’s influence…Lady Orkney’s endearing offices are supposed to have been foeda labiorum ministeria.”
IF you know what I mean and I think you do.
I TOLD you it was safe for work. Unless you teach Latin or copy medieval manuscripts or hold Mass.