Thrag
4561
He literally talked about taking up arms and people dying. I mocked the “a few” which is the only part of that quote you might conceivably hang your hat on. It led to the whole line about the difference between Marx and Jefferson being scale.
You are so hilariously blinded by your “MARX BAD!” and imagination that anyone in this thread is or has ever defended every aspect of Marx’s writings and life. You are spinning yourself into such a rhetorical cocoon that I’m just here to see what kind of butterfly emerges. I mean to keep going after the Adam Smith bit. God damn.
Narrator: No, he does not.
I honestly never expected that result.
RayRayK
4564
He talked about brief upheavals to show an existing ruling class that people are unhappy. Marx called for “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”
Yeah that difference matters.
Full of surprises!
KevinC
4566
This thread has become the Bakhmut of Qt3.
Thrag
4567
Interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Have to admit I had a 8 year old me giggle while reading it.
RayRayK
4568
I’m glad I’m not on the Russian side!
The Russians are capitalists these days. Any atrocities they commit go on the capitalist side of the board.
Sharpe
4570
To get back on the substantive point that initiated this (rather crazed) double digression, I do think it would benefit the left in the developed world to come up with a better presentation and better framing of their ideas. The over-arching idea on the left in terms of economics basically comes down to using government regulation and public resources in combination with market forces (in varying proportions depending on ideology), whether you call it democratic socialism, regulated market liberalism, social democracy or Larry.
I believe this is the right general idea from a policy and substantive POV, but political and in terms of persuading the public, there are several weaknesses.
The lack of a clear framing device is a hindrance on many levels, from a political/marketing standpoint. Much has been and could be written on this. In addition, the lack of focus as to what this means, along with all the semantic wrangling surrounding it (of which I am as guilty as anyone) further obscures the ideas. In turn, this lack of clarity has made it very easy for liberal economics to a)be attacked by the right as “discredited Marxism” and b)be coopted/subsumed/sold out and generally gaslighted by centrists, including both well meaning centrists, milquetoasts, and corporate shills.
And focusing this economic ideology might go beyond mere framing: for example, in an era of ludicrous individual wealth and wild stock volatility, do we need to rethink our regulatory approach to stocks? That’s just one example, but it’s a potentially nigh-infinite can of worms.
There’s a whole laundry list of things we need to think about getting some focus and clarity on.
I wouldn’t call what we liberals need a “new form of Marxism” but it’s definitely some kind of new political/economic framing/paradigm.
(Note - the reason I wouldn’t use the term “a new form of Marxism” is that it’s shit framing out the door. Of course, that wording comes from @Enidigm whom I consider one of the most erudite posters on this board who is also one of the worst of us at framing. When reading an Enidigm post I often think “well that’s a pretty interesting idea but the way it is phrased…”)
ShivaX
4571
Honestly just ditching anything that remotely smacks of “socialism” is probably the way forward.
A regulated, mostly free market is the goal, not overthrow of the entire social order.
Most people are ultimately behind a system that keeps corporations and billionaires from shitting on regular people.
You are welcome.
I only briefly experienced it working in a cake factory, as there were rules strictly followed about breaks, about how long a person could work at a station and the like.
For temp, and a young person whose Dutch was passable, but heavily accented, I felt pretty well treated. My understanding is that there is a union for the whole industry, rather than the company, and it sets rules for everyone to follow as a baseline (in negotiation with all the companies involved).
In any case, that was nearly 15 years ago. Who knows how it is. But I will say, I still remember getting free brownies while working there, and they were good. But so are most brownies.
Madness. Many things benefit from socialism, and do not function well under even a regulated free market scheme. e.g. healthcare, care of the elderly, police and fire services, infrastructure for the common good, national defence, programs to reduce or eliminate poverty etc etc etc.
ShivaX
4574
And the second you say socialism or anything that sounds like it, all those things go straight into the garbage.
The US budget is basically national security and socialism, though. And the socialism part is mostly damned popular.
Oh absolutely, that’s the fun part of US politics. We as a country will roundly denounce anything labeled with “socialism” while at the same time politicians know they would face a voter revolt if they actually cut any of these beloved social welfare programs.
JonRowe
4577
Sshh
Don’t use that word.
Forget all of the socialized parts of the U.S. economy.
It isn’t socialism, it is Freedomism
I want Socialism Fries with my order.
Here’s one step towards better income equality:
The proposed rule would ban provisions of labor contracts known as noncompete agreements, which prevent workers from leaving for a competitor or starting a competing business for months or years after their employment, often within a certain geographic area. The agreements have applied to workers as varied as sandwich makers, hair stylists, doctors and software engineers.
“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Ms. Khan said in a statement announcing the proposal. “By ending this practice, the F.T.C.’s proposed rule would promote greater dynamism, innovation and healthy competition.”
The public will be allowed to submit comments on the proposal for 60 days, at which point the agency will move to make it final. An F.T.C. document said the rule would take effect 180 days after the final version is published, but experts said that it could face legal challenges.
Welcome to 150 years ago, rest of the country!
