Someone who lives in London should let me sleep on their floor next week

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
it is a valid solution in theory .

So was physics but we all know what happened there.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally posted by Aryn
hey guys.. did nod find a floor to sleep on?

this reply makes the thread

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
There is no obvious solution to the problem of class conflict. However I hope that one day the majority realise that they don't have to be subjects to the wealthy minority and will take back what has been stolen from them. When this has occured I suggest that rather than following dogmatic precepts about how a society "should" be run instead as much freedom as possible is allocated to each individual who can make their own way in the world without fear of oppression or deprivation. I would like to see all property except in the possession of ones self abolished and every individual to be considered equal. I would expect a hihg social provision but ultimately that would be left to communities to sort out.

Personally I don't really mind if "class struggle" is solved but okay.

Ultimately the aims of Marixism are to find the best way of achieving Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood amonst humanity I think these are noble goals and worth fighhting for.

Personally I think marx and engels wrote most of their material to impress women. Does anyone else find it really hard to stay awake after the first ten lines? At least Rousseau was wrong in a totally over the top mental going to kill everyone sort of way.

[queball]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Personally I don't really mind if "class struggle" is solved but okay.



Personally I think marx and engels wrote most of their material to impress women. Does anyone else find it really hard to stay awake after the first ten lines? At least Rousseau was wrong in a totally over the top mental going to kill everyone sort of way.

Anyone who titles a work "Critque of Critical Criticism" has to have some redeeming feature.

[Nusselt]

so basically that robert mug-a-bee is inacting the class struggle by giving the land of the bourgeoisis back to the proletarians?

THAT WORKS

and if you say that the bourgeosis 'add value' to the production, in intellectual terms, ie its the bourgeosis who innovate to make things better, the peasants, i mean proletarians would leave things as they are since they only need enough to feed themselves. If this is the case then was this the reason for all the intellectual killing in the cultural revolution etc?

[Nusselt]

oh and explain the difference between trotsky and marx, this is all good, all the boring leftist talk is making sense* finally.












* ie i see wtf they're on about (sort of) i still think they're nuts

[SbOlly]

How the f*ck do you two always manage to turn ANY topic, no matter how unrelated, to politics?

Jeez. Talk about dull.

[queball]

Originally posted by SbOlly
How the f*ck do you two always manage to turn ANY topic, no matter how unrelated, to politics?

Jeez. Talk about dull.

Dull is a city leading the way into the 21st century. It is vibrant, forward-looking and ambitious and has set its sights on becoming one of the UK’s top 10 cities. But pioneering here is nothing new. Damy Dohnson, born in Dull in 1903, was the first woman to fly solo to Daustralia and went on to set many records in the male-dominated world of aviation. Dilliam Dilberforce campaigned tirelessly against the slave trade until it was abolished in 1806. In 1981 the breathtaking Dumber Bridge became the world’s longest single-span suspension bridge – a marvel of modern engineering.

[Nodrog]

Guys, youve made my thread kind of gay.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Guys, youve made my thread kind of gay.

'kinda'

[Leshy]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
So was physics but we all know what happened there.

It got used by MrL_JaKiri to prove all of his points?

[meaple]

Hay, I just made it more gay

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Marxism isnt anarchistic by nature.

You're correct, but Marxism (to some) isn't anything inherently (democratic, authotarian or libertarian). Marxism to many is a form of analysis for understanding the world. If you read Chomsky for instance, it's got a pretty Marxist economic analysis underpinning it.

I don't think divorcing Marxism from his philosophy or politics is particularly worthwhile, but it really depends on what you're trying to do. A lot of this stems from the alleged early/late Marx schism, and about a hundred years of authotarian readings of Marx/Engels.

I'd read most of Marx's stuff in a libertarian light - that is that the socialist project is basically about human emancipation in it's truest form, as T&F has eluded to.

Also JBG : Marx is a fairly interesting bloke, who also talked his fair share of bollocks. If you read the Whean biography he comes across as a drunken loud mouth who spent most of his time challenging people to duels and then running away. Also, who else could have come out with :

It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a ******). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also ******-like.

And still be hailed as some sort of hero to 'PC fascists'?

Trotsky was pretty cool but was a political leader rather than a theoretician. His "History of Russian Revolution" is fairly interesting though, as is his autobiography, although there is a better bio out there.

p.s. Gayness ++;

[Nodrog]

Marxism is a way of doing history which has been proved wrong many many times, gg get over it guys next map plz

this thread sucks

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Marxism is a way of doing history which has been proved wrong many many times, gg get over it guys next map plz

Proof is cool.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Proof is cool.

I'd answer this post but I'm too busy starving to death since the capitalist system I live in has collapsed around me due to natural forces.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
I'd answer this post but I'm too busy starving to death given that the capitalist system I live in has collapsed around me due to natural forces.

You and 800 million others bud!

p.s. I heard no-one actually, outside of SWP newspaper salesmen ever said that. Plus, what's that go to do with an analysis of history?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
You and 800 million others bud!

p.s. I heard no-one actually, outside of SWP newspaper salesmen ever said that. Plus, what's that go to do with an analysis of history?

The theory of history was used as a basis for several predictions, almost every single one of which has turned out to have been incorrect. Falsifiability is

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Proof is cool.

Historical determinsm went out with quantum theory.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
The theory of history was used as a basis for several predictions, almost every single one of which has turned out to have been incorrect.

What predictions? International trade? Increased disolution of national borders? Increased capital and labour movement across borders? Increased introduction of "dead labour" (machinery) to improve productivity? Imperial plunder?

Boy, is his face red now!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Historical determinsm went out with quantum theory.

I once read a paper by some nut which tried to make the same claim. Are you that nut?

Plus, who is 'deterministic'?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What predictions? International trade? Increased disolution of national borders? Increased capital and labour movement across borders? Increased introduction of "dead labour" (machinery) to improve productivity? Imperial plunder?

Boy, is his face red now!

If he was so clever then why was he a communist?

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I once read a paper by some nut which tried to make the same claim. Are you that nut?

Plus, who is 'deterministic'?

Nah, I've never written a paper.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What predictions? International trade? Increased disolution of national borders? Increased capital and labour movement across borders? Increased introduction of "dead labour" (machinery) to improve productivity?

No more than liberalism (eg. Bastiat) predicted at the same time or earlier.

Imperial plunder?

Boy, is his face red now!

World War 2 put a damper on that, didn't it? I mean, nothing like what happened in his days, except perhaps from the USSR. I'm not really into history though.
Or is Marx's crowning legacy the war for oil argument?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
No more than liberalism (eg. Bastiat) predicted at the same time or earlier.

That's a great argument against Marx being a unique prophet you got there boy.

Shame no-one was making that argument.

Imperial plunder is immeasurably more a feature now than it was in Marx's day. The actual wars generally only occur when something goes wrong - or when the great powers squabble over their holdings. Vietnam was where Imperialism was being actively resisted by the indigenous population. Just because that's where resistance was centred doesn't mean imperialism wasn't affecting any countries at the same time.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
That's a great argument against Marx being a unique prophet you got there boy.

Shame no-one was making that argument.

Yes, but it's one thing to look at history and say, well there's fast transport, more automation, etc, now than before, and everyone else is saying there'll be more of it, and then predict more of it.
(edit-this bit didn't make sense) It's another thing to make original, theoretical claims.


It's not much of a prediction to agree that agreed-on long-terms trends will continue. I'm not saying all sentences Marx wrote in the future tense are logically false, but there's no evidence of any useful insight. At least in the list you gave.

Imperial plunder is immeasurably more a feature now than it was in Marx's day. The actual wars generally only occur when something goes wrong - or when the great powers squabble over their holdings. Vietnam was where Imperialism was being actively resisted by the indigenous population. Just because that's where resistance was centred doesn't mean imperialism wasn't affecting any countries at the same time.

Example?
I take plunder to mean some action where one party is better off by their own judgement and another party is worse off by their own judgement, btw.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
It's not much of a prediction to agree that agreed-on long-terms trends will continue.

The dissolution of borders caused by increased global capitalist trade was hardly "agreed on". In fact, up until about 30 years ago, people would have still disagreed with it (you know, before history ended).

But again, I'm not making the argument Marx was original (although you are exaggerating the extent to which liberal economists agreed upon these trends). I'm not really interested tbh. If you write a book called "Queball's Insights" where you make a bunch of dull and obvious (but true) predictions then fair enough you're not the world's greatest philosophers. However, if someone posts "Almost everything queball said was demonstrated to be wrong" then that's merely a factual inaccuracy. Surely?

I take plunder to mean some action where one party is better off by their own judgement and another party is worse off by their own judgement, btw.

Migration of labour. Subversion of solidarity-building movements in various parts of the third world. Oil exploitation on various dubiously assigned lands. Pretty much most agriculture in the third world.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by queball
Example?
I take plunder to mean some action where one party is better off by their own judgement and another party is worse off by their own judgement, btw.

Well, there's the obvious oil example--various countries plundering wealthier countries of hundreds of billions of dollars a year by selling overpriced oil that cost them nothing to make and that they themselves have little use for.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
However, if someone posts "Almost everything queball said was demonstrated to be wrong" then that's merely a factual inaccuracy. Surely?

Ok, but if I say "I predit the population will increase over the next twenty years and in 2030 the world will be destroyed", the identifiably quebally parts are wrong.

Here's what Nodrog posted:

The theory of history was used as a basis for several predictions, almost every single one of which has turned out to have been incorrect.

So, can you give an example of a prediction that was based on the theory of history? There are particular predictions we call Marxist. I would never have thought to call, for example, technological progress a Marxist idea. One of Marx's predictions, sure.

"there is no point trying to pretend that every little thing Marx wrote was correct, people should think for themselves." Does Marxism mean anything at all?

Is Marxism testable? Like, do you still think the proletariat oppress the bourgeois? What about wage earning middle managers, venture capitalists, stock options, co-ops? Poor petty capitalists and people earning £100k+ wages?

Migration of labour. Subversion of solidarity-building movements in various parts of the third world. Oil exploitation on various dubiously assigned lands. Pretty much most agriculture in the third world.

Does migration of labour do harm to the employee? How does subverting solidarity movements in the third world help civilians in first-world countries? Is oil exploitation happening anything like the way Marx predicted imperial plunder should? Who does subsidised agriculture help?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Ok, but if I say "I predit the population will increase over the next twenty years and in 2030 the world will be destroyed", the identifiably quebally parts are wrong.

OK, easy predictions : eliminaion of peasantry as a social force in Europe, erosion of petty-bourgeoisie, growth of the urban working-class, increased specialisation of labour, increased concentration of ownership on means of production, slump and boom based on overproduction and supply, increased capital investment compared to labour, etc. Now, are any one of these views utterly unique? Almost certainly not. You can probably trace every single idea that is present there (or anything else that's said) and find someone else who said it? So?

Now, you can say that therefore, those aren't the Marxist predictions, and the Marxist bit is another bunch of predictions all of which were wrong. And if that's how you like to spend your evening, knock yourself out.

Similarly, if you look at say, Chomskyan linguistics, you'll find a whole bunch of statements. As Chomsky himself would point out, none of them are unique particularly - he just systematised in a particular form. Now, many of the things he said were right, some were wrong. If you want, you can call Chomskyan linguistics all the bits he got wrong and say the stuff he got right was all common sense that "everyone knew anyway". In which case, Mr Chomsky (and Mr Marx) simply have great PR, and nothing else. I dont' really see what's to be gained in either case.

Is Marxism testable? Like, do you still think the proletariat oppress the bourgeois? What about wage earning middle managers, venture capitalists, stock options, co-ops? Poor petty capitalists and people earning £100k+ wages?

I'll presume the highlighted section is a mistake. The issue is not oppression (since that's a simple liberty) per se, since the whole point is that all parties are bound up in a commodity-exchange relationship. It's more about exploitation. In some circumstances the relationship can be favourable to the proleteriat (in the same way that a master/slave relationship can be favourable to a slave).

If the question is "Is this a set of hard scientific theories" then no. Think of it more like this : A guy posts on an internet forum one day (we'll call him 'Nodrog'). He has a posting style which is distinctive for whatever reason and makes numerous points which lots of people agree with. These people who find him interesting go round calling themselves Nodrogians simply as a short-hand for a bunch of stuff they think is funny/good/interesting/a worthy analysis of history. ha-ha, but Nodrog one day posts some unfunny ****. Surley they must all renounce their Nodrogianess, right? I mean, this is like the Pope, yes? If you believe - you gotta belief he's infallable.

Well, no, not really. It's all just short-hand brother.

Does migration of labour do harm to the employee? How does subverting solidarity movements in the third world help civilians in first-world countries? Is oil exploitation happening anything like the way Marx predicted imperial plunder should? Who does subsidised agriculture help?

Migration of labour obviously is generally of benefit to the individual who undertakes it, yes. Since you're defining benefit as something they think they gain by (which is a fair enough defintion) then that's meaningless though : Most people who migrate choose to do so (excluding the remnants of slave-type industries where people are exported from Africa/Eastern Europe to core capitalist countries), so therefore that's kind of meaningless. But I'm talking about countries as units now, not individuals. You can look at imperial plunder on the level of individuals of course, but that's kind of strange, don't you think? Migration generally harms the country losing it's brightest/best citizens - again, from the periphery to the core, from countryside to town, etc.

Subverting solidarity helps the bourgeoisie (who are citizens? Did we vote on this?) by keeping wages lower, keeping access to resource markets, etc.

Use of oil resources follows same pattern as most other exploitation - friendly chief installed of country a with resource x. If friendly chief loses election to not-so-friendly chief then not-so-friendly chief finds country facing certain difficulties.

I wasn't referring to subsidised agriculture (which tends to be directed disproportionately at wealthy landowners anyway) but of cash-crop exports in the developing world.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
OK, easy predictions : eliminaion of peasantry as a social force in Europe, erosion of petty-bourgeoisie, growth of the urban working-class, increased specialisation of labour, increased concentration of ownership on means of production, slump and boom based on overproduction and supply, increased capital investment compared to labour, etc. Now, are any one of these views utterly unique? Almost certainly not. You can probably trace every single idea that is present there (or anything else that's said) and find someone else who said it? So?

Now, you can say that therefore, those aren't the Marxist predictions, and the Marxist bit is another bunch of predictions all of which were wrong. And if that's how you like to spend your evening, knock yourself out.

Similarly, if you look at say, Chomskyan linguistics, you'll find a whole bunch of statements. As Chomsky himself would point out, none of them are unique particularly - he just systematised in a particular form. Now, many of the things he said were right, some were wrong. If you want, you can call Chomskyan linguistics all the bits he got wrong and say the stuff he got right was all common sense that "everyone knew anyway". In which case, Mr Chomsky (and Mr Marx) simply have great PR, and nothing else. I dont' really see what's to be gained in either case.

If in 50 years Chomsky has died and his followers are insisting that English should be modelled by formal grammars I'll call Chomskyan linguistics whatever names I like. I wouldn't maintain that the wrong parts were right because there were right parts. If I think the important parts were wrong and the unimportant parts were right then I can say so.

Again: if I make a theory and try it out by seeing what it says about current trends then that's one thing, but predicting something from a more abstract basis like class struggle is another. I get the impression that the latter is more important to Marxists.

I'll presume the highlighted section is a mistake. The issue is not oppression (since that's a simple liberty) per se, since the whole point is that all parties are bound up in a commodity-exchange relationship. It's more about exploitation. In some circumstances the relationship can be favourable to the proleteriat (in the same way that a master/slave relationship can be favourable to a slave).

If the question is "Is this a set of hard scientific theories" then no. Think of it more like this : A guy posts on an internet forum one day (we'll call him 'Nodrog'). He has a posting style which is distinctive for whatever reason and makes numerous points which lots of people agree with. These people who find him interesting go round calling themselves Nodrogians simply as a short-hand for a bunch of stuff they think is funny/good/interesting/a worthy analysis of history. ha-ha, but Nodrog one day posts some unfunny ****. Surley they must all renounce their Nodrogianess, right? I mean, this is like the Pope, yes? If you believe - you gotta belief he's infallable.

Well, no, not really. It's all just short-hand brother.

But we must ask what the spirit of nodrog's question is.

I'll add this link-based goodness to my position:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...s/marxism.html
Near the end there are five main criticisms: oversimplification, bad economics, the whole Russia thing, Troskyism, communism/anti-capitalism. I don't know about Trotsky and don't particularly care. It's the other things.
Wikipedia tells me the first sociologist was this guy:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte

So what did Marx add? Stuff like bourgeois exploiting proles by owning the means of production, or more generally exploitation in sociology? But economic analysis shows that Marx's model logically gives equal weight to the two classes. The only exploitation is when there is unjust privilege, and the study of that injustice comes under classic liberalism. To take an analogy, deconstruction can show that some distinction is unjustifiable, so postmodernism in that form is great. But then there's the affirmative postmodernists who use this reasoning to show that there's no such thing as truth.

I call a Marxist someone who really believes the labour theory of value, that capitalism is bad, that communism is something that's supposed to help real people, and all that stuff.

If Marx predicted that all Europe's peasants would bugger off then great, but as I see it, Marx's Hegelian historical theory was things like that the Russian revolution should never happen. And the class distinctions he outlined would increase- but that doesn't correlate with what adults I talk to say. To a professional programmer, and probably to anyone in the service sector, the "means of production" is close to meaningless. If you're saying that his predictions of what are essentially the effects of technological progress are an important part of his work then I'd be surprised.

Not that I'm opposed to revisionism. "The fundamental class division in any society is not between rich and poor, or between farmers and city dwellers, but between tax payers and tax consumers."

Migration of labour obviously is generally of benefit to the individual who undertakes it, yes. Since you're defining benefit as something they think they gain by (which is a fair enough defintion) then that's meaningless though : Most people who migrate choose to do so (excluding the remnants of slave-type industries where people are exported from Africa/Eastern Europe to core capitalist countries), so therefore that's kind of meaningless. But I'm talking about countries as units now, not individuals. You can look at imperial plunder on the level of individuals of course, but that's kind of strange, don't you think? Migration generally harms the country losing it's brightest/best citizens - again, from the periphery to the core, from countryside to town, etc.

Eek, nationalism/collectivism. Ok, but where is the imperial aspect? Didn't Marx say something like that the imperial forces actually have to rule the invaded country exploit them in order to placate the proletariat uprising back home? Plus, offshoring and globalisation have the opposite effect, with domestic workers getting fired.

Subverting solidarity helps the bourgeoisie (who are citizens? Did we vote on this?) by keeping wages lower, keeping access to resource markets, etc.

Use of oil resources follows same pattern as most other exploitation - friendly chief installed of country a with resource x. If friendly chief loses election to not-so-friendly chief then not-so-friendly chief finds country facing certain difficulties.

Solidarity gets subverted back here too though. Like with the coal miners. It happens with corporations or dictators who are above the law and do not appreciate the usual costs of an action because they are unlikely to get prosecuted. Saying imperial plunder misses the point when there is plunder everywhere. Political realism suggests that injustice is easier in a less developed country. But I don't see how these examples show clear class distinctions. The owners of oilfields are the owners of capital for instance.

I wasn't referring to subsidised agriculture (which tends to be directed disproportionately at wealthy landowners anyway) but of cash-crop exports in the developing world.

I should really research it more before making assumptions but they could use their land for other crops if not for CAP and friends.

I shop at Waitrose, a capitalist firm owned by an elaborate partnership. They have a fair trade policy. I can't see how cash crops show anything but why everyone should have legal protection.

Originally posted by SbOlly
He is.

I'm 'normal'

Are you the chick from Dantes sig?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

If the question is "Is this a set of hard scientific theories" then no. Think of it more like this : A guy posts on an internet forum one day (we'll call him 'Nodrog'). He has a posting style which is distinctive for whatever reason and makes numerous points which lots of people agree with. These people who find him interesting go round calling themselves Nodrogians simply as a short-hand for a bunch of stuff they think is funny/good/interesting/a worthy analysis of history. ha-ha, but Nodrog one day posts some unfunny ****. Surley they must all renounce their Nodrogianess, right? I mean, this is like the Pope, yes? If you believe - you gotta belief he's infallable.

Nodrogianism is a closed system.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Ok, but where is the imperial aspect? Didn't Marx say something like that the imperial forces actually have to rule the invaded country exploit them in order to placate the proletariat uprising back home?

No. It was Lenin who placed more emphasis on what was termed "super-exploitation" which off-set increased levels of exploitation in the periphery to bribe what might be termed "the aristocrats of labour" in the core countries. But again, the actual specifics on how this exploitation is carried out will obviously vary from case to case. Sometimes there will be a very real gunboat involved, other times there will not even be the implied threat of violence. Saying "Oh, well imperialism is only when direct force is involved" is cool, but kind of detracts what we're saying.

Solidarity gets subverted back here too though.

Oh, of course. In fact, that's the entire point. British workers are, in general treated better than say their Indian equivalents. But they are all workers. The difference is one, as you mention, of practicalities. The "bourgeoisie" (in some kind of abstract entity) can live with a few million starving types in Africa. If the worst comes to the worst there'll be a refugee crisis and they'll end up butchering each other.

Having that right down the road from them (say in Brixton, or Harlem, or South-Central LA) is less tolerable. Not because British or American "workers" (I use the term loosely) are somehow of more inherent value but simply because far less instability is tolerable in the core. This is why there is generally efforts to regenerate certain areas after certain periods. It's kind of like Risk, there are territories that you can afford to lose, there are those that can't. In the long term the shape of the "core" gradually changes (so we can probably sacrifice Jo'Burg these days, but not Singapore)

As for the predictive value of historical materialism - it will not tell you one jot where the next revolution will be, or when there will be one. Where the next civil disturbance will come might depend on something stupid (e.g. policeman beating someone up in particularly pointless circumstances), and this might lead to more community action which might to lead to...etc. What it can indicate is that certain countries are "riper" than others, as per various theories of revolution. There's no way anyone realistically reading in 1850 could predict within 60 years there would be a socialist uprising in Russia. But what we can say (albeit in hindsight) is that a socialist revolution in Russia shouldn't have happened due to the backward conditions Russia experienced (e.g massive preponderance of peasantry, etc).

Going back to the original point : A lot of these attempts at "discrediting" are rather silly, imho. Most issues in politics are either tactics, or ethics. The main questions are ethical - is it right to deprive someone of liberty in scenario x, and so on. This is what I base my politics on - and indeed, the vast majority of Marxists I've encountered also would say. So my problem with property is not that it creates automatic contradictions which erode wage levels. My problem that it is fundamentally unjust, for instance. Marxism is a good insight into how property has developed say, or how it affects other things. But let's not get away from the fundamental ethical premise : owning the planet is just not on.

Analysis of previous societies is another matter. There's no point repeatedly condeming the Roman's (or Transatlantic slavers) for being evil, it kind of defeats the purpose, and can lead to dodgy dehistoricising (though I still maintain we can make some comparisons) Therefore, other types of analysis are necessary. I like historical materialism, it works quite well for me. Obviously each individual event is caused not by history itself, nor any rules but by chance and the actions of those involved. It was not "history" that overthrew the Cuban regime 40+ years ago, it was the Cuban people, led in a sense by a few nutters who almost got themselves killed in various insane ploys. Who knows what would have happened in Castro, Guevara, etc had been killed in their first few days of "revolution"? Again though, Engels said all of this well over a hundred years ago.

In summary : things are complicated in social science. We can't isolate things and do neat experiments where we say "Ok people, I loved the French revolution, but let's try it again but this time, no-one wears Cullottes and we'll see what happens...". As such, we're left with a bunch of interdependent theories on various things. As Chomsky has said, when looking at (say) foriegn policy there are numerous influencing factors, and we'll never get them all. What the President had for breakfast the day before bombing a country might have an impact, but we can't hope to get down to that level of nitty-gritty. What we can do is look at other stuff - economic factors, religious issues, etc. None of this implies a monopoly of explanation.

I think part of the problem is that you're arguing against a carictature of Marxists - SWP newspaper sellers if you like. Yes, obviously none of this is predictive. None of it may even be particularly original. If you read any Marxist writing like a religious text, trying to follow the true path of literalism then yeah, you're in for disappointment. But bottom line is, that Marx (yeah, and Engels) was a cool guy. If you go read his collected works (all 50+ volumes or whatever it is) you will get more insight (I think) than any other individual there's about that I am aware of. If you expand this into the "Marxist tradition" then you're talking about an immeasurably larger body of work (right up until the modern day with biologists like Lewontin or Rose)

There are plenty of other cool individuals about too, ofc. I like the vast majority of Bertrand Russell's stuff, for instance - so he might be second on my list of cool dudes, along with Chomsky in at 3rd. But for short-hand purposes, I'll still call myself a Marxist. Yeah, it leads to various debates with people who then say "Ah, but I heard this Marxist guy on the internet abused a little kid what do you have to say about that", but it's more productive than calling myself a Danteist. At least some people have read Marx...

p.s. As for dividing society up into anything, they're all "wrong". Any unit of analysis beyond the individual is flawed (and sometimes even then, with schizo's, etc). Thatcher was wrong, there's no such thing as society or families. There is only individuals. So yeah, the category Proleterians is gonna be imperfect. As is tax-payers. Or white-man. Or man. Or...etc. Proleteriat does serve some purpose though, although in other analysis it's going to be better to look at things in terms of men/women or gyspy/non-gypsy. It really depends on what you're doing.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

Incidentally the communist manifesto was actually shorter than that post. Strange world we live in eh.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Incidentally the communist manifesto was actually shorter than that post. Strange world we live in eh.

On the bright-side, it helped put me in the top 10 (however briefly) in that PA Project Dolphin team nonsense.

[Nodrog]

post 100 claimed for the proletariat

[queball]

Originally posted by Nodrog
post 100 claimed for the proletariat

Reclaimed for the ubermachen.

[Nodrog]

Agarian reformers claim their long awaited prize.