Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Marx Is Dead - Privatize the World

My students and I have been discussing the effects and impacts of the Industrial Revolution. With the Bush Social Security Personal Accounts in mind . . . wouldn’t it be wonderful if the enormous aggregation of energy, resources, and capital produced by the twentieth century were to have a result that was the exact opposite from Marx’s prediction? Wouldn’t it be one of the sweetest ironies in history if through the privatization of Social Security – made possible by the gigantic surplus of wealth produced by industrialization -- a bourgeois world appeared? Rather than the human economy evolving into a socialist super state were the individual disappears and where no one owns anything, what if there is created a society were each individual has enough wealth to live as he pleases and where, after a life time of ease and progress, he can pass his fortune on to his heirs?


Silver Lining said...

Don't you think in some slow way, it really is coming to that at least as far as the economic world goes? For example, France (a socialist nation and home to one of the strongest and longest living pro-Marxist circles of philosophy (post Vichy France is an excellent example)) still has a bourgeoisie society. Even China, a communist nation, has an emerging economic class system due to the way they run their economy. Indeed, the success of personal retirement accounts would be awesome, but don't you think history is proving Marx wrong already? Maybe I am kidding myself. I think both the impressionists and postmodern movements proved Rousseau wrong.

Apollo said...

If we did have an equal nation no one would want to do the work needed to be done. Especially if they didn't have to do it to live equally to those who dod the work?

Another thing, it is the human nature to try to rise above, understand and better your enemies. Not even your enemies but your friends also! I had the opportunity of going on a double date with Ares and we spent the majority of the time insulting each other to make ourselves look better for our dates! Though none of the insults were taken personaly, they served their perpose for this example. Despite these jabs it was a very fun night and I'm looking forward to many others.

My point is, there will never be equality of man as long as we are humans. Other than in front of the law there is no equality. That's what makes us the dominant species. Our perseption and our need to rise above evryone else. That is my opinion. Man is man, you can not change that.


Lysis said...

Silver Lining – I agree with you, Marxism has failed. It has dropped off the face in of the earth into the dust bin of history!! In the further it will be a “head scratcher” to historians. What I was doing in this post is daring to dream of the success of freedom!

Apollo – I’m sure you understand, but let me make it clear. Private wealth will not make us equal; it will just make us rich.

RealFruitBeverage said...

I am hesitant to post anything as I will never really have time to post a proper response to any questions regarding my positions. But being the loud mouth that I am I would like to state one, Byan Bugger Off, two you know Adams wasn't the Moses of predicting the futre either. I think it is certian it takes a balancing of communinal ownership and private ownership to get anything done. Where that balance lies is the debate. Yes Marx is Dead, but Adams died way before him.

Lysis said...

realfruit - Do you mean John Adams, Adam Smith, or someone else?

Ares said...

I think that the whole point of RFB's first two sentences was that he would not be able to answer any questions, but I don't blame you for trying.
I welcome the challenge any time.

Apollo said...

I don't know about the rest of these people, but I saw that comment as an unprovoked attack to RFB. Remember, an attack to someone that has nothing to do with the subject is a sign that you are loosing. The sad thing is that we just got started. My last words on that are "Remember Tom". The next thing is; What challenge? I felt no challenge. No ofense. I was just proving a point and said I was looking forward to doubling with you. Sorry, I don't see that as a challenge.

Back to the main subject.

When everyone is rich doesn't that make us all poor. Prices will be allowed to sky-rocket because we can afford it. I forsee that as an opening to another great depression on a much larger scale. Do you see my point in that? It's like in the Incredibles, when Buddy/Syndrome said that he'll release all of his inventions so everyone can be supers, and when everyone is, no one will be. Followed by an evil laugh that I am not prepared to imitate.

Ares said...

I was not in any way attacking RFB, I was merely pointing out to Lysis what RFB had said. Perhaps you did not mean your post as a challenge, but as I remember it, I won the argument that night and I welcome any rematch you may have in store.
Oh, and although your analogy may have been effective with me, I doubt that many others will understand it, and using an analogy that no one understands (or at least the masses) is a very weak analogy indeed. Keep trying though, eventually you will get there.


Anonymous said...

One of the Adams family? Uncle Fester was my favorite!

A_Shadow said...

While personally no one can really deny the demise of communism, can any of you truly deny the success of Social Security? It's only flaw lies in that it didn't incorporate uneven growth of population. Which BTW I'm still having issues figuring out how we're in such a deficit. Mabye I haven't understood how the system actually works, but it doesn't seem like it should be affected in this manner...

Anyways. I tend to agree with the comment made on balancing the systems. But then that's what I tend to do at my core, balance everything. There's a reason shadows exist, a reason you can tell good from evil... The best things in life are a balance, but that doesn't mean that it can't be tipped. Marxism had no balance, and most capitalists out and out dismiss any and all socialism (*cough* Lysis *cough*). I argue the success of the civil projects enacted by Roosevelt and how they still exist in one form or another today. I don't see how those were a horrible thing for society.

I also argue that the majority of people would strive to better themselves, but you can't say that is always the case. Must I bring up welfare, or is that still in the back of everyone's mind? There are plenty (and especially in France) that utilize such systems to not better themselves. Yes, you can argue that's because they have that ability, but I argue that if everyone of us was really out to better ourselves we'd only use welfare as a safety net, not life support.

The opportunity to better yourself exists for everyone, but it is hardly paramount to seeking to live. Values have a hierarchy, and almost exclusively life is at the top. Socialism appears in areas that are struggling to survive, it is their messiah. In areas where survival is virtually guaranteed (at least to the point of never fearing to starve to death) it is easy to boast of continuing growth in competition.

I know the values of both, and I don't think that a society that values money and life will ever be completely privatized. If that were the case, why would the Mormon Church hold food drives and have charity? That's hardly because it values strict capitalism above life.

Take away the need for worry about what you will eat every day, and you will crush Socialism in its broadest forms.

Medicine said...

That's what makes us the dominant species.