Kickstarter Campaign
10 years ago
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
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.
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.
realfruit - Do you mean John Adams, Adam Smith, or someone else?
One of the Adams family? Uncle Fester was my favorite!
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.
That's what makes us the dominant species.
Post a Comment