Hard Question To Answer, But.....

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Representative Trantis - 28 Sep 2003 14:32 GMT

What do you think Karl Marx would have thought if he was brought forward in
time to Britain in the year 2003?

Reply to this Message

M. J. Powell - 28 Sep 2003 15:05 GMT

>What do you think Karl Marx would have thought if he was brought forward in
>time to Britain in the year 2003?

"I wuz wrong".

Mike

Signature

M.J.Powell

Reply to this Message

Paul Smith - 28 Sep 2003 21:59 GMT

> "I wuz wrong".

Why's that? Bourgeois society has developed along Marx's predicted lines.
The huge contradictions within society still exist and are growing more and
more as capital becomes more centralised.

Signature

Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.smirnov.demon.co.uk/

*Replace nospam with smirnov to reply by e-mail*

Reply to this Message

M. J. Powell - 28 Sep 2003 22:51 GMT

>> "I wuz wrong".
>
>Why's that? Bourgeois society has developed along Marx's predicted lines.
>The huge contradictions within society still exist and are growing more and
>more as capital becomes more centralised.

Classes are shifting upwards.

I bet old Karl didn't foresee the huge numbers of people taking holidays
abroad.

Mike

Signature

M.J.Powell

Reply to this Message

Paul Smith - 28 Sep 2003 23:31 GMT

> Classes are shifting upwards.

Erm? The proletariat are getting larger, the petty-bourgeoisie are almost
extinct compared to 150 years ago and the bourgeoisie are decreasing in
number. As Marx predicted.

> I bet old Karl didn't foresee the huge numbers of people taking holidays
> abroad.

How does taking holiday abroad change your class?

Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you even know what 'class'
is?

Signature

Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.smirnov.demon.co.uk/

*Replace nospam with smirnov to reply by e-mail*

Reply to this Message

M. J. Powell - 29 Sep 2003 11:59 GMT

>> Classes are shifting upwards.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>How does taking holiday abroad change your class?

It indicates a shift in attitudes.

>Do you even know what you are talking about?

Frequently.

> Do you even know what 'class'
>is?

There are many definitions of 'class'. Some determine it by father's
occupation, some by the amount of money possessed, some by sports and
pastimes followed (bingo or huntin'), some by nobility or lack of it etc
etc.

I know you are dieing to tell us, so go ahead here >

Mike

Signature

M.J.Powell

Reply to this Message

Paul Smith - 29 Sep 2003 21:11 GMT

> There are many definitions of 'class'. Some determine it by father's
> occupation, some by the amount of money possessed, some by sports and
> pastimes followed (bingo or huntin'), some by nobility or lack of it etc
> etc.
>
> I know you are dieing to tell us, so go ahead here

;-)

When Marxists talk about class it's the groups that have different
relationships to the means of production. The bourgeoisie (owners) and the
proletariat (workers). The employer vs employee.

The petty-bourgeoisie would be self-employed people for example.

Current popular definitions of 'class' are mostly subdivisions of the
proletariat.

Signature

Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.smirnov.demon.co.uk/

*Replace nospam with smirnov to reply by e-mail*

Reply to this Message

M. J. Powell - 29 Sep 2003 23:01 GMT

>> There are many definitions of 'class'. Some determine it by father's
>> occupation, some by the amount of money possessed, some by sports and
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Current popular definitions of 'class' are mostly subdivisions of the
>proletariat.

The 'owners' today are the banks, finance houses and private
shareholders, many of them workers.

Mike

Signature

M.J.Powell

Reply to this Message

Neville Lindsay - 30 Sep 2003 00:51 GMT

> >> There are many definitions of 'class'. Some determine it by father's
> >> occupation, some by the amount of money possessed, some by sports and
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Mike

Which is one reason why Marxism is so irrelevant today - it was based on
capitalists who might simply own a factory employing 70 people. What we
think of as small businessmen. Today they are multinational corporations.
Their executives are workers, not proprietors, their owners shareholders who
are mainly workers. And of course his economics sucked anyway.

NL

Reply to this Message

Paul Smith - 30 Sep 2003 01:56 GMT

> Which is one reason why Marxism is so irrelevant today - it was based on
> capitalists who might simply own a factory employing 70 people. What we
> think of as small businessmen. Today they are multinational corporations.
> Their executives are workers, not proprietors, their owners shareholders who
> are mainly workers. And of course his economics sucked anyway.

If ownership of corporations is now so widely dispersed explain how capital
is increasingly getting concentrated?

Marx predicted the development of these 'multinational corporations'.
Nothing new.

The bourgeoisie are so keen to throw a few shares around so they can dilute
ownership partially so they can exert greater control over corporations with
less of an investment.

'Executives' don't need to work, thereby certainly not being 'proletarian'.

Signature

Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.smirnov.demon.co.uk/

*Replace nospam with smirnov to reply by e-mail*

Reply to this Message

Ty - 29 Sep 2003 12:43 GMT

> >What do you think Karl Marx would have thought if he was brought forward in
> >time to Britain in the year 2003?
>
> "I wuz wrong".

While this is a correct statement, Karl -- just like his faithful
worshippers today -- would not admit this. Instead, he would take credit for
every kind of government social program in existence and use that as "proof"
that his ludicrous theories were correct.

--Ty

Reply to this Message

Beeblebear - 28 Sep 2003 21:38 GMT

> What do you think Karl Marx would have thought if he was brought forward in
> time to Britain in the year 2003?

He would change his mind about religion being the opiate of the masses.
If he could tear himself away from the TV.
--
--
Chris Lyth (CLythJFK@ifis.org.ukshoot the president to reply)
IBM: Industry Bowel Movement

Reply to this Message

Robert Cohen - 29 Sep 2003 01:57 GMT

10. " sh.t, if I had bought shares in __plastics___, I'd be rich today."

9. Russia wasn't a good place to try scientific socialism, as I predicted..

8. Harpo, Chico, Zeppo, Groucho and Hegel have been proven to be prophetable..

7. I like retirement accounts, but it should be invested only in precious
metal shares & bullion.

6. The library nowadays isn't nearly as drafty in February as the one in my
day.

5. Italy is a scary place to drive..

4. These ruthless, exploitative server-owned internet news group postings
oughtabe regulated for less inequality in content, originality, puns,
metaphors, analogies, pluperfect past participles, double entendres and
ironies.

POSTERS OF POSTS, UNITE: BREAK THESE DEEPLY VACUOUS PSEUDONYMS & INANE THREAD
CHAINS

3. I deserve royalties but can't admit it, damnit.

2. Lenin was not buried in a Communist plot.

1. I have a beautiful theory that has somehow managed to cause these
exploitative fruits one euro variety stores by way of Communist China-- the
terrific merchandise & geegaws for one euro are amazing.

3.

Reply to this Message

onegod - 29 Sep 2003 11:37 GMT

Not sure, but he would be pissed at people sabotaging by naming something
communism when it was clearly not. Also, i suspect he will see usa losing
democracy since democrate and republican accept dirty pac money from the
same source.

> What do you think Karl Marx would have thought if he was brought forward in
> time to Britain in the year 2003?

Reply to this Message

History Forum / General / General Topics / September 2003

Hard Question To Answer, But.....