Debate: What are the merits of Marxism?

There must first be a disclaimer for all readers. I am no expert on this topic. I have yet to read Capital and have little knowledge of economic theory. As I know the same is true for diginux there will be no problem with the areas the debate does cover, as to not get us way out of league. Sadly, this post is also too long and too short. It is disjoint and glosses over much. But here goes.

I came to describe myself as a Marxist not because I found Marxist theory before figuring out my views, but, instead, I found Marxist theory to match what I had already came to believe. Growing up I'm sure we all saw the injustices in the world and the inequalities. We all know they exist, the question that every person must answer for themselves is, why do these problems exist and is there a solution. I saw the problem as a top to bottom structure and some see it as bottom up. I thought it clear that it wasn't the immigrants fault that people don't make a living wage but the bosses. I saw inheritance as the same as passing down titles in monarchies. I saw the disconnect in workers and their work, the starving adults and children, the homeless and the unemployed not as the ones at fault but the system put in place by the ruling class. On and on, from borders to wars the actions of States should drive anyone to insanity.

Following these realizations a person looks for solutions. I thought it was clear that progressive income tax, removal of inheritance (giving it all to the State), nationalizing all necessary industries (health care, food, water, fuel, transportation, etc) and placing companies in the hands of those who do the work to be run democratically would be a step in the right direction. Additionally, I found it offensive to hear our country called a democracy. This is no democracy, no founding father would argue with that, and is not run by and for the people. Which leads some instead to want what Marx called, "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

Knowing diginux, I think he almost agrees with the goals of Marxism, just not the methods to achieve the goals. There are two differing views of mine that we may want to discuss. Those that think we can achieve socialism and communism through the current system and those who think we shouldn't have the state between this one and the removal of the government following the revolution, mainly being the anarchists.

In addition to the stages towards no government, there is much that can be discussed both on the flaws of capitalism and the benefits of Marxism related to those flaws. But it is too long to write in the first post, especially if the flaws will only be agreed on by diginux. So, I will keep this short and let him reply and we can then see where it goes. Capitalism is a force of alienation, imperialism, separation and exploitation. The capitalist must create markets to sell more and more and will break down any wall keeping a market from them. The capitalist wants to keep the workers separated so they do not combine to overthrow them. The capitalist makes their profit from the worker's wage not being based on their work but the market for workers. It is a clear trend in the United States of the separation of rich and poor. And as I've stated to many "liberals" who speak of this "rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer" problems, it is not between our poor and our rich. The difference is between our rich and those who make the goods you buy. Those people are often not in this country. This was known by Marx and, of course, many others since the dawn of the capitalist movement.

I still have much to write... To end, we need a system that is democratically run by the workers where all people's basic needs are met and demand is not created. I see this as being accomplished through a workers revolution, a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and finally the State will 'wither away'. Instead of writing them out I will link to a piece of the Communist Manifesto, the 10 Planks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto#10_Planks_of_the_Communist_Manifesto. Those describe 10 of the things I've been wanting (or defending their existence, in the case of income tax and free education) for a long time. I think those are points we may want to debate, in addition to the flaws of capitalism and the means to get to a stage of a governmentless, classless society assuming you accept that as possible.

It is hard to write in bullets the "merits" of Marxism since merits such as removal of the exploitation of workers or increased wages say little that can not be misconstrued, and in many cases assumed to not be a merit at all without a long explanation. So, I hope this post just gets the ball rolling for the merits to be shown.

Sorry, that paragraph did start in a confusing way. I was saying those two views I state differ from mine. My view is that we require a revolution followed by a government run by the working class which then will "wither away". This could be thought of as a merit of Marxism, it gives the outline for the move towards a governmentless society, though not very detailed. I do not accept the view of working in the current system or completely dropping government following the revolution.

I am afraid the divisions of thoughts between Tristan and myself run deeper than he thinks. I find it superficial to label the poor, working class, socialites, etc. with such broad terms. Categorizing, defining, labeling, do us no good.

I would like to compare the contrasting views between Tristan and myself own viewpoints by using cancer. When someone gets cancer, you can surely label it, breast cancer, melanoma, prostate cancer, etc. However these labels don't really change the fundamental issue which is you have cancer. Further, there are several ways to treat each type of cancer; however, most of them can be reduced to removing the cancerous parts and using either chemo or radiation to get what cancerous cells can't be physically removed. This is comparable to what Tristan's viewpoints seek to do. He wants to label, treat the problem, but not look for a fundamental solution. He does not want to find the cure.

I on the other hand believe we need to find the cure for this social disease. What is the social disease? I believe it comes down to two main things, power and greed. These are in my opinion the two deadliest killers alive. All of the moral failings of our society and decline in humanity such as murder for drugs, killing for oil, sweat shops, etc. can be contributed to the disease of power and greed.

Socialism seeks to superficially label us as 'rich' and 'poor', when the reality is much deeper than that. These labels achieve no end, they merely further abstract us away from the truth.

In any government, you have people that rule other people. This would be the same with socialism from Tristan's point of view. Even if "the people" really revolt, they are still people ruling people. This would be no different than what we have now, which is people who think they know what is best for the individual.

I believe on the individual knows what is best for the individual. The only way to fight the epidemic of power and greed is to not force everyone to be equal in one big group, but rather we need a system where everyone is an individual and there are no groups.

I would sum this up by saying Tristan proposes going from several groups (rich, poor, working, black, white, etc...) to one group where we are all 'equal'.

I would sum my position by saying we go from these several (superficially defined) groups to us all being individuals and ignoring extrinsic traits. The only system that will work would be a system where plague of greed and power of one individual cannot spread or infect the whole.

I will give one real world example: affirmative action. Tristan believes(to the best of my knowledge, he can clarify this) that affirmative action is good and necessary.

I strongly disagree. I think it is ridiculous that someone gets help because of the color of their skin. I think if you help some disadvantaged people, you help all people disadvantaged in that similar way despite their skin color.

While in the end this may in general help people of a certain class, creed, or color more than another class, it is the intent that is important. We are fixing the fundamental disease, not merely by trying to mask or balance the real problem. When you treat the problem, racism, by using racial lines to define us, you are merely prolonging the disease instead of curing it.

I will end by saying I support no government that says they know what is best for me. Humanity and government are complex topics from which, to the best of my knowledge, no one fully understands. Until someone truly does, it is my right to decide what is best for me and no one else. Government should only exist to protect people from people and maintain individuality.

Well, this comes down to diginux's lack of knowledge of Marxism. I was hoping to not have to explicitly lay out all of communist theory, there are many books, pamphlets and websites available on the subject. But I'll go over the major misunderstanding from his last post and hopefully that'll be the last time. The main thing I'll be touching on is historical materialism.

diginux claims we don't go for the cure and that we useless label people, proletariat, petite bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie, etc. The former is completely wrong and the latter is wrong but not as clearly since I doubt he'll accept my arguments.

We believe when society is restructured and everyone needs are met and it is no longer the capitalist system running everything that the problems of power and greed will leave. Right now we grow up being drilled with fear of not succeeding and the horrible life we'll have instead of the lavish life we could have if we fail. It is a CURE. It is only a theory, but there is also evidence to support it. A good place to start for anyone is the book 'Meaning of Marxism'. You can suggest the theory is wrong, but don't suggest we don't seek a cure.

As for labels... Its lovely to suggest we should not use them and that we need a cure for greed... But what good does that do? None. You can live in your own world or live in the real world. The reason the proletariat is "labeled" is because its our belief that they are the only ones who can overthrow the ruling class and institute socialism. Not the farmers, not the petite bourgeoisie and not the bourgeoisie. It is not a gift we hope to be given from on high, that will never happen, it must be taken.

So, why the proletariat? The workers are the ones who can bring the world to a halt. They drive the trains, they make the cars, they run the plants. They have the power, it just takes the workers becoming conscious of this.

Socialism does not say what is best for you, except that its probably best that you have food, shelter and health care (maybe I'm wrong).

I agree affirmative action is not the cure, socialism is. Its capitalist economics that brought about the extreme racism, the slaves were brought from Africa because they were cheaper than white slaves. Then, people had to reason why it was OK to treat them as property, leading to the belief they are lower than the white man. Capitalism continues to keep us divided. Yesterday on the train a man was lecturing me about being white. I took it and agreed with him, he has a reason to be angry. But then he put blame on Mexicans for taking jobs. I had to stop him them. The capitalists want us to lay blame downward and become divided. But its not the immigrant Mexican workers fault that white bosses pay a non-living wage. It is the bosses.

So, no, I don't agree affirmative action is the cure. But I do believe when a disproportionate amount of blacks are oppressed (compared to oppressed white workers) due to our racism there must be measures to correct this -- affirmative action.