"there must be countervailing forces that defend people’s needs against the brutality of profit driven capitalism"

And what would those countervailing forces be if not the working class itself?

The petty bourgeoisie can't stomach revolution, so they want capitalism with a nicer face. But capitalism with a nice face was thoroughly savaged by Marx himself (what do you think he was referring to when he described "Utopian Socialism"? Capitalism's fundamentally nasty nature can't be reformed, no matter hard you liberals try with Keynesian handwaving.

I'm no economist nor am I a philosopher or politician, but can I just say that I think the best way to protect the people would be to ban megacorps? If we restricted companies to one prime industry and in some cases one entity and eliminated the conglomerates, then we wouldn't have GE which makes jet engines and consumer applicances and does financing and... Instead, we'd limit them to *one* of those markets. And we wouldn't have Clear Channel Communications which owns entire radio and TV markets. This would be good for competitive markets which is good for capitalism, and it would prevent companies from being so large they could influence government via our representatives. Of course, we would also have to ban collective bargaining groups (and I'm not talking unions, I'm talking groups like the RIAA) to prevent multiple companies from joining forces to influence government.

But again, I'm just a techie who knows nothing about economics or philosophy.

It all comes down to the ultimate purpose of our existence as a society... Is our purpose to live well now or do we want future generations to have a chance at a better life? Do we want to reward the excellence of some or do we want to share the wealth between as many members of our society as possible? What are the fundamental rights of individuals and groups and how do we compare them when they are in conflict? Who will ultimately make the decisions and how will they be enforceable?
When society comes up with a widely accepted answer to these questions, then we can start asking: "What's the best way to get there?"

The problem is society will never agree on the answer to the sharing vs. hoarding of wealth. You ask the average middle-class to upper-middle income household and they'll say "make the top 1% share it" but when push comes to shove, they don't want to share their piece of the pie. And I can't claim to be any different. Sure, I make a (barely) six figure income between salary and bonuses. I'd love to see Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, and the rest share their wealth more, but I'll readily admit that I earned my income and want to have a say in how I share it. I give back to the community, but feel I've earned the right to have more because I worked to get it. I studied and kept my skillset up and became the best programmer I could be (at least at the moment) so that I could make what I do and have what I want. So, until mankind as individuals, progresses beyond the desire for worldly possessions, you'll not get an agreement on whether or not wealth should be completely shared.

Alex: You need to strike a balance between all those things.

Putin: Agreeing with the underlying Marxist ideal is not equal to agreeing with all of Marx. You say the working class should foment revolution. I say that won't work and hasn't worked. One reason I chose this quote is because it acknowledges that communism as it has been attempted so far has failed. You don't acknowledge that unfortunately and therefore block the way forward.

Of course the petty bourgeoisie fear revolution. But revolution needn't be sudden or violent. It need only be fundamental.

In answer to your question what force other than the working class:

First of all I want to take issue with the whole working class/upper class dichotomy. I'm not saying there aren't the rich and the poor. But I am saying that in the end we are all people and there is nothing fundamentally different about a working class person and Bill Gates. They are both people, one just has a long number behind his name. But that's sort of unrelated.

Well it's kind of related. It relates to the idea that "the working class" has to be the one that changes everything. Well I don't agree. The whole world has to change. All people. There is such a thing as a rich person who wants to revolutionize the world. Not every single last rich person or bourgeois person wants to keep the little man down. I promise.

So my answer and the answer I think of the author of this quote is that it should be a democratic government that is the countervailing force.

Number one problem with mega-corps? They are only accountable to shareholders.

Number one panacea to this problem? Governments that are accountable to the people.

So step one would be reforming the governments we have now to truly reflect the will of the people. A lot of people use the phrase "truly reflect the will of the people" to mean "adopt whatever fringe proposal I imagine everyone agrees with inside."

I'm not using it like that. I'm saying, what we need, is a democratic government that:

A) educates everyone fairly and well. let them make their own decisions once theyve been exposed to the realities of things. and yes this means doing away with curricula that shy away from things like, say, the genocide of the Native Americans or, say, the benefits of a socialist state.

Fact based education, pure and simple. Easier said that done, but it's what's needed. In that respect we as a society need to grow up and agree to stop telling ourselves only one side of any story.

B) relegates special interests to their rightful place as special interests. i.e.: the government needs to recognize when the benefit of the people is in conflict with the benefit of some special group, and when this happens, ignore the pleas of the special group. this is the number two failing of our current government after inadequate education

So if this means constitutional amendments, then i'd support them. i'm no lawyer but if i were i would set about drafting some possibilities.

and this isn't meant just to apply to america, though that is kind of what i've been talking about.

so my answer, in short, to the question, what countervailing force should there be:

government, but not just any government, one that is accountable to people and sees past class.

about the above:

any stucturalist marxist like i assume putin would say:

"the government in a capitalist system will always be dominated by the capitalists"

and that's where i disagree. just because it always HAS been doesnt mean it always WILL BE.

education can really really change things. let me paint you a picture:

1600s-1700s: enlightenment dreams up novel and impossible ideas like "everyone is equal before the law" etc
1776: declaration of independence states all men are equal. slavery, inequality persist
1865: slaves are freed after enough people start to actually believe what the founding documents say
1960s: more of the nation begins to believe in it
Present Day: very few people would be caught dead saying they think some groups of people are inherently better than others.

this isn't to say that battles been won... some people still think it. but it is to say that NOTHING LIKE THAT EVER HAPPENED BEFORE

but it still happened anyway. what happened to the slave-owning founders was that they started implementing some reforms without really imagining the full implications of them or every imagining they'd go that far. but then many years later they did.

the parallel is this:

imagine like a rich CEO who believes we need to better educate americans to build a stronger society, economy, etc. so he invests in it and really pushes it.

side effect decades later? well-educated american populace begins to demand more accountable government.

we assume the USA in its present form is the end result of the culminating tradition of liberal democracy and free markets. i don't agree. i think we've come a long way but have a long way to go.

it's hard when you have no one to follow after like what egypt and africa are trying to do (e.g. democratize), but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

i hope this makes sense.

tl;dr of all of above:

government can work better.
traditional marxism/communism is hopelessly fatalistic and pessimistic.

but the core idea marx had that pure capitalism produces shitty societies holds true anyway. we are, in fact, currently in said shitty society.

"we are, in fact, currently in said shitty society."

- depends how much money you have. As Baroness Thatcher said: "There is no such thing as society."

(that should get putin going>:)

(( community hug ))

and taking an historical perspective, life in todays 'society' in all the lucky countries - i.e. all of us here, is absolute paradise compared to anything previous to 1950.

So cheer the fuck up, or I'll stab you and post it on youtube.

so yeh, you're original post is pretty meaningless. I dunno... try again?
Thanks, I enjoyed this discussion.

i mean... ok first of all i dont really understand why you think its meaningless.

youre referring to the quote are you not?

also, yeah maybe *my* life and the lives of most people i know is pretty alright, but the society as a whole is totally morally bankrupt. and the globe as a whole is poor as shit and getting poorer

maybe the difference between you and me is that i care about people outside the "lucky" countries.

but i dont want to put words in your mouth obviously, you might be just playing devils advocate.

Well I think the original post quote is *fairly* meaningless in that it's not really relevant to the modern world. The marxist claim is: "there must be countervailing forces that defend people’s needs against the brutality of profit driven capitalism"
- well, first of all, what brutality exactly? Secondly, your quote does not define what exactly is meant by 'countervailing forces', so how can one reasonably respond to that?

"the society as a whole is totally morally bankrupt" - really? I'm not, you're not. Most of the people on this forum are not ;P Maybe you watch too much tv? It really does give a warped perspective.

"the globe as a whole is poor as shit and getting poorer" - I defy you to justify that claim. Exactly which countries are poorer now than they were pre-1950? China and India are A LOT richer, and that's half the world's population right there.

How do you infer that I don't care about the people outside the lucky countries?

And yes, I am the devil. ;P

'maybe the difference between you and me is that i care about people outside the "lucky" countries.'

yes, this is the difference between someone who believes that society exists and that it does not.

i can only compare to similar systems. Ant colonies.

Here the individual will sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony. So when a mammal comes along the soldier ants will attack, some will die.

This is very similar to soldiers in a national army. However within ant colonies there is no 'peace movement' which opposed this kind of behaviour. We are inherently capable of adapting our behaviours.

Society and nation-states DO exist, and they do influence our behaviour. They should influence our behaviour.

The idea of class exists, and people can act based on what they perceive to be appropriate for their class. (or merely copy their parents behaviour without being aware of other classes)

Don't we have religion for this? :)

Equal under God at least implies there's some divine power. Equal under the Communist party is just a contradiction. They are people after all...

""There is no such thing as society." "

The slogan of sociopaths everywhere. I wonder then where law comes from? Why do people obey the law? Why are governments formed? Why do people generally behave morally? Since society "doesn't exist", neither can morality. No social norms or norms can, because nothing is social.

How can Thatcher's Britain exist as a nation if society doesn't exist? Aren't we just a motley assortment of individuals? Why the hell should we care if our country prevails in war?

How do you even manage to speak in words, without society? Language is socially constructed. Without language, you have no thoughts. Society creates your thoughts.

The idea that society doesn't exist is one of the dumber things Thatcherites have said, but it reveals the extent to which they advocate an anti-social hedonistic ethos.

"traditional marxism/communism is hopelessly fatalistic and pessimistic."

Er..what? The defenders of capitalism claim that an economic order based on exploitation and greed is the best we can do, because "human nature" dictates we behave horribly to one another. "Traditional Marxism/Communism" (whatever you mean by that) offers not only the hope for a better world, but a practical guide to achieve it.

"Equal under the Communist party is just a contradiction. They are people after all... "

By that same (non) logic, equality under any type of government is a contradiction. Only anarchism/direct democracy allows for political equality. And yet, economic equality is impossible under conditions of anarchism, because lo and behold resources aren't spread out evenly among localities.

It may offer a hope, but there is nothing practical about it. To be practical, it must be acheivable and human nature has precluded that for the time being. Maybe in a couple hundred more years we'll reach the point where it becomes acheivable and feasible, then it will be practical.

How is it not practical? Socialist governments have swept into power the world over. They all began the process of socialist transformation. The fact that they did not reach the end stage of capitalism disappearing from the face of the planet is not an indication that it is "not practical".

That's like saying the Minnesota Vikings winning the superbowl is "not practical" because they lost it four times. Making a final and total victory over global capitalism the standard by which you judge the 'practicality' of socialism is absurd.

Socialism, yes. Communism, no. Your argument was about Communism which is not practical because human nature is inherently competitive. Communism requires an inherently cooperative spirit.

So the end stage is not 'practical', because the socialist countries didn't eliminate capitalism from the map. It's a presentist fallacy, the idea that the current order of things was or is 'inevitable'. The outcome was not predetermined and could have ended much differently.

Now, you claim human nature is competitive and therefore communism cannot work. But class competition is essential to building socialism. The whole point of Marxism is that class struggle is the engine that drives history. Capitalism requires class harmony. The exploited have to believe that their exploitation is just and that everybody has an equal shot to be a member of the exploiting class. Capitalism requires the working class to simply submit to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few at their expense. Heck, we have rightwingers on here all the time arguing that unions are bad and cause market distortions or whatnot. The whole enterprise is predicated on harmonious relations between the rich and everyone else. Now, how is that "natural"? Marxism says, the working class, the impoverished, will eventually fight back. That society is characterized as a perpetual class war.

Tell me which view is more realistic.

The end stage of socialism is used as a straw man argument to make lazy human nature arguments. But the whole idea of the end stage of socialism - communism - is based on the common sense notion that since the source of struggle is the division of humanity into social classes, the elimination of social classes (by force - through the dictatorship of the proletariat) will lead to elimination of struggle.

But the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes the new upper class. And I think socialism is very sustainable. But, at present (and only at present) communism is not achievable. This is not to say it won't be someday. But until it becomes achievable, it cannot be practical.

Sending mankind to another solar system is not practical because it is not achievable at present. But someday, we may have the technology to make it achievable and then the costs come down and the safety factor go up to make it practical.

Likewise, human nature as it resides now makes socialism achievable and even practical, but until the norm is to no longer desire the material and mankind, as a whole and as normal individuals, desires all people to have what they have (i.e. everything for the greater good), true communism is not achievable.

So, tell me, do you think people will not want 'more' in a communist society. Someone will have to rule and manage, how do we pick them? Do they get paid a little bit more for having this responsibility? How do we deal with things we cannot all share? What about girlfriends?

You don't understand how unnatural communism is, and what damages it does to people long term. Everyone here above fifty is brainwashed and has real trouble dealing with free speech and market economy. It was simple before.

You have to watch antZ, it's based on a true story :)

@Ivo - was that directed at me or Putin? Because I agree to a degree. As I've said, a communist society won't work until mankind evolves into a selfless creature who wants more for everyone, not just himself.

Ivo, I've dealt with your strawman equalization arguments 100 times by now, in threads where you have "participated". It's not my fault you're too lazy to read. You can't claim communism is "unnatural" if you don't even know what it means.

And yes I know you have contempt for your own people and think you're so much smarter than them. But maybe, just maybe, it's you who is drinking the western kool-aid while everyone else realizes that capitalism is a shitshow.

It was for Putin, who is never able to respond to any of the questions, but goes straight to insults. Really does prove a point.

"Capitalism's fundamentally nasty nature can't be reformed"

ding!

Communism is just as bad as capitalism.
Stratified, hierarchical societies, nows theres something un natural