[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Christoffer Ivarsson <IvarssonChristoffer at hotmail.com>:

> 
> > Please give us your reasoned and critical analysis of why we should 
> > embrace and
> > not fear communism.
> >
> > Platt
> 
> 
> Dealing in black an white again I see. There is no use in discussing with 
> someone who deals in absolutes,  but I hope that you will not turn out to be 
> such a person.  I am not really a Marxist myself, but I will try to line out 
> some of the main principles for you.
> 
> 
> Communism is a philosophy, moreover, it is a product of the SOM and as such 
> it is a materialist philosophy. The general principle is that there is 
> always a conflict between those who onw the means of production and those 
> who don't. Marxists see history as a linear development with more and more 
> effective economical systems. A slave based economy is succeed by a feudal 
> one, and this is succeed by a capitalist one. This is then to be followed by 
> a socialistic economy and then a communist economy. It is very much based on 
> egoism, and contrary to many light headed hippy type younglings running 
> around with Che Guevara T-shirts it has nothing to do with altruism. Marxism 
> states that sooner or later the working class, the proletariat will realise 
> that they can take controll of the productive means so that the produced 
> surplus will not go to the capitalist but to them, the workers who makes 
> that profit possible.
> 
> >From wiki: The means of production are a combination of the means of labor 
> and the subject of labor used by workers to make products. The means of 
> labor include machines, tools, equipment, infrastructure, and "all those 
> things with the aid of which man acts upon the subject of labor, and 
> transforms it". The subject of labor includes raw materials and materials 
> directly taken from nature. Means of production by themselves produce 
> nothing -- labor power is needed for production to take place.
> 
> Marx and Engels use the "base-structure" metaphor to explain the idea that 
> the totality of relations among people with regard to "the social production 
> of their existence" forms the economic basis, on which arises a 
> superstructure of political and legal institutions. To the base corresponds 
> the social consciousness which includes religious, philosophical, and other 
> main ideas. The base conditions both, the superstructure and the social 
> consciousness. A conflict between the development of material productive 
> forces and the relations of production causes social revolutions, and the 
> resulting change in the economic basis will sooner or later lead to the 
> transformation of the superstructure. For Marx, though, this relationship is 
> not a one way process - it is reflexive; the base determines the 
> superstructure in the first instance and remains the foundation of a form of 
> social organization which then can act again upon both parts of the 
> base-structure metaphor. The relationship between superstructure and base is 
> considered to be a dialectical one, not a distinction between actual 
> entities "in the world"
> 
> You could read up on this more if you wish  - and if you can find a somewhat 
> objective source.

Thanks, but I don't think you answered by question. Can you tell us why you
are not a Marxist? 

Regards,
Platt


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/