Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Socialism, Class theory, Individuality, Collectivism, and Buddhism
I was arguing online with a right-libertarian recently about how economics in context to class warfare is the predominant driving force of history. I kept being told "Marx is wrong and all socialists are wrong in saying that its the sole driving force and that other factors like ideology and religion play a big role too". I had to repeatedly defend my position by stating that I believed it was the predominant factor, not the only factor. I also had to make it clear that not all socialists are Marxists and that not all Marxists are socialists. He wasn't a theorist about how a socialist or communist system would work in practice either. Almost all of his work has to do with criticizing the capitalist system, and he simply advised the working class to vote for politicians based off of their common, economic interests.
I wouldn't really call myself a Marxist, but I do believe Marx was right about economic class interests being the main, driving motor of human culture and that if humanity decides to tame its own greed that other, more noble factors could be the new, predominating force. I was told that communists don't want to just tame greed but eliminate it and that would eliminate the "freedom to be greedy". However, not all socialists or communists believe in completely eliminating greed or that its even possible. It might be impossible, but to state that greed is somehow a freedom and that these aren't noble goals is baffling to me. Its not freedom if you're the underpaid sweat shop worker, as opposed to the sweat shop owner. Plus, not all communists and socialists are Marxist-Leninists who believe in an all powerful state that forcefully collectivizes society either. One of Marx's contemporaries and critics, Bakunin, was an anarchist who believed that all labour should organize itself into a federation of interlinked, worker owned and community owned cooperatives that trade freely among one another in the absence of a state and a class system.
I also argued that large, historical transformations, like Christianity, were the result of class struggle and economic, self interest. The working class in Rome existed under a non-democratic aristocracy, who's beliefs were comprised of philosophies like Platonic rationalism and Epicurean Hedonism. This offered nothing to the Proletariat (a derisive word used by Roman aristocrats to describe the lower class) of those days. A new religion, called Christianity, headed by a Proletarian Jew named Jesus, offered answers and meaning to the working class in the Levant and preached a message that contained strains of egalitarianism (equality of man under the supremacy of the one true God). This threatened the Roman aristocracy, so instead of letting the Christians burn down Rome in a popular revolt, members of the ruling class adopted it and proclaimed their selves as the official authorities of Christianity by building the Vatican, ultimately subverting a movement that was distinctly class conscious into a system of thought control over the populace.
I also think that Christianity's aversion to prostitution and sexual perversion has to do with the fact that its a direct exploitation by members of the moneyed class toward the poor. Jesus didn't lash out at the woman at the well. He lashed out at money changers, profiteers, political leaders, religious leaders, etc.
In the same way, i think that Buddhism was the result of raised, class consciousness. In those days, they had very rigid Caste systems. Everyone already knows about the Brahman caste, Warrior Caste, Farming Caste, and Untouchables. There was a huge majority of disenfranchised people under the caste system, and only a small minority that benefited from it. I think you could argue that the spread of Buddhism over the Indian subcontinent had an economic and class warfare basis to it, since there was a new path that considered all people equals, despite where they were born at.
I could also apply class theory and economic motive to about every war in history and find that its the main culprit. Ideology and nationalism, more often than not, is just propaganda to get the lower classes to fight offensive wars to give their leaders access to new land and riches, or to motivate the populace to protect their resources and wealth from being taken from invaders. That's the general trend.
I believe in a balanced approach to individualism and collectivism. You don't want a hive mentality in which people put all their faith into a personality cult figure (which Marx warned against), and you don't want complete, self absorbed individualism that results in gross exploitation of labour by capital. There really isn't a conflict between individualism and socialism, because, if you really believe in individualism, you will respect the individuality of other people. If you're a true socialist, you'll understand that society is made up of, none other than, individuals. So, that's why individual rights are just as important as collective rights. You should be allowed to do your own thing as long as its not compromising someone else. If you're making millions as an executive for Nike, and you're not raising the pay of your work force in Indonesia to be adjusted for inflation and to be more than 2.00 a day for 12 hours of work, then I can't defend those actions.
I pretty much side with the left spectrum, because I believe that there's too much exploitation and poverty directly related to that exploitation for me to side with the right wing. About 1/4 of the world is undernourished, and 1/3 of the world is below the poverty line. I think hard work is important,a nd you shouldn't reward laziness. I kind of side with the biblical view. If someone on the Christian commune isn't putting in their fair share of labour, than they shouldn't eat. ...but not all poor people are lazy. Practically 0% of the people working in sweat shops are lazy. Its just that corporations have all the leverage, and they use desperation as a bargaining chip. If they want a higher wage, then they can starve to death as opposed to just being undernourished.
I wouldn't really call myself a Marxist, but I do believe Marx was right about economic class interests being the main, driving motor of human culture and that if humanity decides to tame its own greed that other, more noble factors could be the new, predominating force. I was told that communists don't want to just tame greed but eliminate it and that would eliminate the "freedom to be greedy". However, not all socialists or communists believe in completely eliminating greed or that its even possible. It might be impossible, but to state that greed is somehow a freedom and that these aren't noble goals is baffling to me. Its not freedom if you're the underpaid sweat shop worker, as opposed to the sweat shop owner. Plus, not all communists and socialists are Marxist-Leninists who believe in an all powerful state that forcefully collectivizes society either. One of Marx's contemporaries and critics, Bakunin, was an anarchist who believed that all labour should organize itself into a federation of interlinked, worker owned and community owned cooperatives that trade freely among one another in the absence of a state and a class system.
I also argued that large, historical transformations, like Christianity, were the result of class struggle and economic, self interest. The working class in Rome existed under a non-democratic aristocracy, who's beliefs were comprised of philosophies like Platonic rationalism and Epicurean Hedonism. This offered nothing to the Proletariat (a derisive word used by Roman aristocrats to describe the lower class) of those days. A new religion, called Christianity, headed by a Proletarian Jew named Jesus, offered answers and meaning to the working class in the Levant and preached a message that contained strains of egalitarianism (equality of man under the supremacy of the one true God). This threatened the Roman aristocracy, so instead of letting the Christians burn down Rome in a popular revolt, members of the ruling class adopted it and proclaimed their selves as the official authorities of Christianity by building the Vatican, ultimately subverting a movement that was distinctly class conscious into a system of thought control over the populace.
I also think that Christianity's aversion to prostitution and sexual perversion has to do with the fact that its a direct exploitation by members of the moneyed class toward the poor. Jesus didn't lash out at the woman at the well. He lashed out at money changers, profiteers, political leaders, religious leaders, etc.
In the same way, i think that Buddhism was the result of raised, class consciousness. In those days, they had very rigid Caste systems. Everyone already knows about the Brahman caste, Warrior Caste, Farming Caste, and Untouchables. There was a huge majority of disenfranchised people under the caste system, and only a small minority that benefited from it. I think you could argue that the spread of Buddhism over the Indian subcontinent had an economic and class warfare basis to it, since there was a new path that considered all people equals, despite where they were born at.
I could also apply class theory and economic motive to about every war in history and find that its the main culprit. Ideology and nationalism, more often than not, is just propaganda to get the lower classes to fight offensive wars to give their leaders access to new land and riches, or to motivate the populace to protect their resources and wealth from being taken from invaders. That's the general trend.
I believe in a balanced approach to individualism and collectivism. You don't want a hive mentality in which people put all their faith into a personality cult figure (which Marx warned against), and you don't want complete, self absorbed individualism that results in gross exploitation of labour by capital. There really isn't a conflict between individualism and socialism, because, if you really believe in individualism, you will respect the individuality of other people. If you're a true socialist, you'll understand that society is made up of, none other than, individuals. So, that's why individual rights are just as important as collective rights. You should be allowed to do your own thing as long as its not compromising someone else. If you're making millions as an executive for Nike, and you're not raising the pay of your work force in Indonesia to be adjusted for inflation and to be more than 2.00 a day for 12 hours of work, then I can't defend those actions.
I pretty much side with the left spectrum, because I believe that there's too much exploitation and poverty directly related to that exploitation for me to side with the right wing. About 1/4 of the world is undernourished, and 1/3 of the world is below the poverty line. I think hard work is important,a nd you shouldn't reward laziness. I kind of side with the biblical view. If someone on the Christian commune isn't putting in their fair share of labour, than they shouldn't eat. ...but not all poor people are lazy. Practically 0% of the people working in sweat shops are lazy. Its just that corporations have all the leverage, and they use desperation as a bargaining chip. If they want a higher wage, then they can starve to death as opposed to just being undernourished.
0
Comments
I also think that Christianity's aversion to prostitution and sexual perversion has to do with the fact that its a direct exploitation by members of the moneyed class toward the poor. Jesus didn't lash out at the woman at the well. He lashed out at money changers, profiteers, political leaders, religious leaders, etc.
In the same way, i think that Buddhism was the result of raised, class consciousness. In those days, they had very rigid Caste systems. Everyone already knows about the Brahman caste, Warrior Caste, Farming Caste, and Untouchables. There was a huge majority of disenfranchised people under the caste system, and only a small minority that benefited from it. I think you could argue that the spread of Buddhism over the Indian subcontinent had an economic and class warfare basis to it, since there was a new path that considered all people equals, despite where they were born at."
Hi I'm new to the board and it was this post that made me join. I really think you hit the nail on the head with this. People always undermine the political message of Christ, "I come to bring not peace, but a sword," and the usurpation of Christianity as a socialist movement.
As far as the guiding ideologies of the Roman aristocracy, was not stoicism also a mediating factor, what was the extent of Epicureanism?
Back in the 1950's, Einstein wrote an article, I'm not sure where it was published, talking about how wonderful it would be to have a global government. This was in the earliest days of the League of Nations/UN; there was a lot of idealism about it in the West. And he got a response from some Soviet economists telling him it would be a disaster; corporate interests would take over, and everyone would end up impoverished. They foresaw the WTO. That blows my mind.
Hey, Bravehawk is back!