So recently I've found myself more and more interested in Politics and Economics. Alas I'm horribly hindered in my speculations by a tiny problem: I don't know shit about either. I mean I took Government and Economics back in high school, but come on. It was my senior year, both my teachers really didn't care, and quite frankly at that point neither did I. But now as my reading has increased, I've realized that many of my favorite books, such as Dune and others have major political and economic themes. This is quite distressing because, although I have pretty good reading comprehension, I know for a fact that I'm missing a lot. Very, very, distressing.
The other thing is the simple fact that I'm twenty years old, and to be perfectly honest I don't really fully understand the US, or other countries for that matter, government system. Sure I have my beliefs on major issues like Capital Punishment, and the other biggies, but what do those beliefs make me? Liberal? Conservative? Republican? Democrat? Green? Red? Blue? Yellow? I kind of understand the differences between them all, but not in a very substantial way. I also don't have strong idea on how the Congress works, nor the Senate. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism and Fascism; all terms I'm familiar with, but if you asked me to tell you the difference between Socialism and Communism, I wouldn't be able to. And now it's all come to a head! I'm currently reading The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers, and it has a lot of talk about Communism, well maybe Marxism? Or is it Socialism? I'm not sure. In any case, what I'm reading sort of fits with some of my personal ideas on government and economics, as juvenile as they may be so does that mean I'm a commie bastard? Or socialist? I don't know. All I know is that this sounds right to me:
"And look what has happened to our freedom. The men who fought the American Revolution were no more like these D.A.R. dames than I'm a pot bellied, perfumed Pekingese dog. They meant what they said about freedom. They fought a real revolution. They fought so that this could be a country where every man would be free and equal. Huh! And that meant every man was equal in the sight of Nature--with an equal chance. This didn't mean that twenty per cent of the people were free to rob the other eighty per cent of the means to live. This didn't mean for one rich man to sweat the piss out of ten thousand poor men so that he can get richer. This didn't mean the tyrants were free to get this country in such a fix that millions of people are ready to do anything00cheat, lie, or whack off their right arm--just to work for three squares and a flop. They have made the word freedom a blasphemy. You hear me? They have made the word freedom stink like a skunk to all who know."
~Jake Blount page 158
And:
"Karl Marx was a wise man. He studied and worked and understood the world around him. He said that the world was divided into two classes, the poor and the rich. For every rich man there were a thousand poor people who worked for this rich man to make him richer. He did not divide the world into Negroes or white people or Chinese--to Karl Marx it seemed that being one of the millions of poor people or one of the few rich was more important to a man than the color of his skin. The life mission of Karl Marx was to make all human beings equal and to divide the great wealth of the world so that there would be no poor or rich and each person would have his share. This is one of the commandments Karl Marx left us: 'For each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'"
~Dr. Benedict Copeland page 188
Excuse the not so PC language in that last one, the setting the 1930s in the South.
Fiction is a hard way to judge non-fiction ideas, so I'm not so sure how accurate the latter is to what Marx actually thought. I also know that in theory Communism works, but, as we've seen several times in history, it tends to fail in practice. I'm not sure why that is, perhaps the way the Soviets executed it wasn't actually how Marx intended it. In any case, I feel like I have a fairly complete view on what I think politics and economics should be, but because I don't know much about any of the different theories, I don't know where I stand. I would put what I think her, but I'm not nearly eloquent enough to put what I think into words without sounding convoluted and idiotic. I've discussed it with Kimberley a couple times, so I'm getting better at saying what I think, but I'm still not comfortable with my ideas.
I also don't want to be labeled, ha like it already hasn't happened, until I understand what the label is. The other problem I'm having is this: if I do feel more compatible with something such as Socialism, Communism, or kangorooism for that matter, I know how stupid we Americans are. Especially since my ideas are more theoretical than practical. I, like most Americans, have a very negative view on commies and socialist bastards and every other not capitalistic democratic system. We all do. But I want people to discriminate me for things I actually understand, like race or religion or people who think reading is dumb, not on failed political ideals. More than likely I'm not going to agree with what the political ideas have said in the past, I might want something new? But with old ideas from various political systems. Until I actually have a grasp on it I'm not willing to say I'm anything. For now, let's say I'm a Ryanist.
So in order to become "educated", if it's possible on such huge topics as politics and economics, I've decided to read some of the various books on them. Maybe take a class on econ and politics. Though I have a feeling that even though I'm excited now, I'm not going to follow through very well with this, because, shit both subjects are TERRIBLY boring. So we'll see. Maybe I'll read a bit of the Communist Manifesto and various others. For now though I'm gonna put some definitions in here:
Communism n. a political theory advocating a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person is paid and works according to his or her needs and abilities.
Marxism n. the political and economic theories of Karl Marx predicting the over throw of capitalism and the eventual attainment of a classless society with the state controlling the means of production.
Socialism n. a political and economic theory which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Hmm well its obvious Marx was wrong when he thought capitalism would be overthrown. I think this has to do with the fact that he said there were only two classes; it doesn't seem like the middle class played a role in his theory. But I'm not sure yet. As for communism, well, it seems easy to misconstrue what "publicly owned" means, cause didn't Russia make it so the State controlled those things? I do agree somewhat with the needs and abilities idea, I think. Of course all these definitions are way vague and simplified, but those are some of my thoughts on just those.
Feel free to comment with your ideas, thoughts, criticisms and such. I'm always interested in people's opinions. Also I think everyone should pick up a copy of The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers, its damn good!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
While it is true that Marx's prediction of the toppling of capitalism was false, it does seem to be collapsing due to some serious SNAFU's originating with the "loan" system we have in place. Did you catch the latest South Park? If not, you really really should.
Marx just missed the effects of the industrial and technological revolutions. Otherwise he was pretty much spot on. Or so says Quigley.
Anonymous - Unfortunately I'm not too sure what the whole SNAFU loan business is, but after your comment I will be sure to look into it. As for the South Park, I did, and it was hilarious and from what I can tell probably real.
Wolf Club - I'm going to have to look into this Quigley person, I've never heard of him/her before. Aside from that do you agree with them or just mentioning it?
Hahaha, I can't agree or disagree with him. I don't know enough about it. Quigley is a historian or something similar, wrote Tragedy and Hope among other books.
Having been reading Marx's works, I've come a very different understanding of his thoughts and ideas. The most striking thing is that he was not trying to envision a "utopian" society, but that he was instead trying to create a historical projection of a "stable" politcal, social and economic society. Communism was his expectation for the end result of human Civilization, rather than what he thought should be implemented.
As you said, the Soviet revolution was very different from Marx's actual intention. Marx anticipated a global social revolution, rather than one in a single nation.
Also, Marx knew of what we call the "middle class," but predicted (which I believe is still occurring) that there would be a greater disparity in wealth between the two distinct classes, haves and have-nots, or however you distinguish them. This is not to say that no one would fall between these two groups, just that the number who did would decrease over time.
I stand by Quigley in that Marx failed to understand the implications of rapid technological developments, which I suppose would have been impossible to predict during the industrial revolution. The new technology provided several things, a means to transcend the lower class, increased globalization, more diverse individuality, but most importantly reduced the suffering of the lowest classes through several means (medicine, television, etc.). That was the key component in the "next revolution" which Marx predicted.
The danger is in saying that Marx was "wrong" about the fall of capitalism. Actually, I find that he was right about the majority of the signs that he predicted, just that capitalism as we have now has been socialized heavily. If he is wrong, and Capitalism will stabilize, it'll be with thanks to him, because his ideas gave rise to the changes which held the system together then.
Personally, I expect that there will be another revolution, changing to a new paradigm of economics, maybe communism, maybe not. My only hope is that Marx was wrong in that it will be a bloody chaotic war.
Post a Comment