Daily Mail

I love popping in to a Racing Forum to learn that Sartre was a geebag with ambiguous attitudes to personal freedoms. Priceless.
 
At various points in my life I have held beliefs akin to Marxism.

At no point have I hated Britain.

At several times, including right this ******* minute, I have despaired about the so-called freedoms we enjoy in this country (a country where it doesn't matter who you vote for - the ******* bureaucrats still run the place).

I still don't hate Britain.

Even if I choose to vote for Scottish independence, it won't be because I hate Britain.
 
But what is the good of it?

I find myself in the position of defending a philosophy I don't believe in. I guess similar to Simmo I flirted with what Clive would call the loony left for a while in my yute.

Anyway, to appease my LA-based pal, I will make one further point. Marx himself frequently wrote about the individual's right to participate, in areas such as voting, political equality, right to hold office, right to assemble, right to express oneself. He was unambiguously in favour of such rights.

What Marx did not believe (just like Benjamin Franklin, by the way) was that the right to private property was paramount. He saw it as a civil right, so something that could be granted, but regulated and controlled by the community.

Here we come to a central issue of most people with communism. This regulation / control of these civil rights typically broke down quickly in communist countries into authoritatian implementation of "collective" ideals. In an effort to force this through to conclusion (using Marx's revolutionary beliefs as a justification) these regimes opted for oppression and suppression of the rights I mention in the paragraphs above. No matter that Marx espoused them in his writings.
 
Hamm said:
Clive, why do you always have such entrenched views about things you know little about? Your last post shows yet again you haven't a clue about Sartre, his life and beliefs. That's fine, but don't then continue posting as you do - you are making yourself look a tit.
Click to expand...

What is the point of this post?

either pick up on the points made or just forget it
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
But what is the good of it?

I find myself in the position of defending a philosophy I don't believe in. I guess similar to Simmo I flirted with what Clive would call the loony left for a while in my yute.

Anyway, to appease my LA-based pal, I will make one further point. Marx himself frequently wrote about the individual's right to participate, in areas such as voting, political equality, right to hold office, right to assemble, right to express oneself. He was unambiguously in favour of such rights.

What Marx did not believe (just like Benjamin Franklin, by the way) was that the right to private property was paramount. He saw it as a civil right, so something that could be granted, but regulated and controlled by the community.

Here we come to a central issue of most people with communism. This regulation / control of these civil rights typically broke down quickly in communist countries into authoritatian implementation of "collective" ideals. In an effort to force this through to conclusion (using Marx's revolutionary beliefs as a justification) these regimes opted for oppression and suppression of the rights I mention in the paragraphs above. No matter that Marx espoused them in his writings.
Click to expand...

True dat blud.
 
Note, I agree with you on the practicalities of implementation of Marxism. Most people do. But I think most people would disagree in saying that being a Marxist means you "hate Britain" and hate freedoms. Especially anybody who has read Marx in anything but a selective way.

Best account of Marx is Animal Farm? I would have thought his actual writings would have been better. And it is a surprising statement for you to make, seeing as it is a "pro-Marxism anti-Soviet" book. I use quotes as Orwell was never really a Marxist past his youth.

I seem to remember that Old Major's philosophy was misrepresented by those trying to make a point.
 
clivex said:
What is the point of this post?

either pick up on the points made or just forget it
Click to expand...

You made no points - you don't know a thing about Sartre based on your posts (not to mention marxism) yet continue to produce radical opinions without knowing what you are talking about. Not sure why you do it.
 
No it was not pro marxism at all. I have never believed that. Orwell was a social democrat and i often think its forgotten or at least not appreciated (Tony judt is great on this point) how vast the difference is between a socialist and a sd

I would say that if you wanted to bring about a marxist state in britain then you certainly dislike much of what makes britain what it is. A strongly innovative trading nation with a high degree of individuality and enterprise as well as a healthy dislike of pie in the sky philosiphies
 
Hamm said:
You made no points - you don't know a thing about Sartre based on your posts (not to mention marxism) yet continue to produce radical opinions without knowing what you are talking about. Not sure why you do it.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Have difficulty reading posts other than your own? For the nth time the Clear point is that he supported Stalin and the soviet union in the face of the west. And then claims he supported individual freedoms.

In other words he was full of ****
 
I have edited my post is there is really no point in trying to debate with you. You have not a clue about Sartre - as usual, you take one point and run it to an extreme, ignoring everything else.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
No it was not pro marxism at all. I have never believed that. Orwell was a social democrat and i often think its forgotten or at least not appreciated (Tony judt is great on this point) how vast the difference is between a socialist and a sd

I would say that if you wanted to bring about a marxist state in britain then you certainly dislike much of what makes britain what it is. A strongly innovative trading nation with a high degree of individuality and enterprise as well as a healthy dislike of pie in the sky philosiphies
Click to expand...

I thought Orwell painted Marx in a good light using Old Major and in his essays.
 
I think the difficulty in this debate is the assumption that the Soviet Union had much to do with Marxism, (as expounded in Marx/Engels original tracts - not the derivatives.) The USSR was just totalitarianism with a name that differed to that used in Germany from 1933 - 45. Clive's operating premise is flawed so all that flows after it is by definition flawed too.

You should really look past the labels of convenience and deal with the arguments at their source meaning.
 
Really ? Flawed?

So wheres the non totalitarian marxist state then?

Supposedly "it doesnt have to end this way" but it always does doesnt it? And there are some very good reasons for that

This is a waste of time anyway. Its like debating whether the Austin Allegro was car of the year. It was a complete flop and no one gives a toss anymore
 
clivex said:
Really ? Flawed?

So wheres the non totalitarian marxist state then?

Supposedly "it doesnt have to end this way" but it always does doesnt it? And there are some very good reasons for that

This is a waste of time anyway. Its like debating whether the Austin Allegro was car of the year. It was a complete flop and no one gives a toss anymore
Click to expand...

The problem with your question is that there are so many variables in any 'ism' that any answer offered is like Schrodinger's cat, alive and dead at the same time. So if I give you an example/opinion/approximation it will just unleash a torrent of 'whataboutery' from the idealogues. So I won't.

Let's just all agree that hyper-globalisation managed by neo-liberal states is the only way forward and leave it at that.
 
Pretty ropey answer. I will not go on any further but frankly it is fair to say that any state that has at least decalred itself as marxist has ... failed. Perhaps the only recent example to contrary would have been Venezuela but that is now sinking despite having vast oil wealth. You couldnt make it up

I just cant understand why some hang onto this failed idea. Its baffling

Whatever sneering term you use for liberal democracies, on every measure they have wiped the floor with the alternatives.

As for this overblown fear of vast corporations dominating the world, isnt it also true that a greater proportion than at any previous time, of the western world sworking population is employed in small medium enterprises?
 
Last edited:
It was in the economist a few months back. Certainly the case in the uk and i think the rest of the west too...overall

Im not sceptical at all. It makes a lot of sense to me. Large corporations employ far fewer than before and outsource far more. Also areas such as IT and media are far more prevalent and lend themselves to specialist small medium businesses

I would have been surprised if the opposite was the case

Also markets are less dominated by the same old firms. For all the talk of globalisation businesses can very quickly lose their way or expand. Its very fluid. Look at Research in Motion or Apple. Great example too of where the consumer dominates and calls the tune
 
Last edited:
Well pretty obviously I'm talking post industrial revolution

Smes are < 250 employees as a rule
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Im not sceptical at all. It makes a lot of sense to me. Large corporations employ far fewer than before and outsource far more. Also areas such as IT and media are far more prevalent and lend themselves to specialist small medium businesses
Click to expand...

Flawed again. 'Large' corporations like Apple (50,000 employees) outsource to 'small' companies like Hon Hoi (Foxcon) (1,100,000 employees). Outsourcing in manufacturing now means the CM tail is wagging the IP dog.

Latest industrial trend in USA? On-shoring.
 
Oh give it a rest

Thats one example FFS

and its complete bollocks to say that foxcon is dictating to apple. Apple can outsource elsewhere and but who can replicate apple? Not many if anyone

Apple is also one of the top ten companies in the world in terms of value. Its a large corporation i think

But i do know that bringng back manufacturing to the us is a trend. good thing too IMO.

If you arent aware that companies of all sizes are outsourcing more and more (manufacturing is only one small part of it) and infinately more than 20 years ago then you are clearly off the radar
 
Last edited:
Right found a stat (this is tiresome because its so obvious from trends)

4.8m active tax paying businesses in the UK 2012

3.5m in 2000

Every year the total climbed

2000 was earliest year of records (why i dont know) but pretty safe to assume there were not more before (company reg numbers only hit 3000000 in the 90s and that includes dead enterprises)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top