This is the first in a multiblog criticism of an ideology known as Neo-liberalism, to properly do a basic critique you should know abit of the ideology's background.
Neo-liberalism is closely linked to Thatcherism (for the Americans- Reaganism) and it is the governing way of thinking for the world. Since the end of World War 2 Liberalism (in general) has lost allot of its main opposition- Fascism, Communism and Socialism in addition to Imperialism. These ideologies have been destroyed in the eyes of the public, and although they haven't died off they have very much reduced in influence- Fascism due to the toppling of the German, Italian and Spanish regimes, Communism and Socialism due to America's genocide towards any Communist organisation around the global throughout the Cold War, and not to mention any "Communist" nation's gross bastardisation of the ideology, and then Imperialism because many ex-empire nations provided freedom to their former occupants and then attacked others for occupying nations/regions that don't belong to the aggressor.
With the simple history attended to, its time for the actual ideology. Neo-liberalism promotes (previously covered) Liberal freedoms and common sense, sounds great in theory- common sense is always desired. My fault with this (without going into previously discussed points) is that common sense is not always the best thing, sometimes logic is needed and in fact required, to some extend, for a person to think for themselves. A society run purely on common sense does not question beyond its daily life, why should it? Society is content and happily running along, why should it question what it feels doesn't concern it? A society and its people should always question, because in doing so it finds answers to questions and problems that will doubtless haunt it in the future. Those of previous generations didn't question pollution because it didn't affect them, or at least they didn't think it did, yet a society using logic would've questioned pollution and so sought to fix the issue earlier. A lack of questioning seems dominant throughout a society run by common sense, and without questioning those who run society; the financiers, large business leaders, government officials and anyone else in similar powerful positions can do what they wish unimpeded. Many in business follow through with ruthless competition, competition to which is designed to net them more money whilst taking as much as they can from those that work for them, and killing off other businesses in the process, making people unemployed and pennyless.
This ultimately pointless competition is common sense because in the short run it excels and drives business and technological advancement, in the long run however the cost of expanding so greatly adds up, but is forever forgotten about until the long run becomes a sudden stop- this is the nature of government spending and its debts, one overarching reason for the continuous financial problems of the world, our environment and its pollution, a major factor in homelessness, personal debt and so many more crises that threaten us. But most of this can be attributed towards capitalism and as Neo-liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, then capitalism is seem as common sense and so nothing of this is questioned by the public until it is too late. Capitalism and neo-liberalism by the aforementioned reasons follow a course of competition in contrast to co-operation and it is this competition where another neo-liberal trait rears its head- survival of the fittest.
The ideal of the strongest surviving is known as Darwinism, it is an ideal Neo-liberals believe in, not just for businesses but also society- Social Darwinism as its called and that shall be the focus of the next blog.
Friday 18 October 2013
Tuesday 8 October 2013
Misconceptions of Laziness in Communism
Well first things first- try and look at what I'm about to say through a Marxist stand point. With ALL political ideologies, when not looked at the in proper concept of society then it simply falls apart.
Proper concept- with people in a Marxist society following the jobs and professions they wish to then the following in enabled and radically promoted.
Laziness would not exist in a Communist nation due to a lack of financial gain through working, and a Nanny State type of coping mechanism for those unable to work. The reason this wouldn't occur is simply, people seek a higher form of "payment" if you will. The pursuit of intellectual enlightenment is very much more important than the salary a person earns, with the people adequately looked after it allows the population to work and fulfil a decent continuous education.
Many philosophers and political theorists, myself included, seek ways to enlighten the people of a nation, this can primarily be done through the education system of a nation. Instead of our education system as it is; teaching people to pass exams, communists aim to teach people to learn, it is through this that deeper levels of thinking and thought are sought, scientists, philosophers, theorists of all types are moulded through this way of thinking, as well as a greatly improved national education. Teaching people to learn is certainly more beneficial to society as then it allows and in fact stimulates the nation, and planet (when universally acted on) as a whole to endeavour for a better future, and in this endeavour more beneficial technologies are created, ideas and concepts that today are thought to be ludicrous and fruitless, actually hold purpose and meaning- they are not merely the imaginings of a "deluded child" or the dreamings of an idealist, but in fact solid reality.
This sort of future does not come around through laziness, it comes around through following ones intellectual wishes and pursuits and applying the knowledge gained to the collective people. The individual follows what they wish to help the collective, and in turn the collective helps and enables them to continue, this is a Soavist and generally held communist ideal, but as an ideal it is limited to the mind, this is what the modern society does, tells a people to dream small so their education for work doesn't seem as fruitless as it ultimately is. Learning for a sole job and not advancing, it is not a life I would wish on any, and it can be broken through education. It sounds harsh I admit, and many do contribute towards the wider aspect of society, but even more do not, and cannot for them lack the means to, a means held from them in an education system that has failed them.
Next I will elaborate further on the failures of the education system, and the structure which permits such a system; neo-liberalism, the ideology to which governs not only this nation, but almost all of the developed nations around the world.
Proper concept- with people in a Marxist society following the jobs and professions they wish to then the following in enabled and radically promoted.
Laziness would not exist in a Communist nation due to a lack of financial gain through working, and a Nanny State type of coping mechanism for those unable to work. The reason this wouldn't occur is simply, people seek a higher form of "payment" if you will. The pursuit of intellectual enlightenment is very much more important than the salary a person earns, with the people adequately looked after it allows the population to work and fulfil a decent continuous education.
Many philosophers and political theorists, myself included, seek ways to enlighten the people of a nation, this can primarily be done through the education system of a nation. Instead of our education system as it is; teaching people to pass exams, communists aim to teach people to learn, it is through this that deeper levels of thinking and thought are sought, scientists, philosophers, theorists of all types are moulded through this way of thinking, as well as a greatly improved national education. Teaching people to learn is certainly more beneficial to society as then it allows and in fact stimulates the nation, and planet (when universally acted on) as a whole to endeavour for a better future, and in this endeavour more beneficial technologies are created, ideas and concepts that today are thought to be ludicrous and fruitless, actually hold purpose and meaning- they are not merely the imaginings of a "deluded child" or the dreamings of an idealist, but in fact solid reality.
This sort of future does not come around through laziness, it comes around through following ones intellectual wishes and pursuits and applying the knowledge gained to the collective people. The individual follows what they wish to help the collective, and in turn the collective helps and enables them to continue, this is a Soavist and generally held communist ideal, but as an ideal it is limited to the mind, this is what the modern society does, tells a people to dream small so their education for work doesn't seem as fruitless as it ultimately is. Learning for a sole job and not advancing, it is not a life I would wish on any, and it can be broken through education. It sounds harsh I admit, and many do contribute towards the wider aspect of society, but even more do not, and cannot for them lack the means to, a means held from them in an education system that has failed them.
Next I will elaborate further on the failures of the education system, and the structure which permits such a system; neo-liberalism, the ideology to which governs not only this nation, but almost all of the developed nations around the world.
Thursday 26 September 2013
Historical misconceptions of Communism
It has long been thought a country that calls itself communist or socialist is communist or socialist- this is simply untrue.
In fact if anything, no communist or socialist state has ever existed. Left wing beliefs have been achieved but they have never truly made it through the mechanisms of an entire nation. By this I mean industries have been nationalised and health care has been made public, but private businesses still exist as does private health care. Steps have been taken, but they haven't gone through the entire walk.
The People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other fancy sounding national titles all sound great and communist, but in reality they are a facade, a delusion created by the government of those nations. Every nation that has classed itself socialist or communist has done so through the wrong means, they haven't followed a Marxist path, and when in power they have gone against many ideals that the Left wing hold dear. Contrary to popular belief, Marxism isn't all encompassing when it comes to communism, and certainly not so when it comes to socialism, but I shall be using Marx to explain why all these fancy sounding nations where not true communist/socialist states.
Marx put forward that a nation will ideally not, but likely will endue a revolution to bring around communism- most of the nations we're talking about have done that, but what they missed was the time of when to alter the state. A state should only begin the transition to communism when its capitalist functions have depleted. Meaning that out of the dying remains of capitalism, comes communism. Our nations here did not do this, they waged revolutions in times of peasants and agriculture, not industrial capitalism (for that country). If you pay attention to many of the pictures from these nations, you'll often see people working in the fields and such. It is here where they initially differ from Marx.
This is why no communist state has ever been created, because the potentials grew from the wrongly timed ingredients. As for when the "communist" governments where in power, I shouldn't really need to say, but locking people in Gulags and undergoing purges is certainly not the humanity loving communism that theory speaks of. In practice the taking of a single life is inherently wrong in the eyes of communism, this does leave a contradiction with revolution, but as Marx pointed out Communism is also empiricalist (going off the numbers), and so if it costs 1,000 lives to save 1,000,000 then so be it, as cruel and harsh as it sounds, it is the case. Not a single person reading this should object to saving 1,000,000 over 1,000, and this merciless logic persists despite the figures, as long as one outweighs the other than the larger must be sought after.
Granted the numerical argument could be used in support of the Gulags etc. but in my opinion there is a difference between leadership paranoia and the collective good.
Next I think I'll go over laziness in a communist state, as that too is an understandable misconception.
In fact if anything, no communist or socialist state has ever existed. Left wing beliefs have been achieved but they have never truly made it through the mechanisms of an entire nation. By this I mean industries have been nationalised and health care has been made public, but private businesses still exist as does private health care. Steps have been taken, but they haven't gone through the entire walk.
The People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and other fancy sounding national titles all sound great and communist, but in reality they are a facade, a delusion created by the government of those nations. Every nation that has classed itself socialist or communist has done so through the wrong means, they haven't followed a Marxist path, and when in power they have gone against many ideals that the Left wing hold dear. Contrary to popular belief, Marxism isn't all encompassing when it comes to communism, and certainly not so when it comes to socialism, but I shall be using Marx to explain why all these fancy sounding nations where not true communist/socialist states.
Marx put forward that a nation will ideally not, but likely will endue a revolution to bring around communism- most of the nations we're talking about have done that, but what they missed was the time of when to alter the state. A state should only begin the transition to communism when its capitalist functions have depleted. Meaning that out of the dying remains of capitalism, comes communism. Our nations here did not do this, they waged revolutions in times of peasants and agriculture, not industrial capitalism (for that country). If you pay attention to many of the pictures from these nations, you'll often see people working in the fields and such. It is here where they initially differ from Marx.
This is why no communist state has ever been created, because the potentials grew from the wrongly timed ingredients. As for when the "communist" governments where in power, I shouldn't really need to say, but locking people in Gulags and undergoing purges is certainly not the humanity loving communism that theory speaks of. In practice the taking of a single life is inherently wrong in the eyes of communism, this does leave a contradiction with revolution, but as Marx pointed out Communism is also empiricalist (going off the numbers), and so if it costs 1,000 lives to save 1,000,000 then so be it, as cruel and harsh as it sounds, it is the case. Not a single person reading this should object to saving 1,000,000 over 1,000, and this merciless logic persists despite the figures, as long as one outweighs the other than the larger must be sought after.
Granted the numerical argument could be used in support of the Gulags etc. but in my opinion there is a difference between leadership paranoia and the collective good.
Next I think I'll go over laziness in a communist state, as that too is an understandable misconception.
Monday 12 August 2013
Misconceptions and over simplifications
This entry is going to be about exactly what the title says, common ideas that are frequently linked with communism and although based in slight fact they're completely off the mark.
So for starters- equality.
Equality as everyone knows is something communism aspires towards, but it has its limitations.
People over simplify the concept and try to fault the ideology on their misunderstandings.
The first common misunderstanding is financial equality, communism aims to provide greater equality in finances but not complete equality of outcome, we aim for complete equality of opportunity but not outcome. People in a communist society will get paid differently depending on the value of that job towards the country/society they are apart of, as such a doctor and a teacher (for example) will be paid more than someone in the entertainment business, like a footballer or singer.
Everyone will have the chance to be whatever they wish, without financial limitations- due to the nature of the system proposed- http://shadowsofavorlon.deviantart.com/art/The-Soavist-State-369683948, but once in a job of thier choosing people will be paid differently, based on merit and value. The gap between the rich and poor will be drastically reduced so everyone will be of the same living standards, with that commonality society can only improve its living standards as so making life better for everyone.
With what's been said above the same idea is put towards what people buy- clothing, cars, houses, food etc. People will obtain different material goods, as with what we do today- communism isn't a society of faceless identically dressed workers, it is a society for the people by the people so that people can follow thier desires and wishes whilst helping humanity along the way.
Another misconception based in this area is hierarchy. People will not have equality of responsibility, some will be apart of higher government, some will be in charge others will not be whilst everyone has the chance to become apart of those in change (should they desire to do so). A pecking order will exist, not the same as now but it does share similarities. And because the people are in charge it allows a transparency in government to which we cannot hope to achieve today, those with excessive wealth control what they wish today, those who have an elected consensus by the people they represent will have the control in a communist society, and even the control they have will be overseen and challenged (if necessary) by the represented.
Well that's all for this week, I am sorry its taken so long in getting this up but my internet connection is overly greater. The next entry will follow as long these lines of misconceptions in communism, the misconceptions of the history of communism is next up.
So for starters- equality.
Equality as everyone knows is something communism aspires towards, but it has its limitations.
People over simplify the concept and try to fault the ideology on their misunderstandings.
The first common misunderstanding is financial equality, communism aims to provide greater equality in finances but not complete equality of outcome, we aim for complete equality of opportunity but not outcome. People in a communist society will get paid differently depending on the value of that job towards the country/society they are apart of, as such a doctor and a teacher (for example) will be paid more than someone in the entertainment business, like a footballer or singer.
Everyone will have the chance to be whatever they wish, without financial limitations- due to the nature of the system proposed- http://shadowsofavorlon.deviantart.com/art/The-Soavist-State-369683948, but once in a job of thier choosing people will be paid differently, based on merit and value. The gap between the rich and poor will be drastically reduced so everyone will be of the same living standards, with that commonality society can only improve its living standards as so making life better for everyone.
With what's been said above the same idea is put towards what people buy- clothing, cars, houses, food etc. People will obtain different material goods, as with what we do today- communism isn't a society of faceless identically dressed workers, it is a society for the people by the people so that people can follow thier desires and wishes whilst helping humanity along the way.
Another misconception based in this area is hierarchy. People will not have equality of responsibility, some will be apart of higher government, some will be in charge others will not be whilst everyone has the chance to become apart of those in change (should they desire to do so). A pecking order will exist, not the same as now but it does share similarities. And because the people are in charge it allows a transparency in government to which we cannot hope to achieve today, those with excessive wealth control what they wish today, those who have an elected consensus by the people they represent will have the control in a communist society, and even the control they have will be overseen and challenged (if necessary) by the represented.
Well that's all for this week, I am sorry its taken so long in getting this up but my internet connection is overly greater. The next entry will follow as long these lines of misconceptions in communism, the misconceptions of the history of communism is next up.
Sunday 28 July 2013
The Soavist Theory of Entrapment
The Soavist theory of Entrapment, sounds rather boring doesn't it but if it gives you something to at least think about then I think its worth the possible boredom.
The theory basically states- For one to limit oneself to a single goal of freedom is to entrap oneself by that goal, and so forth be enshackled by it. To be enshackled and so oppressed by freedom holds no crueller irony, but it is an irony held by many.
Sounds abit too wordy so I'll break it down- basically what this is saying is that if someone strives for freedom (from an authority) then in their fight for their freedom they may very easily become lost and from that not stop fighting for their freedom because they cannot see straight. In ages since time began the concept of a freedom fighter has always been present, but a person shouldn't just fight for freedom- freedom is a concept, a way of thinking (as shown through the different understandings of freedom). At the end of the day you cannot hold freedom, you cannot lift it up as a trophy to signify you've won it- it is a state of mind, and if someone thinks they haven't achieved it then they'll keep fighting for it. The worst part of this is that these freedom fighters often turn into the very authorities they're trying to overthrow- take the Taliban; part of a force built to fight off Soviet invaders. The Taliban hated the fact that someone had said "you know what I want this bit of land", they hated the fact that someone thought themselves superiour to them and so treat them as lessers, oppressed them and stopped them doing what they wished. So the Taliban fought back and beat the Soviets, then not all of them grasped the fact they'd won- they where entrapped. They continued to see enemies to their freedom everywhere and so lashed out everywhere, they became the very thing they hated by oppressing people's freedom, preventing their choices and taking their land- the people they fought to protect and the Taliban thought themselves superiour. The Taliban sought freedom but did not see when they had won it, as to them they still haven't; the chaos brought upon them "peacekeeping" organisations- to which they further saw as foes and so attacked. A very viscous circle all caused by a concept, an idea. They sought freedom and in seeking it they lost their's.
A solution to this is simple, do not have one singular goal, have many and more. The more goals you have the more goals you will see completed through your fighting and so after enough are fulfilled you can be assured that your ultimate aim for freedom is gained. A fancy way of saying this is, materialise your singular goal into a plethora of ideals.
Its strange how fighting for freedom often means you lose your own, an irony not to be laughed at or ignored- it is a serious problem to which leads to the extremists of today, the ones you see on the TV who fight for whatever cause it is and you know full well they have lost their way, like with "Islamic" extremists- these people are simply extremists, they may call themselves Muslims but they are almost the furtherest from the ideal Muslim.
Freedom is worth fighting for, but try not to lose your way in doing so.
For my next entry I think I'll discuss something on the misconceptions of communism. I've talked quite abit on freedom now so yeah I think I'll move on to others concepts and ideas.
The theory basically states- For one to limit oneself to a single goal of freedom is to entrap oneself by that goal, and so forth be enshackled by it. To be enshackled and so oppressed by freedom holds no crueller irony, but it is an irony held by many.
Sounds abit too wordy so I'll break it down- basically what this is saying is that if someone strives for freedom (from an authority) then in their fight for their freedom they may very easily become lost and from that not stop fighting for their freedom because they cannot see straight. In ages since time began the concept of a freedom fighter has always been present, but a person shouldn't just fight for freedom- freedom is a concept, a way of thinking (as shown through the different understandings of freedom). At the end of the day you cannot hold freedom, you cannot lift it up as a trophy to signify you've won it- it is a state of mind, and if someone thinks they haven't achieved it then they'll keep fighting for it. The worst part of this is that these freedom fighters often turn into the very authorities they're trying to overthrow- take the Taliban; part of a force built to fight off Soviet invaders. The Taliban hated the fact that someone had said "you know what I want this bit of land", they hated the fact that someone thought themselves superiour to them and so treat them as lessers, oppressed them and stopped them doing what they wished. So the Taliban fought back and beat the Soviets, then not all of them grasped the fact they'd won- they where entrapped. They continued to see enemies to their freedom everywhere and so lashed out everywhere, they became the very thing they hated by oppressing people's freedom, preventing their choices and taking their land- the people they fought to protect and the Taliban thought themselves superiour. The Taliban sought freedom but did not see when they had won it, as to them they still haven't; the chaos brought upon them "peacekeeping" organisations- to which they further saw as foes and so attacked. A very viscous circle all caused by a concept, an idea. They sought freedom and in seeking it they lost their's.
A solution to this is simple, do not have one singular goal, have many and more. The more goals you have the more goals you will see completed through your fighting and so after enough are fulfilled you can be assured that your ultimate aim for freedom is gained. A fancy way of saying this is, materialise your singular goal into a plethora of ideals.
Its strange how fighting for freedom often means you lose your own, an irony not to be laughed at or ignored- it is a serious problem to which leads to the extremists of today, the ones you see on the TV who fight for whatever cause it is and you know full well they have lost their way, like with "Islamic" extremists- these people are simply extremists, they may call themselves Muslims but they are almost the furtherest from the ideal Muslim.
Freedom is worth fighting for, but try not to lose your way in doing so.
For my next entry I think I'll discuss something on the misconceptions of communism. I've talked quite abit on freedom now so yeah I think I'll move on to others concepts and ideas.
Tuesday 16 July 2013
Revolution and freedom's contradiction
Firstly I'd just like to say sorry for taking a while in putting this blog up, having lack of time and internet are appearing to be a continuing annoyance.
Well back to the point I was going to make- revolutionary action v.s. freedom- in particularly Marxist freedoms. These two form a deeply rooted contradictory point within the Marxist ideology, the point of fighting for everyone's freedom and maintaining a Marxist view of such freedoms.
The reason this is contradictory is because in a revolution, a state of war is declared and in such a civil war no one person can avoid it, should they be in that nation. This means people have to take sides and they will also have their lives taken if they're on the wrong side during an engagement. It doesn't matter who takes who's life, what matters is that civilians will be killed and lives are lost. This is a frequently forgotten point of the "glorious communist revolution"- people will die. As the revolution is fought by us, we are in essence killing those people- and it is this which goes against Marxist freedom, a person cannot live in freedom if they're dead.
Freedoms themselves must be fought for but not acted upon during a revolution. A dictatorship must be formed to effectively and successfully conduct a war, it is no place for communal debates or prolonged discussion. Time is life and death and tough decisions must be made during combat, decisions which must be made by revolutionaries- not the people who are to live in the post-revolutionary world.
A revolutionary can never live happily in the society they aim to bring around, this is why being a revolutionary requires the utmost sacrifice. A revolutionary is a warrior and a warrior can not live in peace- it is not right to expect that of warriors. A revolutionary brings about the society they cannot live in because it is their duty to help provide for mankind's future, they have done their bit and cannot do more. One can only hope the descendants of revolutionaries, know what they're made of when it comes to forming the new world to which they live in, warriors of peace- a more contradictory statement is rarely heard but it is true. People who fight for peace and freedom in the knowledge they will never live in it.
Being a revolutionary is to pursue revolution and uphold the ideal of freedom, this is how both are part of Marxist and Soavist theory. Either revolution or freedom may be pursued providing the ideal of the other is upheld. Those who is in the post-revolutionary freedom must still uphold the ideal of revolution should a darkness creep over their peaceful and free society.
Next week I intend to write further about revolution. It shall be on what to fight for and the Soavist theory of entrapment.
Well back to the point I was going to make- revolutionary action v.s. freedom- in particularly Marxist freedoms. These two form a deeply rooted contradictory point within the Marxist ideology, the point of fighting for everyone's freedom and maintaining a Marxist view of such freedoms.
The reason this is contradictory is because in a revolution, a state of war is declared and in such a civil war no one person can avoid it, should they be in that nation. This means people have to take sides and they will also have their lives taken if they're on the wrong side during an engagement. It doesn't matter who takes who's life, what matters is that civilians will be killed and lives are lost. This is a frequently forgotten point of the "glorious communist revolution"- people will die. As the revolution is fought by us, we are in essence killing those people- and it is this which goes against Marxist freedom, a person cannot live in freedom if they're dead.
Freedoms themselves must be fought for but not acted upon during a revolution. A dictatorship must be formed to effectively and successfully conduct a war, it is no place for communal debates or prolonged discussion. Time is life and death and tough decisions must be made during combat, decisions which must be made by revolutionaries- not the people who are to live in the post-revolutionary world.
A revolutionary can never live happily in the society they aim to bring around, this is why being a revolutionary requires the utmost sacrifice. A revolutionary is a warrior and a warrior can not live in peace- it is not right to expect that of warriors. A revolutionary brings about the society they cannot live in because it is their duty to help provide for mankind's future, they have done their bit and cannot do more. One can only hope the descendants of revolutionaries, know what they're made of when it comes to forming the new world to which they live in, warriors of peace- a more contradictory statement is rarely heard but it is true. People who fight for peace and freedom in the knowledge they will never live in it.
Being a revolutionary is to pursue revolution and uphold the ideal of freedom, this is how both are part of Marxist and Soavist theory. Either revolution or freedom may be pursued providing the ideal of the other is upheld. Those who is in the post-revolutionary freedom must still uphold the ideal of revolution should a darkness creep over their peaceful and free society.
Next week I intend to write further about revolution. It shall be on what to fight for and the Soavist theory of entrapment.
Sunday 23 June 2013
Freedoms
Freedom, a concept sought after by some many but what actually is it?
For a capitalist, liberal or conservative freedom is the ability to freely pursue one's self interests. Basically meaning you can do what you want, when you want. Now then in order to do this you kinda need money, with money comes power and so the aim of the capitalist is to gain as much power as they can, as in doing that they gain money and so from that the greater ability to be free and follow what they want to do. The capitalist's ability to do this off their own back is thought to be a great achievement.
But even though that is the most common definition of freedom, it is by far the only one. The Marxist, communist and Soavist definition follows as long the lines of a philosopher called Simone de Beauvoir (my current favourite- check out her works if you can, utterly remarkable), her philosophical teachings state that marxist freedom is actually the ability to do what you wish but with help. Co-operation and not money is the key to freedom in this case, the ability to gain what you wish by helping others, and allowing them to help you is the very core of marxist freedom.
You see its really the way in which its got that is the most important. Capitalists do it by themselves, and although that maybe great- what's the cost? If you're looking out for yourself, the sad truth is you rarely actually look where you're walking, you look forward to a brighter future but what is in your footfalls? Sadly capitalists often stand on people to gain their power and wealth, these may be employees they pay next to nothing so they (the owner) can gain a great profit margin, the owner may also stand on other and smaller competitors (small businesses) and put them out of business, they then start standing on the larger companies, putting their workers on the streets, or forcing their workers to have less wages because the larger companies owners want more profits. Its quite horrible because the workers lose all round- unless they join in on it, making them as bad as the owners.
Whereas through Marxist freedom everyone works together, no owners and no workers- just communes of people carrying out their jobs, helping one another. Sounds so utopic, a dream, a distant wished for fantasy- but is it so hard to grasp? In this day and age- yes. But its not out of our reach entirely. Communes exist, small but they do. If 1 person can change a mindset, then 1 person can change the world- its just whether or not YOU want to. I'm not suggesting some revolution, that's a last resort at the worst of times, simply talk, spread your dreams and from that your ideas; afterall you cannot kill an idea.
To continue with this theme of freedom, I'll discuss revolutionary action and freedom next.
Yours
~Soav
For a capitalist, liberal or conservative freedom is the ability to freely pursue one's self interests. Basically meaning you can do what you want, when you want. Now then in order to do this you kinda need money, with money comes power and so the aim of the capitalist is to gain as much power as they can, as in doing that they gain money and so from that the greater ability to be free and follow what they want to do. The capitalist's ability to do this off their own back is thought to be a great achievement.
But even though that is the most common definition of freedom, it is by far the only one. The Marxist, communist and Soavist definition follows as long the lines of a philosopher called Simone de Beauvoir (my current favourite- check out her works if you can, utterly remarkable), her philosophical teachings state that marxist freedom is actually the ability to do what you wish but with help. Co-operation and not money is the key to freedom in this case, the ability to gain what you wish by helping others, and allowing them to help you is the very core of marxist freedom.
You see its really the way in which its got that is the most important. Capitalists do it by themselves, and although that maybe great- what's the cost? If you're looking out for yourself, the sad truth is you rarely actually look where you're walking, you look forward to a brighter future but what is in your footfalls? Sadly capitalists often stand on people to gain their power and wealth, these may be employees they pay next to nothing so they (the owner) can gain a great profit margin, the owner may also stand on other and smaller competitors (small businesses) and put them out of business, they then start standing on the larger companies, putting their workers on the streets, or forcing their workers to have less wages because the larger companies owners want more profits. Its quite horrible because the workers lose all round- unless they join in on it, making them as bad as the owners.
Whereas through Marxist freedom everyone works together, no owners and no workers- just communes of people carrying out their jobs, helping one another. Sounds so utopic, a dream, a distant wished for fantasy- but is it so hard to grasp? In this day and age- yes. But its not out of our reach entirely. Communes exist, small but they do. If 1 person can change a mindset, then 1 person can change the world- its just whether or not YOU want to. I'm not suggesting some revolution, that's a last resort at the worst of times, simply talk, spread your dreams and from that your ideas; afterall you cannot kill an idea.
To continue with this theme of freedom, I'll discuss revolutionary action and freedom next.
Yours
~Soav
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)