dd asked this question on another thread. I can't possibly answer it because I think it's a catch all term which means different things to different people. However, various labels have been mentioned, such as communism, socialism and Marxism, I presume as illustrating 'far left' thinking and it set me thinking.
Marxism is a term which interests me because Marx's ideas were at the basis of communism. Marx as a sociologist was briefly covered in my degree course and I thought his analysis of society was interesting. I still do. On the other hand, I think he spent too much time sitting in the Reading Room of the British Museum and failed to take the reality of human nature into account. His theory of 'communism' quite failed to recognise that no two people think alike and that 'man' is not inherently noble and disinterested. We know from history just what happens in Communist countries and it in no way resembled the workers' nirvana that he visualised. It produced a society that was as hierarchical, repressive and unfair as the contemporary societies he analysed.
However, I think his work offers food for thought as to how societies might be better organised.
These are extracts from a review of his work which I think are still relevant today.
So what was it that made Karl Marx so important? At the cornerstone of his thinking is the concept of the class struggle. He was not unique in discovering the existence of classes. Others had done this before him. What Marx did that was new was to recognize that the existence of classes was bound up with particular modes of production or economic structure and that the proletariat, the new working class that Capitalism had created, had a historical potential leading to the abolition of all classes and to the creation of a classless society. He maintained that “the history of all existing society is a history of class struggle”. Each society, whether it was tribal, feudal or capitalist was characterized by the way its individuals produced their means of subsistence, their material means of life, how they went about producing the goods and services they needed to live. Each society created a ruling class and a subordinate class as a result of their mode of production or economy. By their very nature the relationship between these two was antagonistic. Marx referred to this as the relations of production. Their interests were not the same. The feudal economy was characterized by the existence of a small group of lords and barons that later developed into a landed aristocracy and a large group of landless peasants. The capitalist economy that superseded it was characterized by a small group of property owners who owned the means of production i.e. the factories, the mines and the mills and all the machinery within them. This group was also referred to as the bourgeoisie or capitalist class. Alongside them was a large and growing working class. He saw the emergence of this new propertyless working class as the agent of its own self emancipation. It was precisely the working class, created and organized into industrial armies, that would destroy its creator and usher in a new society free from exploitation and oppression. “What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers”.
His analysis of 'class' was pretty sound, the bit in bold is what we know he was mistaken about.
^ With the evolution of modern industry, Marx pointed out that workmen became factory fodder, appendages to machines. Men were crowded into factories with army-like discipline, constantly watched by overseers and at the whim of individual manufacturers. Increasing competition and commercial crises led to fluctuating wages whilst technological improvement led to a livelihood that was increasingly precarious. The result was a growth in the number of battles between individual workmen and individual employers whilst collisions took on more and more “the character of collisions between two classes”.^
why is it that Marx felt that the existence of classes meant that the relationship between them was one of exploitation?
In the course of the working day, Marx reasoned, workers produce more than is actually needed by employers to repay the cost of hiring them. This surplus value, as he called it, is the source of profit, which capitalists were able to put to their own use. For instance, a group of workers in a widget factory might produce a hundred widgets a day. Selling half of them provides enough income for the manufacturer to pay the workers’ wages. income from the sale of the other half is then taken for profit. Marx was struck by the enormous inequalities this system of production created. With the development of modern industry, wealth was created on a scale never before imagined but the workers who produced that wealth had little access to it. They remained relatively poor while the wealth accumulated by the propertied class grew out of all proportion. In addition, the nature of the work became increasingly dull, monotonous and physically wearing to the workforce who became increasingly alienated from both the products they were creating, from their own individuality and from each other as human beings.
Sound familiar?
The political system, the legal system, the family, the press, the education system were all rooted, in the final analysis, to the class nature of society, which in turn was a reflection of the economic base.
*This did not mean that education and teaching was a sinister plot by the ruling class to ensure that it kept its privileges and its domination over the rest of the population. There were no conspirators hatching devious schemes. It simply meant that the institutions of society, like education, were reflections of the world created by human activity and that ideas arose from and reflected the material conditions and circumstances in which they were generated*
...the individuals who make up the ruling class of any age determine the agenda. They rule as thinkers, as producers of ideas that get noticed. They control what goes by the name “common sense”. Ideas that are taken as natural, as part of human nature, as universal concepts are given a veneer of neutrality when, in fact, they are part of the superstructure of a class-ridden society. Marx explained that “each new class which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it, is compelled, simply in order to achieve its aims, to represent its interest as the common interest of all members of society i.e. ..to give its ideas the form of universality and to represent them as the only rational and universally valid ones”. Ideas become presented as if they are universal, neutral, common sense. However, more subtly, we find concepts such as freedom, democracy, liberty or phrases such as “a fair days work for a fair days pay” being banded around by opinion makers as if they were not contentious. They are, in Marxist terms, ideological constructs, in so far as they are ideas serving as weapons for social interests. They are put forward for people to accept in order to prop up the system.
I think this is fair analysis, too. It is also a very simplified version of a large body of work.
The questions in my mind are:
"How far are people willing to accept that the situation Marx analyses is inevitable and has to be lived with?"
And
"Is it reasonable to be influenced by Marx's analysis as a basis for altering the balance in society to ensure a more equable distribution of resources without actually wanting to overthrow the status quo?"
As one of whitewaves poor buggers may I say - do not patronise me ,those who think Corbyn is going to save the country and come .june we csn all prepare to live in the Land of Oz are the poor buggers for accepting hook, line and sinker the promises of a man who lied so many times
What an incredibly patronising post, whitewave. Just because someone's poor doesn't mean they're gullible.
And what 'less privileged' has to do with it I've no idea...
Poor buggers is not colloquial Cornish ww 
it's a phrase much used everywhere.
'The poor and less privileged have been spun a good yarn' you say.....well, there must be over 17 million of us then.No, the fact is that the people who voted to leave the EU ( and those who received money like farmers) wanted to be rid of EU bureaucracy.Farmers got government grants long before we joined the EU.
maizie exactly!! The poor and less privileged have been spun a good yarn which they accepted hook line and sinker. The poor buggers (to use a cologuial Cornish term) will be the first to suffer.
Spotted over Cornwall and Wales!
But weren't Out voters in deprived areas persuaded by the Leave campaigner's assertion that the money saved from our EU contributions could go directly to them in aid? It has a convincing ring to it.
Wales voted out yet has benefited from being in the EU, seems the poorest areas of the country voted out.
whitewave
apart from Truro and Falmouth, all of Cornwall voted Brexit which seems strange as Cornwall has benefited from a lot of EU money over the years.
There have been food banks around for a long time , when Labour were in power as well as Conservative, and not always called food banks.The church has always been helping out with both food and cash ( the poor fund) for both congregation and non congregation.No doubt they always will do.
Your ridiculous rant at me personally is just that....ridiculous durhamjen
I certainly don't feel shame that the church continues to do charitable works.
There will always be those who for one reason or another require charity.
Just back from Cornwall, and Bodmin is benefiting from an enormous amount of EU cash. It needs it as it's been run down just as other more working class areas of Cornwall, for donkeys years and no government has ever bothered with it. Be back to that now. It will take a time for the penny to drop but by then it will be all too late.
I wonder though Jen what UKIP would stand for as they will have got their wish.
We can only hope that it is not quite such a disaster as it looks set to be.
Wait until Brexit turns out to be a disaster, which is almost inevitable. See what the people of Wales, Cornwall, the North East and the small ex-industrial towns think then. They won't have anybody else to blame. It's frightening, because these areas will provide a recruiting ground for UKIP-reborn. Hopefully, a progressive, left of centre movement will step in, but I'm not holding my breath.
No!
I mean that the majority of people don't care, because they're doing OK.
A left of centre government will never win power in the UK until the majority of voters see that their own incomes are affected and there is an inspirational leader, who gives the hope.
The huge mistake you're making is that people care as much as you do.
You mean like the scare story that nearly a million workers will be dragged into paying more tax under Labour's new scheme.
Which means how many will not?
97% by my reckoning.
It's just that one million sounds a lot more than 3%.
Hope your brick wall will withstand loads of bashing. People don't understand, don't believe it and don't want to. They've been brainwashed for too long and don't understand economics. Unfortunately, most politicians don't seem to understand economics either.
They're doing OK - so why they should be bothered about others? Sad!
weownit.org.uk/manifesto
The railways, etc., daphne.
dj Of course there shouldn't be food banks anywhere. Local councils used to have money for crisis loans, but no longer. As I've explained, I live in a wealthier area than Haslemere, but we still have a food bank. Those people have no democratic representation at all, because they will always be outvoted by the wealthy.
Unfortunately, you're bashing your head against a brick wall. People have been brainwashed for so long into thinking that the poor deserve their fate and there are some weird people, who get some pleasure from giving to the poor,but seeing benefits cut. I guess it makes them feel superior. 
Politics and political ideas tend to by cyclical. I have no doubt that the Conservatives will win this election with an increased majority. However, history shows that there will be a backlash. In time, people will realise they've been conned and it only takes the majority of voters to see it - and they will. Meanwhile, the left of centre needs to sort itself out. I wouldn't be surprised if a new political party emerges from the ashes, but it will take an inspirational and trustworthy person with leadership potential to come to the fore.
Poor people still have their pride and would rather earn their own money than have to accept "crumbs" and patronage from the high table. We should have system which means they don't have to accept charity. A genuine "far left" government would mean that they wouldn't, but there is almost zilch chance that there will ever be a "far left" government in the UK. Corbyn is not far left. What he's proposing would be consider social democratic (ie "normal") in most Nordic states and Germany. For example, any sane government accepts that there is no market for railways, because there is virtually no potential for competition. Nevertheless, railways remain an essential part of state infrastructure and should be controlled by the state - preferably our own, rather than selling them off to foreign providers.
BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE.
Why are you so proud of the fact that there are foodbanks everywhere?
It's a bloody disgrace. We are one of the richest countries in the world.
Don't you feel any sort of shame for accepting that Lady Bountiful should still exist in the UK?
By the way, the foodbank in Haslemere is run by the church.
Maybe people are more generous now with donating their tins and packets than they used to be.
You can be in need of a helping hand at times, wherever you live in the country.
Traditionally the churches did ( and still do) that, but food banks are pretty much everywhere now.
Hunt documented it himself as he thought it was a good thing to do.
I looked at his website to see if he had been doing anything this weekend as nobody appeared to know where he was despite all the problems with the NHS cybercrime.
I wasn't the only one who thought he should be seen to be doing something reassuring the public about the NHS.
What I said was that I was surprised that Haslemere needed a foodbank.
I am still surprised that Haslemere needs a foodbank.
I am even more surprised that I am attacked for saying that, instead of the tories being attacked for the increase in foodbanks over the time they have been in power.
There certainly wasn't a foodbank when I worked in that area of the country.
I didn't realise that it was documented every time someone donated to a foodbank - perhaps Jeremy Hunt (or his OH) has been donating to the one in Haslemere weekly without publicity.
We don't know.
I take your point too, roses, but I ask myself - would I rather be a surgeon or a toilet cleaner? and to be honest, irrespective of pay, I'd rather be a surgeon!
Well I wouldn't want to be an orthopaedic surgeon - just don't have the muscles for it
But both worthwhile jobs
Perhaps a road sweeper driving one of the nifty little machines, but then I would get annoyed with people who parked their cars in the way of my cleaning.
I read the remark as sarcasm because it involved Jeremy Hunt, for whom I have no respect, but I do think a sense of fair play is necessary and dismissing someone's charitable gift just because you do not like them isn't fair play.
How many of those who dismissed George Michael and his drug problems etc were utterly taken aback when the extent of his private charities became known after his death.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
