Catharz wrote:I'm just not convinced that the Marxism is really the IF/THEN system it proposes to be. We've met the conditions set out in the Manifesto for a long time, and the only 'revolutions' I've heard of were political vehicles for individuals/tribes. Not for any over-arching good.
Humans evolved as tribal animals, and I'm not sure that we're fully capable of funtioning beyond the Family/Tribe scale. And I think that (not to be a Hippy...) to change that will take some serious psychological evolution. So while Marxism may work, I don't think it works for humans as we are.
OK, Marx predicted that the unification of Labor, Capital, and Government was inevitable. He also predicted that this was a good thing.
The first prediction is almost certainly true. The second prediction will probably turn out to be true in some cases and false in others.
----
The three sided tug-of-war between the needs of Capital, Labor, and Government must eventually have a victor. Things change and systems do not last, so some sort of "balance" cannot be maintained indefinately. Capitalism can't stay Capitalism because eventually investors actually win, and stand in a position to dominate potential rivals. The only escape from that is a government based intervention - which in turn is also not Capitalistic in nature.
In short, Capitalists either become the government (by virtue of getting all the money), or they become subordinate to the government (by virtue of regulation or nationalization). Either way, Marx is right. Although honestly living in a world where the former happens is nothing like the utopia that Marx hoped for.
Similarly for "The People". As technology and organizational levels increase, the existence of the hermit becomes an endangered one. There simply isn't room for people in the modern and future world who are not either in control of or controlled by the government. If Marx's proposed hyper-democratization does not in fact occur, the only other option is a massive authoritarian conquest. The middle ground is inherently unstable and cannot last.
As to whether people can cope beyond the tribal unit, of course they can! The invention of Nationalism has shown without the slightest shadow of a doubt that people can feel loyalty unto death to any entity at all. If people can fight and die for "America" or "Vietnam", they'll be loyal to anything that you include them in. A world government is no harder to swear allegiance to than is a nuclear family. The inability to converse with every aspect of it is as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage. Familiarity bonds, but it also breeds contempt. While an internationalism is hard to ineract with directly, its very intangibility gives it the moral authority of a god.
The contradictions that Marx saw in Capitalism are real. His proposed resolutions to them are also real. Other resolutions, however, also exist. The conservative notion that you can resolve these problems by just closing your eyes and making them go away is of course laughable - but honestly Communism seems just as likely to be achieved by dint of corporations taking control of civil government as vice versa. That's terrifying, but it doesn't mean that Marxist critique is inherently wrong.
-Username17