"The middle class / technocrat's union, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations… It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals… It has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country… All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life-and-death question for all civilised nations… In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes… National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures there arises a world literature. By the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, it draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. ..." Also when and where it (very slightly modified here) appeared? I will tell the modification later.
Well this is a shortlived thread. It is from Communist Manifesto with me replacing "bourgeoisie" with "middle class / technocrat's union" to make it a little tougher. A remarkably accurate description of modern society, IMHO. Almost makes you think the foresaw global TV's mass marketing, the internet and job outsourcing. I quoted from the Economist's translation at end of article on how the hope for economic recovery is with: "The new middle classes in emerging markets - Burgeoning bourgeoisie" (article's title) See it at: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13063298 I also posted graph from article and few comments at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2168033&postcount=708
One of my favorite quotes (because so true) is also from Marx's Das Kapital: His definiton of a "Capitalist" - A capitalist is a man who will sell you the rope to hang him with. US selling most of our scrap iron to Japan a few years before they returned it at Pear Harbor is a good example. They just bid a little higher for it at auctions etc.
But you didn't dig deeply enough in your example. The reason Japan went to war against the USA is that our government was attempting to suppress the functioning of the international free market. They didn't want the Japanese to have access to the oil fields in Indonesia so they could become a modern industrial state. Mind you, it can easily be argued that the USA had good reason for that suppression. Japan's imperial aims were clear, and their military imperialism was considerably more brutal to the conquered peoples than our economic imperialism was. There was a good deal of "resistance to transcendence" on both sides. Both were hostile to the idea of a transcendent world civilization in which the role of the nation would dwindle. We still are.
Instead of trying to work together in having a workable trade relationship as America and Japan do now they wanted to suppress Japan which only aggravated them as it put them in a economic stranglehold. If you were caught up in such a economic condition you too would strike back at those who were oppressing you. Eventually Japan did and we all know went on then. Now we are having what should have been done over 100 years ago, free trade with Japan, which we both benefit from. To bad those who were in charge back then didn't want to try to do the same thing we are doing today for a war with Japan could have been prevented.
I agree completely and did know that. I was only illustrating the truth of Marx's definition of a Capitalist, not trying to explain the causes of WWII. I do think when the truth is told, the US essentially gave the Japanese little choice, but to try to break free of the restrictions US (and England too I think) were imposing on their aspirations to dominate Asia. (For this they did need that oil and the natural rubber there too. Few understand that the rationing of gasoline in the US during WWII was not because gas was needed for the troops. It was that rubber was in short supply and by limiting the gas available US tires would last thru the war.) The really interesting speculation is to what extent did FDR understand this at the time. I.e. did he think a war was necessary to get US out of the depression? Perhaps GWB thought the same way? I.e. very early in GWB's first term the US was officially in recession. - Nothing like a war to cure that. Perhaps GWB wanted a war even before 9/11. He certainly did not go after Saudi Arabia, but chose Iraq as the French and Russian were the ones with the lucrative oil contracts there. Note they were not even allowed to bid on contracts* after the fall of Saddam. (That delayed the reconstruction of the telephone system by more than a year as it was entirely of French design and construction - replacement parts from the US were not compatible.) That war, like most, was economic in its true foundations. --------- *Chenney's Haliburton got many without even bidding.
Agreed, but that was not a realistic option. The military government of Japan was already in China and completely determined to dominate Asia. Japan is resource poor. - The escape from that fact to the military mind is forceful conquest of the needed resources. Modern Japan is 2nd economy in the world and has used more peaceful means to gain the resources it needs.
I read Mein Kampf too a long time ago, but do not remember anything from it. Das Kapital I read in the original (with aid of English translation book also, back when studing for a German exam.)
Play the game again. Where did I read this? " ...A society without producing wealthy people is never progressing on the healthy track. Indeed, even the Bible says 'money is the root of all evils.' In this light, a highly commercialized society is not a noble one, either. But it is noteworthy that wealth in itself has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and what matters most is how to manage it. Nevertheless, it will be beneficial to the general good of a society that, instead of bitterly envying the rich, more people are learning to become one of them. ..." Hint: There are 320,000 now that are 10 times over being millionaires in their own money (more than a million dollars) and the world's fastest growing luxury goods market, now. If they knew how to, they would be singing the Democrate's theme song: "Happy days are here again."
My guess is none. Marx was a great thinker and perceptive observer, who dealt in realities. Hitler was not.
Drawing other nations into the economy, that is something that happens quite naturally. People see the advantages and feel the allures of capitalist culture. It is obvious the rich gain the most from capitalism, and it is the rich who rule the world. The most talented and hardest working are rewarded; is this not fair? A rich man, inherited wealth, does he hold any real power nowadays? It used to be that kings and emperors could do whatever they pleased. No longer so. We are all held accountable by the law for murder and rape. It is because of capitalism that CEO will not do things out of whim; they are governed by the law of the dollar.. The most obvious and straightforward explanation for this is that the world isn't ready for unity. It is no exaggeration that there are places in the world that are still very backwards, whose presence could not be integrated in the refined cultures of the world. Indeed, even in these societies there are barbaric elements just like in the barbaric countries there are noble elements. It is this stratification between rich and poor that will pull the world together into a 'unity', along with nearly limitless means of communication. As men grow rich in some countries, their mindsets will be more alike to the rich in other countries, than to the minds of the poor people of their own nation. They can then unite their countries because it makes little difference. The distribution of these rich men will still be centered in the rich countries however, because it is easier for people to rise to power in democratized countries. The rich of the backwards nations are often despots or nepotists. Only through the power of the dollar can hard working, clever men in the third world rise to prominence; because a profit is more powerful than words on the world stage. How often in your country do you see the rich mingling with the poor? It certainly happens sometimes, but it is the exception and not the norm. This becomes ingrained in the psychology of men, disgust and contempt for certain characteristics in other men, and it is probably alike in the US as it is in France, China, and Japan. The fear of the poor makes them alike at least in this way. Then you add the education, the strict training and obedience, the cultured image, and you have a whole lot of people who are shaped through capital. Surely, this is not their only trait, everyone has different personalities. However, personality traits are often genetic, and so they are more random; meaning that traits assigned through capital are going to link these people systematically as opposed to the random, unpredictable genetic influences. However, the flaws of capitalism are clear- there is more to the world than money. As a realistic counterpoint- money is power. It is a quantized form of power. Either we abolish the dollar and establish different currencies for different facets of humanity ( as is commonplace; social currency, erudite currency, cultural currency, sexual currency, etc etc etc ), or we put a monetary value on every facet so that it is integrated into the greater scheme of civilization. Either way there is a different standard for everything, but perhaps one day it will be possible to exchange all forms of currency just like one exchanges different money types at a bank. Then it will be that capitalism has been fully integrated into the greater workings of civilized humanity. Why Money? Because its easy for the government to tax it. Because it is a quantized form of power, one that can be used everywhere. Because it is systematic. Because if you make it, you are entitled to more. Your country wants you to be productive, that way it gets more tax money from you. This is why the rich are privileged. Money is real and was as far as civilization goes; it is the capitalists that systematically made money more important; it is their game to make more of it and then it is their desire to make it worth more. There will always be those that value money more than anything. Money has always been around. Is money more important nowadays than it was in the past? Surely. It used to be that we were all subsistence farmers. Hardly systematic, but also taxable. Specialization, that is the name of the game and the source of growth. . .. also not entirely true. It is the reason that America is an economic superpower that they found a way to integrate the dollar deeply into the lives of the people. The dollar is like life, and life naturally expands; with it expands capital. :soapbox:
Answer: The {Chinese} People's Daily wrote: Post 12 text: " ...A society without producing wealthy people is never progressing on the healthy track. Indeed, even the Bible says 'money is the root of all evils.' In this light, a highly commercialized society is not a noble one, either. But it is noteworthy that wealth in itself has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and what matters most is how to manage it. Nevertheless, it will be beneficial to the general good of a society that, instead of bitterly envying the rich, more people are learning to become one of them. ..." That sound you hear is Chairman Mao, hitting his casket walls as he spins. Also the same article said: "... Some even believe that the rich got that way by stepping on the poor. The rich, however, can hardly convince the less fortunate majority that it isn't wrong to be wealthy. So in a society with the rapid economic growth and increasingly enlarged circle of affluent individuals*, it is quite desirable to cultivate a wealth culture, which can, for one thing, gradually change people's thought process and make them believe everybody can escape poverty and get rich through efforts. Secondly, a sound atmosphere in which wealth creation is encouraged will also help people retrain their mind, pushing out the old 'poverty mentality,' and replacing it with a 'wealth mentality.' If more people are devising ways to create wealth, in a long run, it will contribute to building a harmonious and mass affluent society, as more people will have the ability to help the less fortunate. ..." FROM:http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002/96417/6628619.html An article entitled: Don't hate the rich, be one of them. ------------------ *There are now more Chinese with 10 million Yaun (~1.5 million dollars) than ALL Americans! - American's have less purchasing power than just the top 320,000 Chinese! Their wealth and numbers are rapidly growing too. Little wonder that they buy more cars, TVs, cell phones, computers, cameras, Tivos, - almost anything you care to name than Americans do. Chinese visiting Japan on week-end buying sprees spend more than $10,000 on average! (Some are much more equal than others!)
