NationStates Jolt Archive

this is marxism:

an attention to the material conditions of people's lives, and social relations among people
a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects these material conditions and relations
an understanding of class in terms of differing economic relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
a sympathy for the working class or proletariat
and a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general.

Criticisms of Marxism:

Criticisms of Marxism have come from the political Left as well as the political Right. Democratic socialists and social democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict and violent revolution. Many Anarchists reject the need for a transitory state phase and some anarchists even reject socialism entirely. Some thinkers have rejected the fundamentals of Marxist theory, such as historical materialism and the labour theory of value, and gone on to criticize capitalism - and advocate socialism - using other arguments. Some contemporary supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable, but that the corpus also fails to deal effectively with certain aspects of economic, political or social theory.

In very short:

- the idea that history is predetermined by strange things floating about in the ether is stupid
- the idea of economic conditions creating a person's self is stupid
- therefore the idea of class in the marxist sense is stupid
- the LTV is stupid
- all that talk about violent revolution is stupid
- planned economies are stupid
- Marx and Engels never actually explained what would happen after a revolution and left ill-defined goals to reach instead, leaving revolutionaries to try and figure it out themselves, with the known consequences. That's stupid, too.

So yeah, not a big fan.

In very short:

- the idea that history is predetermined by strange things floating about in the ether is stupid
- the idea of economic conditions creating a person's self is stupid
- therefore the idea of class in the marxist sense is stupid
- the LTV is stupid
- all that talk about violent revolution is stupid
- planned economies are stupid
- Marx and Engels never actually explained what would happen after a revolution and left ill-defined goals to reach instead, leaving revolutionaries to try and figure it out themselves, with the known consequences. That's stupid, too.

So yeah, not a big fan.

What he said.

A very valuable and insightful analysis of society, that deserves to be approached critically and non-dogmatically.

- the idea that history is predetermined by strange things floating about in the ether is stupid

Maybe, but it's not even remotely what Marx said.

A very valuable and insightful analysis of society, that deserves to be approached critically and non-dogmatically.

It's Commu-rific!

Maybe, but it's not even remotely what Marx said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geist

He changed a few words, but the basis of historical dialectics remained, didnt it?

He changed a few words, but the basis of historical dialectics remained, didnt it?

Marx reversed Hegel: for him the "laws of history" are located in material and economic development, not in "strange things floating around in the ether."

In very short:
- the idea that history is predetermined by strange things floating about in the ether is stupid


Including the Neoliberal concept that the adoption of capitalist globalization naturally/inevitably leads to democratic peace?


- the LTV is stupid


Including John Locke's defense of property (including placing the existance of property prior to government) based on labor?


- planned economies are stupid


Including the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, etc?


- Marx and Engels never actually explained what would happen after a revolution and left ill-defined goals to reach instead, leaving revolutionaries to try and figure it out themselves, with the known consequences. That's stupid, too.


Quoted for truth.


So yeah, not a big fan.

Quoted for agreement.

Marxism is state communism. State communism doesn't work. Marx still called for a "dictatorship of the Proletariat". This means the proletariats who led the revolution should tell people how to live. While different from Lenninism, I still can't support it.

Only true anarchism will make people free. Any form of state communism only creates a new working class.

Quoted for truth.

Actually, we see discussion from both Marx and Engels concerning the "political form" of a socialist state, particularly in regard to the Paris Commune (see, for instance, the relevant portions of The Civil War in France), and thoughts about its economic structure are expressed in Critique in the Gotha Program and elsewhere.

It is true that they did not draw up a detailed blueprint. Nor should they have. Concrete circumstances differ, and flexibility and freedom are important.

Including the Neoliberal concept that the adoption of capitalist globalization naturally/inevitably leads to democratic peace?
Yes. It does no such thing and it is only inevitable if people are left to choose freely.

Which doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing. People just shouldn't get all mystical about it.

Including John Locke's defense of property (including placing the existance of property prior to government) based on labor?
I'd have to look into it more closely. Let me say that the Labour Theory of Value, as a way of measuring the value of things, is in fact stupid. The idea that one's labour adds some value to something is not - but that addition can be infinitesmally small. In fact, thinking about it, it can even be negative.

Including the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, etc?
Those don't plan economies.

I'd have to look into it more closely. Let me say that the Labour Theory of Value, as a way of measuring the value of things, is in fact stupid.


LTV isn't stupid, it's just one side of the value coin, if you will. The Subjective Theory of Value is the other side, of course. A product cannot have value if it is never produced to begin with; a chair has value exactly because someone labored with some wood to produce a useful object. Of course, different people will value a chair differently, depending on their need (thus, value is also subjective)

It's focusing on only one side of the coin that's stupid.


Those don't plan economies.

They only require conformance to a particular set of political norms and policies in order for states to benefit from their activities. Which, of course, is completely different from "planning economies." ;)

I'd have to look into it more closely. Let me say that the Labour Theory of Value, as a way of measuring the value of things, is in fact stupid. The idea that one's labour adds some value to something is not - but that addition can be infinitesmally small. In fact, thinking about it, it can even be negative.

With the subjective theory of value labor can add or subtract value depending on the subject. Therefore, the claim that labor always adds value, under the STV, is false.

A complete failure at all levels based upon a flawed conception of economics that is single handedly responsible for spawning some of the most destructive and oppressive regimes in human history. It is the epitome of an unbalanced, destructive system easily abused by evil people for their own ends. Regardless of how noble the motivations are behind Marxist ideology, and in many cases they were very noble, the system itself does not work.

I respect other forms of socialism but consider Marxism to be utterly bankrupt. (pun not intended)

Hate it.

that is single handedly responsible

Really?

So if Karl Marx had never existed--say, he died of some disease at six months--nothing equivalent to the Soviet Union or Maoist China or any of the others would ever have come about?

Interesting. That must make him something close to the most powerful individual to have ever lived... and for what? Writing a few books?

Really?

So if Karl Marx had never existed--say, he died of some disease at six months--nothing equivalent to the Soviet Union or Maoist China or any of the others would ever have come about?

I believe they would, but it is still true that Marxism is above and beyond the biggest source of these regimes in history. There will always be evil people that abuse ideas, and Marxism just happens to be the one easiest to abuse in our time.

I find Marxism interesting if highly flawed. Meh. Too bad Marxism was used to justify shitty authoritarian regimes.

I believe they would, but it is still true that Marxism is above and beyond the biggest source of these regimes in history.

How can you possibly reconcile those two statements?

just happens to be the one easiest to abuse

If it's a matter of "just happens to be" and "abuse"... how is the ideology "responsible"?

this is marxism:

an attention to the material conditions of people's lives, and social relations among people
a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects these material conditions and relations
an understanding of class in terms of differing economic relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
a sympathy for the working class or proletariat
and a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general.

Criticisms of Marxism:

Criticisms of Marxism have come from the political Left as well as the political Right. Democratic socialists and social democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict and violent revolution. Many Anarchists reject the need for a transitory state phase and some anarchists even reject socialism entirely. Some thinkers have rejected the fundamentals of Marxist theory, such as historical materialism and the labour theory of value, and gone on to criticize capitalism - and advocate socialism - using other arguments. Some contemporary supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable, but that the corpus also fails to deal effectively with certain aspects of economic, political or social theory.

That's a pretty short summary of Marxist ideas, but oh well. I'll mention a few short points.

I think Marx had some good insights, particularly with regard to the occurrence of alienation in industrialized capitalist societies.

I think there were some rather poor attempts to implement Marxism, and that may or may not have reflected the viability of Marxist thought.

I'm of the opinion that Marx underestimated the number of variables he was dealing with in trying to make predictions, and that he may have inadvertently influenced the outcome of his predictions in a negative way by putting forth his ideas publically.

I'm also of the opinion that he failed in the same way that many intellectuals do, by selecting one factor of human social reality and using that one factor as a lens for interpreting all of that reality.

(see, for instance, the relevant portions of The Civil War in France)

"The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people."

"The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class."

"From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman's wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government."

"In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents."

"While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture."

"The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society."

"The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions — cheap government — a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism. Its very existence presupposed the non-existence of monarchy, which, in Europe at least, is the normal incumbrance and indispensable cloak of class rule. It supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic institutions."

"It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor." (my emphasis)

The Civil War in France - Chapter Five (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)

Yeah, all of that just screams Stalin and Mao. :rolleyes:

I think that Marx, as an antithesis to pure liberal capitalist theory as embodied in Adam Smith, has half of the equation right, and the other half mind-numbingly wrong. That isn't to say that he reached the right conclusions, but it is to say that his work should no more be thrown out as useless because he was wrong about a number of things. We certainly don't do that with Democritus or Plato, even though they both had a number of things wrong. Marx is important because his ideas did influence a number of thinkers after him, and because he provides a highly dogmatic contrast to the (highly dogmatic) dogmas of Smith and Rand.

In the end, a synthesis of Marx and Smith is what we have come to, and so I fail to see how throwing him out is any more useful than is tossing Smith out.

Rand's work, on the other hand, deserves a special place in hell.

If Marx would not have ever existed, the world would be a better place today because almost all of it would be democratic with no dictatorships.

Hyperbole and polemics mixed with poor economics.

I mean, seriously, "a spectre haunts Europe"? That's as lame as "On a clear blue morning, flashing steel and flame shattered the peace in New York". Awful, awful, awful way to start off social science writing.

If Marx would not have ever existed, the world would be a better place today because almost all of it would be democratic with no dictatorships.

Honestly, if you really want to blame the awful history of "socialist" totalitarianism on a single individual, Lenin is a far better candidate.

Including the Neoliberal concept that the adoption of capitalist globalization naturally/inevitably leads to democratic peace?

Yes.

Including John Locke's defense of property (including placing the existance of property prior to government) based on labor?

No.

Including the IMF, WTO, NAFTA, etc?

Yes.

Hate it.
I dont trust any government enough to let them control the economy.

Marx is important...because he provides a highly dogmatic contrast to the (highly dogmatic) dogmas of Smith and Rand.


Actually, an even better "contrast" to "Adam Smith" would be Adam Smith's own The Theory of Moral Sentiments. It is in this work, published before The Wealth of Nations, that Smith first lays the foundations for the concept of the "invisible hand." Smith starts with an argument that human beings have a natural propensity to sympathy with each other, and it is from this sympathy that the mechanism of the "invisible hand" is derived. The dogmatic interpretation of Smith as having advocated totally selfish or "cut-throat" capitalist competition exists exactly because everyone quotes the relatively technical The Wealth of Nations without having read and understood the moral foundations laid down in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (and because everyone likes to quote The Wealth of Nations without having actually read or understood that work either...)

Smith laid the foundations for an economic system based on reason and the humanity of self-interest enlightened by a natural propensity for sympathy. Exactly everything that contemporary capitalism lacks. I mean, seriously; all I did was read Adam Smith, change my economic and political beliefs accordingly, and now all the online political tests say I'm a socialist. That's how out of touch with its founders contemporary capitalism has become.

That buzzing sound is Smith's spinning corpse.

-Snip Exposition of KSP's ignorance-

I knew I should have stuck to Rand... But she's such an easy target.

I knew I should have stuck to Rand... But she's such an easy target.

This is just an especially salient topic for me, at the moment, because of a political theory class I'm taking. We just finished going over John Locke's arguments concerning private property (in his Second Treatise on Government). Locke basically argues that all of "Creation" is given to mankind in common by God, but that when each person takes some resources (like cutting down a tree) and mixes his or her labor with it (makes lumber and then a chair, table, house, etc.), it becomes his or her private property. But Locke also placed a limitation to the extent that no one is entitled to take more from the common "Creation" than he or she can make use of. To horde the common resources is to create waste and spoilage, which in turn deprives one's fellow human from making equal use of the common "Creation."

I nearly fell out of my chair when one of my fellow students raised his hand and made the statement that, by placing such a limitation on property, Locke actually sounded more like a socialist. A man who argued that private property exists, is prior to government, and defended the accumulation of wealth as consistent with Natural Law, a man who helped lay the foundations of capitalist economics, sounded like a socialist.

Of course, John Locke sounds like a socialist only because now capitalism has been perverted into some kind of ultra-selfish, unregulated, war of all against all. Which is anything but what its founders intended.

(edit: and, of course, Rand is such an easy target simply because "her" "philosophy" boils down to nothing more than a false dichotomy stemming from a knee-jerk reaction to the Soviet totalitarianism experienced as a child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Childhood_and_education). Soviet Communism is bad, therefore the exact opposite, lassiez-faire capitalism, must be good.)

But Locke also placed a limitation to the extent that no one is entitled to take more from the common "Creation" than he or she can make use of.

Yes, by natural acquisition.

But in the end Locke has no objection to massive concentrations of property as long as he can declare ex post facto that humanity "consented" to them. At least if my loose recollection of the Second Treatise is accurate.

Yes, by natural acquisition.

But in the end Locke has no objection to massive concentrations of property as long as he can declare ex post facto that humanity "consented" to them. At least if my loose recollection of the Second Treatise is accurate.

Well, Locke's boss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Ashley_Cooper%2C_1st_Earl_of_Shaftesbury) was the Bill Gates of his day. But my point isn't to defend Locke's argument so much as it is to point out that a man who defended property and wealth 300 years ago sounds like a socialist to a college student today. This indicates that what was "capitalism" 300 years ago is not the "capitalism" we know today.

At any rate, while my own knowledge of Locke is also limited, I could repost a bunch of quotes from Adam Smith about the dangers of trusting the class of businessmen with political power, even if Adam Smith did ultimately end up defending the accumulation of wealth.

In very short:

- the idea that history is predetermined by strange things floating about in the ether is stupid
- the idea of economic conditions creating a person's self is stupid
- therefore the idea of class in the marxist sense is stupid
- the LTV is stupid
- all that talk about violent revolution is stupid
- planned economies are stupid
- Marx and Engels never actually explained what would happen after a revolution and left ill-defined goals to reach instead, leaving revolutionaries to try and figure it out themselves, with the known consequences. That's stupid, too.

So yeah, not a big fan.
Lol, evidence please?

Well, I'm a Communist and not a Marxist. I see Marxism mostly as a quite legitimate complaint against the status quo, but certainly not as a source of any solution. I'm not even greatly moved by the oft noted beauty of some of his writing and arguments, since a lot of his more memorable turns of phrase were not his own (the specter of communism, for example, he lifted from a German encyclopedia or some such publication).

I do not understand how anyone can be a Marxist... surely to be one it is necessary to have read Marx, but to have read Marx and not realised the gigantic hole into which he dug himself is really quite baffling. There's a reason that Capital was unfinished... Use Value is a bafflingly reactionary idea that saw Marx commit the same sins that earlier caused him to rail against Proudhon and others.

Fortunately, Marx didn't invent Communism, and my faith in it is quite unshaken by his blundering and C20th attempts to overcome his shortcomings such as with Democratic Centralism and command economics. Both rampantly anti-Communist ideas.

If anyone cares, in the role-play forums Beth Gellert/Beddgelert's most noted character, Graeme Igo, has drafted a work, On Communism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=532748), which, though altered a little for the sake of the game and still best described as under construction, is closer to my own conception of Communism. Accountability in politics, democracy in economics.

Marx reversed Hegel: for him the "laws of history" are located in material and economic development, not in "strange things floating around in the ether."
You can call it a reverse, but if 1 is not 2, then 2 isn't 1 either. Nor is -2 the same as -1, or 1+X the same as 2+X.

Marx doesn't bother explaining how material and economic development actually happens. He just sorta requires us to believe that it pops up for no particular reason, like it's some natural phenomenon. It's not really all that different from calling it a "spirit", it's just as mystical and unexplained.

What Marx didn't bother with is that economic conditions are not a given, and that capital is a product of the mind. A person capable of planned thought creates a machine, not the other way around.

The Civil War in France - Chapter Five (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)

Yeah, all of that just screams Stalin and Mao. :rolleyes:
I always find it interesting to wonder what might have happened to the Commune, had it survived. It had an interesting mix of pragmatists and maniacs in it.

I have a feeling that eventually the latter would have won out, and it would have been hijacked as some sort of marketing gag by radicals from all over Europe with a subsequent collapse. I mean, Marx was trying for it pretty hard already, and the thing was barely born yet. Most of the normal people of Paris would probably have left before then.

That buzzing sound is Smith's spinning corpse.
That is, if anyone actually uses Smith as an authority on capitalism. I give credit where credit's due, but Smith was a moral philosopher who more or less accidentally ventured into the realm of economics. Sorta like Hume argued with the mercantilists on free trade (showing an astonishing understanding of it), except that he's somehow not remembered much for that.

LTV isn't stupid, it's just one side of the value coin, if you will. The Subjective Theory of Value is the other side, of course.
If you wanted to connect the two, I'd do it by saying that the value of labour in itself is not given, but subjective.

But that sorta defeats the purpose, I suppose.

A product cannot have value if it is never produced to begin with; a chair has value exactly because someone labored with some wood to produce a useful object.
Something can have value for the potential it has. A piece of land, for example that's never been worked on would still fetch a positive price.

They only require conformance to a particular set of political norms and policies in order for states to benefit from their activities. Which, of course, is completely different from "planning economies." ;)
But it is, and I think you know it.

With the subjective theory of value labor can add or subtract value depending on the subject. Therefore, the claim that labor always adds value, under the STV, is false.
It can add a negative number. ;)

Let's say that we would expect labour applied for the purpose of increasing the usefulness of some object to produce a higher value because the object is now more useful to the people who bid for it in the market place (which includes the working person him- or herself). If the person gets it wrong and breaks it, its value goes down - the same is true if that person applies labour in order to destroy it.

And then there's the unlikely scenario of labour being applied but doing absolutely nothing to change the usefulness of the object to the person or others.

I'm really not a fan of the LTV, to be honest. It's such a flimsy concept pulled out of not very much at all. I might have to read up a bit more on Locke and Ricardo, but I'm having a hard time trying to understand how otherwise reasonable people can gloss over the flaws of the thing.

Lol, evidence please?
I think I was asked for my opinion, and I provided it. Several people saw flaws in what I said, and we're in the process of investigating those. Feel free to join in.

Well how can anyone be anything but the product of their material conditions, it's seems ludicrous to even suggest otherwise, unless you are suggesting that we are products of some religious or metapsychical force and our belief in it shapes our values etc, in which case I would be asking you for evidence.

Marx doesn't bother explaining how material and economic development actually happens.

Obviously people are involved.

What Marx didn't bother with is that economic conditions are not a given, and that capital is a product of the mind. A person capable of planned thought creates a machine, not the other way around.

Marx says exactly that... the human being as a thinking laborer is important to his entire political philosophy.

You're missing the point, though. Obviously economic conditions are the product of human beings. But they are not (for the most part) the product of specific individuals; they are the product of how human beings behave on the large scale.

Well how can anyone be anything but the product of their material conditions, it's seems ludicrous to even suggest otherwise, unless you are suggesting that we are products of some religious or metapsychical force and our belief in it shapes our values etc, in which case I would be asking you for evidence.
You don't need a metaphysical force to shape values. We're capable of rational thought.

Now, of course people are taught their values to some extent as they grow up, but there's also a big element of learning in there - and learning is something someone does using thought. More importantly, when what we learn about the world conflicts with the values we get taught, the result of clinging to values against our own perceptions and understanding, things get ugly. So that which we arrive at through thought and understanding: that's our actual self, and it's independent of our material or economic conditions.

But that's sorta missing the point: you're saying that instead of people creating machines (which is fairly obvious and observable) machines create people. I haven't been shown that it does, and the idea that I'm not actually me - that none of us are - that we don't have such a thing as a rational mind, that's the thing that disturbes me. And it's the thing that you would have to explain to me, in so far as that is possible with neither of us being capable of thought and all.

And while I'm at it: what's your parents' annual income?

But they are not (for the most part) the product of specific individuals; they are the product of how human beings behave on the large scale.
What is it with you people and wanting to attribute everything to some unknown factor, rather than to the obvious?

We are talking on the web, with computers probably running on Microsoft software. What reason do you have to suspect that without the actions of the inventors of the WWW or without the inventors of the PC and Bill Gates, this would also be the case?

Why would prompt you to imagine a situation in which Bill Gates didn't change our world, but our world created Bill Gates, and somehow used him to create Microsoft?

Why does brain drain hurt nations? Shouldn't new brain just appear all the time, prompted by the fabulous "conditions"?

Everything always has someone who created it. I can drive my car because a few people invented combustion engines, because Louis Renault and his friends started a company, because its engineers designed the RSC, because some guy started the dealership and was willing to make a deal with me. I do not have this car for any other reason. It is not a given, it has not magically appeared, it these people hadn't decided to do what they did, it would not have been there.

Nothing is the product of "how human beings behave on the large scale" seperately from lots of people achieving things as specific individuals (usually trading with others in the process), unless you're consciously making an effort to make the term "economic conditions" meaningless and are simply looking for a way to avoid recognising achievement. A relationship creates nothing, only the individuals that are part of it do. The problem I have with all this is that you're trying to tell me that these "conditions" are the canvas on which action happens and on which you can draw whatever you want. It's not - the canvas is white paper, it's caves and starvation.

Take someone who achieves today and put them 2000 years ago - he or she will still achieve. The physical shape of the achievement will be different, but achievement is simply the result of a person putting their mind to solving a problem. It's not random and it's not due to anything but the individual itself.

My thoughts on Marxism - whatever it may or may not be, the bottom line is that it doesn't work.

"Marxism has not only failed to promote human freedom, it has failed to produce food.” John Dos Passos

“Marxists are people whose insides are torn up day after day because they want to rule the world and no one will even publish their letter to the editor.”
Mark Helprin

2 biased quotes aren't enough to change my view. I believe marxism is probably the best goverment/economy i have heard of. Some people think that without a leader, we'll go crazy, but in Marxism, everyone is the leader. Instead of letting one people command millions of others, marxism is simply letting the people work freely. I can say if your surrounded by people with no leader and you do something like kill one of them, they're not just going to let you get away, especially when they know they are the new governing force.

Marxism, like all political and economic ideals, is best studied and then placed within it's historical context before attempting to apply any of its ideas into practice.
Marxism inadvertently led to twentieth century "communism" as seen in Russia and China, although this was not its aim, and has been slowly eroding ever since just like the free market attempted during the early years of the industrial revolution failed, leading to such ideals as Marxism, and has evolved into the current regulated markets seen today (although many free market economists, most notably those attached to the Rand Institute during the latter half of the 20th Century, using Cold War ideas seem to believe otherwise).

It's a crock, and I'm disgusted with most Marxists I meet. They're almost uniformly dogmatic idiots. Much like fundamentalists in almost every field, they basically discredit the whole movement, which is a huge shame.

And I'm a socialist, so don't have a go at me as if I was some kind of neo-conservative poor-eater or something.

Lol, evidence please?
OK, here you go.
- the idea that history is predetermined by strange things floating about in the ether is stupid
This is just true, seeing as it's essentially religious nattering.
- the idea of economic conditions creating a person's self is stupid
I am middle class and a socialist. I know middle class people who are anarchists, some who are simple conservatives, and some who are Marxists.

I also know poor socialists, very rich socialists (although there are a bit rare), poor libertarians, very rich anarchists etc. etc.

This is just true.
- therefore the idea of class in the marxist sense is stupid
I am a champagne socialist, who under Marxism, supposedly doesn't exist.
- the LTV is stupid
Just true.
- all that talk about violent revolution is stupid
Because in the mid 1800s, the army couldn't machine gun your whole mob. Now it can.
- planned economies are stupid
Actually true, even in the best times of the USSR, about 50% of trade was on the black market. Supply and demand is the natural order of things, 2.3 shoes a year, because that's what Veshenkha says so, is not.
- Marx and Engels never actually explained what would happen after a revolution and left ill-defined goals to reach instead, leaving revolutionaries to try and figure it out themselves, with the known consequences. That's stupid, too.
On top of this, most revolutionaries are made of a very small clique of rich men who can pronounce their aytches and have some knowledge of economics, and most other people are easily-swayed over tools, who participated in the revolution for their personal gain, which is the worst kind of recipe for a government you could imagine.

Why would prompt you to imagine a situation in which Bill Gates didn't change our world, but our world created Bill Gates, and somehow used him to create Microsoft?

It's both, actually.

Of course, more importantly, if it were not for Bill Gates, someone else would have done what he did, sooner or later--the technological prerequisites and social and economic niche were there.

Why does brain drain hurt nations? Shouldn't new brain just appear all the time, prompted by the fabulous "conditions"?

Not if the brain drain reduces the pool of talented people substantially, no--not if it's a social phenomenon.

Everything always has someone who created it. I can drive my car because a few people invented combustion engines, because Louis Renault and his friends started a company, because its engineers designed the RSC, because some guy started the dealership and was willing to make a deal with me. I do not have this car for any other reason. It is not a given, it has not magically appeared, it these people hadn't decided to do what they did, it would not have been there.

Maybe, but all of those people needed the material basis to do all of that... and that certainly didn't come out of nowhere.

Put them back a thousand years before, and they never would have accomplished what they did... but in the modern world, on the other hand, someone would probably have accomplished more or less what they did. (Not exactly, necessarily--undoubtedly there would be differences. But Marx is concerned with history on the very large scale; he is not even talking about specific technological developments, but about economic systems.)

Take someone who achieves today and put them 2000 years ago - he or she will still achieve.

So?

The physical shape of the achievement will be different

Yeah, right--which makes your point irrelevant.

it's not due to anything but the individual itself

This is just trivially false, for reasons we've already gone over.

I am a champagne socialist, who under Marxism, supposedly doesn't exist.

Not even remotely. Marx doesn't ever say that "every person's political ideology corresponds exactly to their class interest."

But most people don't have political ideologies, they have understandings of the world influenced pretty significantly by the economic circumstances and relations that dominate their lives. Political movements that can appeal to that understanding are likely to take hold better than political movements that don't.

On top of this, most revolutionaries are made of a very small clique of rich men who can pronounce their aytches and have some knowledge of economics

You sound like Lenin....

Lots of things Marx said were right, others were not. Nonetheless, I reject both the notions that in order to transition into communism one must initiate violence, and also that there must be a period of transition between the old system and the new.

Marxism is state communism.State communism, especially in Marxist ideology, is a contradiction in terms. State socialism certainly, but not state communism.

It can add a negative number. ;)

Let's say that we would expect labour applied for the purpose of increasing the usefulness of some object to produce a higher value because the object is now more useful to the people who bid for it in the market place (which includes the working person him- or herself). If the person gets it wrong and breaks it, its value goes down - the same is true if that person applies labour in order to destroy it.

And then there's the unlikely scenario of labour being applied but doing absolutely nothing to change the usefulness of the object to the person or others.Does this mean that there is no (inherent) right to the product of one's labor?

Not even remotely. Marx doesn't ever say that "every person's political ideology corresponds exactly to their class interest."

But most people don't have political ideologies, they have understandings of the world influenced pretty significantly by the economic circumstances and relations that dominate their lives. Political movements that can appeal to that understanding are likely to take hold better than political movements that don't.
Let me guess - you're a Marxist?
You sound like Lenin....
That's not surprising, we both come from pretty rich, socialist families, and have an educated manner of speech.

Let me guess - you're a Marxist?

You guess wrongly.

You guess wrongly.
Fair enough.

this is marxism:

an attention to the material conditions of people's lives, and social relations among people
a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects these material conditions and relations
an understanding of class in terms of differing economic relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
a sympathy for the working class or proletariat
and a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general.


I think Marx was on to something when he adopted a materialistic view of history. Since then, many historians have taken this stance, and I believe it is usually the most accurate. (There are exceptions, but as a general philosophy, it works.)

However, Marx was clearly wrong when he said that capitalism was destined to end in class warfare, or the uprising of the proletariat. Like other economists of the time, he was convinced that the government would never willingly interfere with the free market or make any attempt to help the workers. He saw two possibilities of the future:

The government will willingly have a deficit if it means aiding the economy.
The Old Guard will be overthrown by their own creation, and a new government will emerge that is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Eventually, this will fade away, and there will be a communist utopia.


Marx believe the second was more likely. I disagree.

Of course, more importantly, if it were not for Bill Gates, someone else would have done what he did, sooner or later--the technological prerequisites and social and economic niche were there.
Do you start to see why I called it "monstrous"? You're saying that Bill Gates doesn't matter - someone else could have done exactly the same thing. Whether or not Bill Gates exists, whether or not he made the decisions he made, is of no consequence - for some reason it would all have happened anyways.

So that must apply to every person that has lived, is living and will live on earth. Our existence is pointless, our actions of no consequence.

Not if the brain drain reduces the pool of talented people substantially, no--not if it's a social phenomenon.
So the private, and individually chosen, move from Germany to the US that deprived the Nazis of Einstein, Fermi, Szilárd et al didn't negatively affect Germany, say in its efforts to build a nuclear bomb?

The economic and material conditions were obviously such that a nuclear bomb could be developed. But it took people of extraordinary ability to create it, and the decisions of those people was what determined whether, where, how and when it was.

Maybe, but all of those people needed the material basis to do all of that... and that certainly didn't come out of nowhere.
No, it came from other people, who achieved before. And if they hadn't, the material basis would not have been there in the same shape or form.

But Marx is concerned with history on the very large scale; he is not even talking about specific technological developments, but about economic systems.)
He's evading the issue then. An economic system (brutally misusing the term, by the way) is the sum of specific technological developments and cannot be examined seperately from them.

I know why Marx is trying though, and it makes sense from his point of view. If one's own achievement is based on those of individuals before us, then we owe thanks (or compensation, if they're still alive) to those individuals. But that's not what Marx wants - he wants people who can't be bothered to achieve to get compensation. So he tries to divorce achievement from the achievers and attribute it to some thing that everyone gets to be part of (but only the part of the non-achievers is ever actually talked about).

Yeah, right--which makes your point irrelevant.
It doesn't. Achievement in itself is the important thing, the material shape it takes depends on the way the earth is at time zero and differs between periods and environments. But you're attempting to deny achievement by talking about its symptoms.

This is just trivially false, for reasons we've already gone over.
No, you just haven't understood yet what I mean with achievement. Achieving is the process of putting one's mind to a problem, solving it and being happier as a result. Yes, it can come in the form of building a car, or inventing a nuclear bomb. It can come in the form of completing a billion-dollar takeover deal. It can also come in the form of teaching someone to read, or learning to read. Or growing wheat after learning that a plant grows when you water it.

Different sorts of achievements have different value as decided by others who will trade you for it. They might even have different values to yourself according to your own preferences.

But whatever the material outcome, the process is unchanged. The demands it places on your choices and actions in terms of rationality and logic above feeling and mysticism are unchanged.

Whether today or 2000 years ago, the act of achieving is the same. And most importantly, it's an act that you can only do yourself. Nobody can achieve for you. No society tells you to achieve or how to do it. The choices are all yours.

You can get material wealth that you didn't create, but it won't give you happiness. Happiness proceeds from achievement. If I end up being a billionaire, I will know what it took to earn that money, I will remember the years of studying and hard work it took to get there. Every dollar will have meaning, and every dollar will be the result of me improving someone's life. Ultimately the material form of achievement isn't all that important. It changes with the situation and the environment - the happiness that results from achievement doesn't, and so therefore neither does the purpose.

Does this mean that there is no (inherent) right to the product of one's labor?
Not necessarily. One could say that there is an inherent right to the value of the product of one's labour. The value is decided by an aggregate subjective valuation as represented by market prices.

So if you add labour to some product that decreases its value, ie you destroy something, you don't get a property right out of it.

Not necessarily. One could say that there is an inherent right to the value of the product of one's labour. The value is decided by an aggregate subjective valuation as represented by market prices.

So if you add labour to some product that decreases its value, ie you destroy something, you don't get a property right out of it.So then why should market prices reflect an increased value? Why not simply say that a person has destroyed something and then confiscate it?

So then why should market prices reflect an increased value? Why not simply say that a person has destroyed something and then confiscate it?
Because it's not true? Market participants do have to deal with reality on some level.

Plus, all this applies to things that are for sale. Only in that case the valuation requires the judgement of others. If the thing isn't for sale, the only one who values it is you. Which is also subjective, and also affected by any labour you might apply to the object, but might well be different to a potential market price.

Because it's not true? Market participants do have to deal with reality on some level.How would we know if it's true or not? Value is, after all, subjective.

Plus, all this applies to things that are for sale. Only in that case the valuation requires the judgement of others. If the thing isn't for sale, the only one who values it is you. Which is also subjective, and also affected by any labour you might apply to the object, but might well be different to a potential market price.So then if something isn't for sale, how would we know if someone has ruined it or not? (If market prices only affect things for sale, and market prices determine whether or not someone increased or decreased the value of something.)

How would we know if it's true or not? Value is, after all, subjective.
Yeah, but the bidding process requires people to judge some part of the value according to objective, material truth. Say there were two otherwise identical cars, one working and the other crashed.

There's no way to necessarily tell which will fetch a higher price (though we have a strong suspicion). However, if two people have a very similar subjective valuation of the car, then the fact that one is practically usable and the other is not will make the difference.

So I guess what I'm saying is that every valuation has also an objective part to it. With some items, that objective part is big (like shares or bonds, or some stock-standard Toyota Corolla) with others it's very small (like the Mona Lisa). It's a reflection of the actual, real-world usefulness of the object in question.

Labour can affect both parts, but we would expect the labourer to direct his or her attention to the usefulness first (if the intention is to sell the good, ie let others value it).

So then if something isn't for sale, how would we know if someone has ruined it or not? (If market prices only affect things for sale, and market prices determine whether or not someone increased or decreased the value of something.)
If we had information about the good, then we could still value it ourselves. It's just that our valuation is of no consequence.

That's the problem with a factory polluting a river. The water quality is not for sale, so accurately deciding what the damage actually amounts to is tricky and really requires to give a lot of people a lot of information, ask them their personal valuation and control for the fact that they might lie.

I know why Marx is trying though, and it makes sense from his point of view. If one's own achievement is based on those of individuals before us, then we owe thanks (or compensation, if they're still alive) to those individuals. But that's not what Marx wants - he wants people who can't be bothered to achieve to get compensation.

That isn't even remotely what Marx is trying to do. His aims in constructing materialist history are wildly different.

Look, this argument is going to get nowhere as long as your replies so clearly show your ideological blinders, and honestly my patience has been on the wane lately. If you understand the reasoning behind laws of economics, you can understand the reasoning behind laws of history. It's not that difficult.

Yeah, but the bidding process requires people to judge some part of the value according to objective, material truth. Say there were two otherwise identical cars, one working and the other crashed.

There's no way to necessarily tell which will fetch a higher price (though we have a strong suspicion). However, if two people have a very similar subjective valuation of the car, then the fact that one is practically usable and the other is not will make the difference.

So I guess what I'm saying is that every valuation has also an objective part to it. With some items, that objective part is big (like shares or bonds, or some stock-standard Toyota Corolla) with others it's very small (like the Mona Lisa). It's a reflection of the actual, real-world usefulness of the object in question.

Labour can affect both parts, but we would expect the labourer to direct his or her attention to the usefulness first (if the intention is to sell the good, ie let others value it).It would seem then that you and the Loyal Opposition are in agreement.

If we had information about the good, then we could still value it ourselves. It's just that our valuation is of no consequence.

That's the problem with a factory polluting a river. The water quality is not for sale, so accurately deciding what the damage actually amounts to is tricky and really requires to give a lot of people a lot of information, ask them their personal valuation and control for the fact that they might lie.Can it be done? If so, why couldn't it be done with everything?

That isn't even remotely what Marx is trying to do. His aims in constructing materialist history are wildly different.
I'm just looking at the strange, coincidental, opportunities a Marxist view of life hands to those who don't mind taking advantage of them. We can assume a level of honesty in Marx' writings, or we can look at what we actually see.

But if we were to believe that Marx didn't just seek to rationalise violence in the name of some ill-defined gut-feeling of "that's unfair", then we're at another point: I've never really seen the difference between someone who says there is a class conscience (born out of whatever you want to construct out of people's life stories) and someone who says there is a national conscience. Marxism and nationalism are based on the same direction of philosophy and the same basic principle - namely the denial of the possibility of choice in determining one's character and existence. You said the thinking labourer was an important part of Marx' work, but what sort of thought are you talking about if it is bounded by just being able to lead to taking a side in a class struggle? If the answer is already given, then how is choice possible?

Look, this argument is going to get nowhere as long as your replies so clearly show your ideological blinders, and honestly my patience has been on the wane lately.
This isn't the first time you've cut a discussion short with "this will get nowhere" lately. My "ideological blinders" are a strawman for something else, but what is it?

If you understand the reasoning behind laws of economics, you can understand the reasoning behind laws of history. It's not that difficult.
But didn't we conclude that there are some very basic laws of economics that have more to do with material reality (like that you can't consume more than is being produced), and others that only operate because they're in the framework of a property-based exchange economy?

Anyways, the problem I have with historical materialism, more so than just as a way of looking at history, is the way in which people make it into something else. They take some parts of a historical situation, and ignore others, in order to build some process which they can fit into their model. Was there some level of animosity between owners of capital and those they employed during Marx' time? Perhaps, though if you tried to do that sort of generalisation in any other discipline you'd get laughed out of the room.

Does it therefore follow that class struggle is the nature of history? It doesn't, but if you selectively grab bits and pieces out of a history book, rewrite and reinterpret them, you might just make it look like it does. And, worse still, then you go ahead and construct some sort of prediction of the future - and that is where you really go ahead and assume that individuals are no longer relevant. Marx said capitalism will collapse, based on the pick & choose approach to evidence he employed. It didn't happen. Nor did the revolutions occur that he predicted - the few that did happen were abortions born out of the faith in Marxism, not out of historical necessity.

As a scientific method, it's a complete and utter failure. More so than any accusation about him ignoring the mind or condoning violence, that is what would have annoyed Marx.

And beyond that, and it's not even been attempted to convince me otherwise, it involves the denial of choice and the denial of the mind. In economic relations, there is a clear standard by which choices can be judged. There is no such standard in history, so there is no ranking of choices possible. Unlike in an economic choice, in history there is no framework, no set situation within which a decision is made. Apart from examining every single choice set in a static point in time made by every person in the history of the world (and then judging them according to the economic standard), the only way to make historical materialism work is to impose another standard (floating about in the ether, perhaps?). It's not clear to me whether Marx or Engels ever bothered properly explaining it, or whether they just jumped ahead to the top of the rankings they didn't construct. Either way it equates to a denial of choice since no alternatives are ever examined. And, as if that weren't enough, they don't bother with people because that would just be too many, they group them together according to an arbitrary criterion and then act as though they make collective decisions.

Argue, explain, defend, if you want. But if you choose not to, don't blame it on me. I'm not going to prove marxism folly by arguing within a marxist thought construct. I'm going to have to approach it from the outside, with the most basic truths I can think of.

Can it be done? If so, why couldn't it be done with everything?
Because it's a rather complicated exercise. Try doing it with every good and service in the economy. That's the calculation problem.

I'm just looking at the strange, coincidental, opportunities a Marxist view of life hands to those who don't mind taking advantage of them.

Actually, it does nothing of the sort.

Remaining within the realm of materialist history, we could still argue that capitalists, as a class, deserve all they get... or even more.

But if we were to believe that Marx didn't just seek to rationalise violence in the name of some ill-defined gut-feeling of "that's unfair",

Marx actually talks very little about "fairness." There's debate about whether or not he had a real moral critique of capitalism at all. Recall that Marx believed in scientific socialism. He wanted to stay away from exactly what you refer to, "some ill-defined gut feeling of 'that's unfair.'" It is this concern, not a desire to justify expropriation, that makes materialist history so important to him: he wants to argue not that socialism is somehow "fairer" or "more just" but rather that it is inevitable and natural in the progression of human society.

then we're at another point: I've never really seen the difference between someone who says there is a class conscience (born out of whatever you want to construct out of people's life stories) and someone who says there is a national conscience. Marxism and nationalism are based on the same direction of philosophy and the same basic principle - namely the denial of the possibility of choice in determining one's character and existence. You said the thinking labourer was an important part of Marx' work, but what sort of thought are you talking about if it is bounded by just being able to lead to taking a side in a class struggle? If the answer is already given, then how is choice possible?

I'm not going to get into a debate about determinism--not now, anyway. We can keep that to the free will threads, next time one pops up. For now, it should suffice to say that you are confusing being "bound" to do something with simply having a tendency to do something. Generally speaking, people will seek economic security and welfare. Is this not a free choice, simply because most people will seek it most of the time?

This isn't the first time you've cut a discussion short with "this will get nowhere" lately.

No, it's not. I generally do it when the argument is either boring or frustrating enough that it takes an exertion of will to continue, and it also isn't productive enough that it looks at all worth it.

You usually can tell when your opponent is willing to have a serious argument and when he or she isn't. Sometimes I go on even when I know it won't do anything, either because it's fun or because it might keep someone else from accepting the other person's arguments, but I've been doing less of that... it gets tiring after a while.

My "ideological blinders" are a strawman for something else,

Sorry, but no, they're not.

I might wonder with somebody else as to the cause, but not with you; I know very well you're not stupid. And I see proof in this post, because you're actually rationally talking about the issue at hand, and the contrast between it and the others is stark.

But didn't we conclude that there are some very basic laws of economics that have more to do with material reality (like that you can't consume more than is being produced), and others that only operate because they're in the framework of a property-based exchange economy?

You're extending the analogy beyond its barriers, I think.

What I was getting at was this: both economics and materialist history, to give us meaningful laws, must speak of society in a way that downplays the individual. We talk about markets satisfying consumer demands and bringing about the efficient use of productive goods independent of the specific individuals who do this. Now, of course, particular individuals shape the particular way this plays out... and a given manager coming up with a particularly brilliant way to do either may make things go faster. It's not a law of physics, it doesn't play out exactly the same every time. But it allows us to make predictions, broadly.

The second component of materialist history, the idea that human beings are shaped by their environment, their economic environment especially, is hardly radical either; as creatures whose primary occupation is economic, who spend our lives being dominated by our economic roles, it is only natural that economic relations play a prominent role in how we think about and understand the world. (The more rational we are, the more we think in an open-minded way about things, the more we can escape this... and at no point is it a rule that must hold for everyone. But it applies broadly, to a greater or lesser degree.)

Anyways, the problem I have with historical materialism, more so than just as a way of looking at history, is the way in which people make it into something else. They take some parts of a historical situation, and ignore others, in order to build some process which they can fit into their model.

That's a good criticism, and a fairly accurate one. Marx was indeed guilty of this.

Does it therefore follow that class struggle is the nature of history? It doesn't, but if you selectively grab bits and pieces out of a history book, rewrite and reinterpret them, you might just make it look like it does.

It doesn't follow from that, no... and of course, Marx never said that it did.

But it's a very old observation, hardly unique to Marx, that fundamental ruptures in society tend to be along class lines. Different classes have different interests. People tend to put their interests over the interests of others. People's "class interest"--their economic interest--tends to be pretty prominent in their ranking of interests, because it plays such a prominent role in their lives.

Does that mean that every worker is going to vote for his or her class interest in an election? Hardly. Elections rarely strike that fundamentally; they don't change people's lives much, generally speaking.

But it does mean that if we were in a severe economic crisis, and conflicts broke out over who got what, we could expect which people would take which side--speaking very generally, and keeping in mind that exceptions are likely.

And, worse still, then you go ahead and construct some sort of prediction of the future - and that is where you really go ahead and assume that individuals are no longer relevant. Marx said capitalism will collapse, based on the pick & choose approach to evidence he employed. It didn't happen.

Yeah, but that's because his argument for repeated and worsening economic crises was a bad one, and because he didn't see the potential for a "compromise" option of regulated capitalism.

Nor did the revolutions occur that he predicted

No, but again, his argument for revolutions depended on the conditions getting so horrible for the workers that class interest and class struggle did become defining features of life, in a way that actually motivates people to revolt as a class.

He was wrong about that prediction, and therefore also about the prediction of revolution he derived from it.

As a scientific method, it's a complete and utter failure.

Predictions of the future are very tenuous... they are wrong all the time, even when the arguments are good.

And beyond that, and it's not even been attempted to convince me otherwise, it involves the denial of choice and the denial of the mind. In economic relations, there is a clear standard by which choices can be judged. There is no such standard in history, so there is no ranking of choices possible. Unlike in an economic choice, in history there is no framework, no set situation within which a decision is made.

Yes, there is: the framework of the material world and how humans behave on a social scale.

Apart from examining every single choice set in a static point in time made by every person in the history of the world (and then judging them according to the economic standard), the only way to make historical materialism work is to impose another standard (floating about in the ether, perhaps?).

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Either way it equates to a denial of choice since no alternatives are ever examined.

No, it equates to a prediction about what people will choose.

And, as if that weren't enough, they don't bother with people because that would just be too many, they group them together according to an arbitrary criterion

Not "arbitrary" at all.

and then act as though they make collective decisions.

They don't... but as usual with people in similar circumstances, they often make similar decisions and have similar understandings of how things work.

That's why demographics can be so important in elections.

But if you choose not to, don't blame it on me.

Who's blaming you? I chose, of my own accord, to ignore most of a post that for a number of reasons I thought responding to would be pointlessly frustrating.

I'm not going to prove marxism folly by arguing within a marxist thought construct.

I never asked you to.

Because it's a rather complicated exercise. Try doing it with every good and service in the economy. That's the calculation problem.It could be done, but proving that it could be done won't go as smoothly as I would like.

Predictions of the future are very tenuous... they are wrong all the time, even when the arguments are good.Indeed. Look at meteorology.

Marxism sucks. Really. I hate all forms oc Marxism and communism. They are cursed, non-working political ideas. I couldn't even think about living in a Marxist society.

Marxism sucks. Really. I hate all forms oc Marxism and communism. They are cursed, non-working political ideas.On what do you base this?

Marxism should be eradicated, plain and simple.

Marxism should be eradicated, plain and simple.

No comment


Neu Leonstein, i didnt know you were here! Sweet jesus this argument is intracite.

I have a question: are we reffering to Marxism as kind of like socialism, etc.? Because every major lefty in history interperets socialism and communism a little diffrently...although judging from the intellegence here, i doubt were going down that mistake.

The only problem Ihave with Marx, though, is that hes so contradictory. He truly is anything you want him to be

It could be done, but proving that it could be done won't go as smoothly as I would like.
Well, Europa Maxima showed me an article ages ago about the difference between Mises and Hayek on this issue, but it got lost in the depths of the web.

In short, Hayek reckoned it would be theoretically possible, it's just that the calculation effort is too huge and the constantly changing information would take too long to gather and transmit for it to work.

Mises had some reason worked out why even with unlimited calculation power it wouldn't be possible, but I can't remember what it was...

Neu Leonstein, i didnt know you were here!
I am indeed. Now, the only question left to answer is: Who are you? :p

All this pro-bourgeois propaganda in this thread is meaningless, eventually the internal contradictions of the capitalist economy will eventually destroy it and an economy based on communist interdependence will be inevitable.

All this pro-bourgeois propaganda in this thread is meaningless, eventually the internal contradictions of the capitalist economy will eventually destroy it and an economy based on communist interdependence will be inevitable.

To quote Murray Bookchin, a former Marxist, on this subject, "The idea that a man whose greatest theoretical contributions were made between 1840 and 1880 could "foresee" the entire dialectic of capitalism is, on the face of it, utterly preposterous. If we can still learn much from Marx's insights, we can learn even more from the unavoidable errors of a man who was limited by an era of material scarcity and a technology that barely involved the use of electric power. We can learn how different our own era is from that of all past history, how qualitatively new are the potentialities that confront us, how unique are the issues, analyses and praxis that stand before us if we are to make a revolution and not another historical abortion."

To quote Murray Bookchin, a former Marxist, on this subject, "The idea that a man whose greatest theoretical contributions were made between 1840 and 1880 could "foresee" the entire dialectic of capitalism is, on the face of it, utterly preposterous. If we can still learn much from Marx's insights, we can learn even more from the unavoidable errors of a man who was limited by an era of material scarcity and a technology that barely involved the use of electric power. We can learn how different our own era is from that of all past history, how qualitatively new are the potentialities that confront us, how unique are the issues, analyses and praxis that stand before us if we are to make a revolution and not another historical abortion."

All this pro-bourgeois propaganda

Well, Europa Maxima showed me an article ages ago about the difference between Mises and Hayek on this issue, but it got lost in the depths of the web.

In short, Hayek reckoned it would be theoretically possible, it's just that the calculation effort is too huge and the constantly changing information would take too long to gather and transmit for it to work.

Mises had some reason worked out why even with unlimited calculation power it wouldn't be possible, but I can't remember what it was...Methinks Mises was coming from a position before people could put a poll up on an internet forum calculating people's opinions.

All this pro-bourgeois propaganda

We still can't ignore Marxism's faults, AP. We have to be honest about them, and make a concerted effort to rectify them lest the next revolution give rise to the horrors of another Stalin, or fail utterly, paving the way for fascism.

your opinion on marxism?

marx did not invent the idea that a few controlled almost everything.

and almost any attempt to bring attention to such a fact of life
brings people to smote you with words such as : communist, socialist, or
marxist.


that's what i think of marxism

We still can't ignore Marxism's faults, AP. We have to be honest about them, and make a concerted effort to rectify them lest the next revolution give rise to the horrors of another Stalin, or fail utterly, paving the way for fascism.

After my extensive studies of the German Weimar Republic, the Golden Twenties, and the rise of National Socialism, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that the rise of fascism had everything to do with such a failure. The actions of revolutionaries in Germany between the Abdication of Wilhelm II, and the introduction of the Rentenmark, made possible the empowering the Freikorps with the blessing of the MSPD government, and forcing industry and the vested interests to pick the "lesser of two evils" when the NSDAP and the KPD were the two dominant parties in 1933, between whom they were forced to choose, and they choose Hitler.

The failed revolutionary attempts of the much vaunted Liebknecht and Luxemburg and their Spartakusbund lead us directly to the Third Reich. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, all Jews, Gays, Gypsies and Commies into the furnace.

The failed revolutionary attempts of the much vaunted Liebknecht and Luxemburg and their Spartakusbund lead us directly to the Third Reich. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, all Jews, Gays, Gypsies and Commies into the furnace.

don't forget Slavs & handicapped!!!

don't forget Slavs & handicapped!!!

Quite, quite.

I am fundamentally disturbed by how terrifying oversimplified the rise of Hitler and National Socialism has been portrayed in modern world. We see the German People's descent into madness as an isolated event, something that happened at random, almost as if they were infected with a virus. We say "It can't happen here." What's so terrifying, though, is that it can.

After my extensive studies of the German Weimar Republic, the Golden Twenties, and the rise of National Socialism, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that the rise of fascism had everything to do with such a failure. The actions of revolutionaries in Germany between the Abdication of Wilhelm II, and the introduction of the Rentenmark, made possible the empowering the Freikorps with the blessing of the MSPD government, and forcing industry and the vested interests to pick the "lesser of two evils" when the NSDAP and the KPD were the two dominant parties in 1933, between whom they were forced to choose, and they choose Hitler.

The failed revolutionary attempts of the much vaunted Liebknecht and Luxemburg and their Spartakusbund lead us directly to the Third Reich. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, all Jews, Gays, Gypsies and Commies into the furnace.

I agree wholeheartedly. The failure of the revolutionary leaders to decide on a course of action during the revolt, after calling out the workers of Berlin twice, set up a direct course of actions leading straight to the rise of the NSDAP.

Quite, quite.

I am fundamentally disturbed by how terrifying oversimplified the rise of Hitler and National Socialism has been portrayed in modern world. We see the German People's descent into madness as an isolated event, something that happened at random, almost as if they were infected with a virus. We say "It can't happen here." What's so terrifying, though, is that it can.

yeah, i'm not even sure i knew hitler was elected until after high school.
maybe....we had pretty decent history teachers so..., although we ended the year before we got to Vietnam. said, we already knew about that. i suspect he didn't want to get into it with any parents.

I read a book on a bunch of dictators in Africa and mass killings over the last 1/2 century. Author wrote rather than "uncivilized Africans", it just showed that Africans were human too, capable of the same stuff others have done before them.

It can happen anywhere, probably at any time.

2 biased quotes aren't enough to change my view. I believe marxism is probably the best goverment/economy i have heard of. Some people think that without a leader, we'll go crazy, but in Marxism, everyone is the leader. Instead of letting one people command millions of others, marxism is simply letting the people work freely. I can say if your surrounded by people with no leader and you do something like kill one of them, they're not just going to let you get away, especially when they know they are the new governing force.


not trying to change you mind, darlin' - just stating my opinion and my two fav quotes re. marxism

and all convoluted rhetoric aside, if marxism is ".... probably the best goverment/economy", how come it's not happening everywhere? and when has the word 'simply' ever had a single thing to do with marxism or any political system?

again, not trying to change anyone's mind, just asking questions ;)

National socialism is the one and only right alignment. Anyone representing or supporting any other view or alignment should be publicly executed.


:( <-- A non national socialist :mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5:

not trying to change you mind, darlin' - just stating my opinion and my two fav quotes re. marxism

and all convoluted rhetoric aside, if marxism is ".... probably the best goverment/economy", how come it's not happening everywhere? and when has the word 'simply' ever had a single thing to do with marxism or any political system?

again, not trying to change anyone's mind, just asking questions ;)For the same reason that most things don't happen: the powers that be don't want it to.

I have worked hard, wherever I go, to establish myself as the most anti-Marxist person there. Here is no exception: Marxism is inheriantly evil, and still a threat to every decent freedom-loving human being on the planet. A system which denies such basic human rights as ownership and privatness and (usually) advocates such atrocities as a dictatorship whereby a people is monitered and subdued by the government which is there to help and protect them is a terrible, evil system.

DEATH TO THE MARXIST MENACE!!! DEATH TO COMMUNISM!!! LONG LIVE RONALD REAGAN!!! LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY!!! LONG LIVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!


Personal Message to Karl Marx: :upyours:

For the same reason that most things don't happen: the powers that be don't want it to.

teh ebil consparicy!!!1!

For the same reason that most things don't happen: the powers that be don't want it to.

I think the power of the powers-that-be is vastly overrated.

I think the power of the powers-that-be is vastly overrated.

I dunno, Bush is still in office, and the government is successfully ignoring public opinion on nearly every issue. I think that they've got quite a bit of power if they can get away with all this tomfoolery.

I dunno, Bush is still in office, and the government is successfully ignoring public opinion on nearly every issue. I think that they've got quite a bit of power if they can get away with all this tomfoolery.

Regardless of that, though, Bush is gone in just over a year, Clinton or Obama is the President, and the GOP has zero, emphasis here, zero chance of taking either house.

It's rare that I openly support a party, but, short of Ron Paul receiving the Republican nomination, the Democrats need to take the White House in 2008, if for no other purpose than to begin to take steps to make amends to the rest of the world for the dumbfuckery of the Bush administration.

Bush remains in office because 2004 was close to 2001, and now because the Congressional Democrats are pragmatists. They know that an impeachment would galvanize the demoralized Republican base, jeopardizing the D's chances in 2008, and the national nightmare that would be resultant of such a proceeding would tear our country apart at the seams. They'd much rather let GWB stew in his own juices rather than actually do anything about it.

More than that, the powers-that-be are competing interests. They can't agree on jack-shit.

More than that, the powers-that-be are competing interests. They can't agree on jack-shit.They agree that they system should more or less be maintained as it is, even if they disagree on the details.

hey, I'm all for a conspiracy theory or four but I'm curious - for the sake of this argument, exactly who are the powers-that-be? Or is it one of those 'if I told you I'd have to kill you' type things?

*hmmm, should work on becoming one of the the powers-that-be. File away under "Plans for World Domination"*