Marxists?

Post Reply New Topic

You misunderstood my post, I think.

The influence of relations of production on socio-political organization and the concept of "class" are marxist concepts. Actually, after Marx, it seems completely obvious, but he was the one to say it. That is what I meant when I said talked of an analytical framework. No one would ever say that classes do not exist just because the USSR failed. Thinking in terms of "class struggles", while simplistic at times, is not "untrue" or "disproven", only dated. Very pertinent analyses can still be made using the full apparatus of marxist thought, it's just that no one does it anymore.

Labour theory of value does not enter into it. It can be dispensed with, even though it was important to Marx himself.

I think the way you define human nature is flawed......I mean for one its more the basic primitive instincts that would be closer to selfish and egotistical behavior, though in reality that is more about survival than being selfish or egotistical. This capitalistic society is not the equivalent of natures 'survival of the fittest' its system of hierarchy based on how much $ one has.

Disagree if you'd like but I'd argue what you describe as human nature is more our primitive animal instincts, and actual human nature would be the aspects that aren't a part of primitive animal instinct.

That's the thing. Socialist societies (state-capitalist societies at that) existing alongside capitalist ones created a dual power-style struggle for domination. Free-market capitalism came out on top over state-capitalism.

The closest we've seen to the dissolution of capitalism came after the Russian October Insurrection/Revolution, and even then the societies that were appearing from the ashes of dying monarchies(the Hungarian Soviet Republic, Bavarian Soviet Republic, etc.) were imperfect and something new (besides the Paris Commune, little to no attempts had been made to recreate society along communist lines)

Capitalism saved itself through the violent putting down of rebellion.



No, they are not. Capitalism makes some humans behave that way through learned behavior. From ancient times or even as late as in the deep south during the 1800's it was seen as "normal" to possess slaves if one was to be a cultured elite. The dissenters tended to be sidelined.

The same can be said about the "Marxist" dissenters under capitalism. Many see capitalism as normal. Those whom raise their voices against capitalism tend to be in the minority.

I don't see your argument as making a lot of internal sense.

You say we've not seen much involving the dissolution of capitalism, and then you follow that by saying that capitalism saved itself through the violent putting down of rebellion. In order to do that, we'd have to have significant rebellions to put down, but you deny that the closest thing we have to a rejection even counts.

Even further, every society has violently put down rebellions against its order, and every social order has cemented itself through threats. This is not a uniquely capitalist trait. Going further from that, the problem is that Marx obviously KNOWS that capitalists will violently put down rebellion, so rebels not being able to succeed still goes against the theory. The issue is that there is supposed to be an eventual state where the rebellions driven by the proletarian overtake the system. Do you have evidence of that state occurring? Otherwise, I have little reason not to stand by my statement. I mean, if we postpone the communist revolution too long, the economic structure may even evolve away from traditional capitalism on its own into a social structure wildly different.

I wasn't responding to anything you had written.

I also don't know what you are trying to argue to me. I mean, I have not stated "every single piece of Marxist analysis is wrong". I stated "I don't see much reason to think reconstructing Marxism is a good idea. There is a lot of baggage and there are too many good ideas to take from non-Marxist and anti-Marxist views to want to reconstruct Marxism." If we're rejecting large parts of Marx's analytical framework, then yeah, we probably will have to engage in a reconstruction, and it may really be better NOT to reconstruct, but rather to let the dead things lie, and strip the corpse of whatever is still useful.

You said "full apparatus". If the LTV is wrong, then it's not the full apparatus, as large segments of the economic views are rejected. Additionally, LOTS of systems can make very pertinent analysis, even the systems that explicitly contradict Marxism, so... I don't really see what you are getting at. Is Marxism MORE correct than competing ideas? Is Marxism more correct than an idea that takes the good Marxian ideas and dumps many of the rest? I mean, what exactly are you arguing? That Marxism is still a system to learn from?

We have had many rebellions to put down. In America, ever heard of The Soldiers’, Sailors’, Workers’ and Farmers’
Council of Buffalo? Probably not. It was modeled in a similar fashion after the Russian soviet following the end of WWI, and was no doubt inspired by it.

It was put down by shotgun-wielding police officers.

workers had appealed to the Socialist Party to help them and were said to be simply exercising their rights to freedom of speech. The mayor declared it a communist attempt to overthrow the local government and crushed it.



Your point is...? A [capitalist] state is doing something wrong if it has to shut down popular protests because it feels "threatened."

While any particular economic system is an artifact and not genetically determined, some systems are more compatible with our basic egotism and selfishness than others. He is the tall and skinny. A person is more likely to exert himself for the sake of his own children than the children of the guy next door. That is the way we are, or most of us are.

ruveyn

What basic egotism and selfishness? See I am disagreeing with your assessment that humans are all egotism and selfishness. Arguing that it's just 'human nature' seems more like something people do to justify terrible things people do. The egotism and selfishness is learned behavior not quite the same as survival instincts but it would be closer to that since a 'mine, mine, mine, me, me, me' attitude really does not take any critical thinking.

Also the fact that most people care more about those close to them, then other people in general is hardly proof that humans are egotistical and selfish in nature......that just shows when people are bonded they are more attached to each other then people who don't know each other. I am sure many people while they'd certainly exert themself for their own children before other peoples children hardly means they'd refuse to help another child if they were able.

When people feel squeezed and begin to panic it is every person for himself and his own. Very few people are heroic and self sacrificing (which is good, because neither is a survival characteristic). We are the surviving progeny of a species that survived because it looked out for the local tribe first and to hell with strangers. We are to some extent the product of our genetic makeup; and it is very difficult to overcome wired in modes of operation. It can be done, but it requires much effort. When people start to run scared they will most likely revert to form.

ruveyn

And how does any of this indicate human nature is egotistical and selfish.....Of course in a panic its a bit hard to think of anything other than the situation you are in and what to do. But that is not being egotistical or selfish that is being under heavy stress which triggers the fight or flight response and/or survival mode and causes one to act on instinct rather than logic, critical thinking or even emotion.

Yes we have a very stressful, fast paced society that's all about competition and being better than the next person....that in my opinion brings out the worst in people, and is part of what creates the selfish egotistical behavior you consider to be 'human nature.' If people didn't have it ingrained in their heads ever since grade school that they gotta fight to get to the top...or even to just not be eaten alive maybe they wouldn't be so self centered.

I'm a libertarian socialist; I believe genuine socialism is state free.

So, basically what you are saying is that "If the world wasn't zero-sum, and everyone could have enough, it would be a better world." I think most people would concede that, I'd even go so far as to say that in a society where supply is always greater than demand regardless of input, then communism makes perfect sense.

However, so long as society inevitably has limited resources and must decide how to distribute them (economics) the most efficient system must be selected in order for the limited resources to produce maximal "good". The system that can be proven to have done so is variations on capitalism. Communism/Marxism on the other hand, has only proven itself able to distribute resources in a less efficient manner, that causes more suffering and wastes more resources. Therefore, it loses the right to exist as an ideology.

Before there was currency, before there was society, there was capitalism.

There is scarcity, but there is still enough to go around in an equitable system.

No system that sees people chased away from rummaging through a supermarkets bins for still fresh food, or sleeping rough when good homes stand empty, can be called 'efficient'.

The higher up 'supply' you go, the less of a relation there is to input - inverse, even. A farmer works the land to grow and sell grain. He gets a pittance. Some suit borrows money to buy tonnes of grain - enough to manipulate the price (in any moral system this would be extortion) - and sells it for a profit that is much more than any farmer could ever hope to make.

No, there wasn't. There may have been barter and exchange in some places, but there wasn't capitalism.

Last edited by Hopper on 01 Sep 2012, 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@ TM

Marxism is only operable on a pan global scale without opposing ideologies in power (as per the theory of permanent revolution). Since that condition has never been met, the operability of Marxism has never been proven nor debunked.

Capitalism however has also failed to prove it is the best path forward for mankind, and it continues to fail that task dismally.

A: The thing you forget when you swap to your equitable system is that production drops. The whole reason why the world is able to produce what we are now is due to having large amounts of capital in few hands.

B: Learn why there is a commodities market before commenting on it.



It was the purest form of capitalism, free trade controlled by the subjective value theory.

Then Marxism can never exist, therefore it is a fallacy before implementation. That's without tearing the "Marxist economic theory" or like I like to call it "pipe dream" to bits. Funnily enough, humanity has seen more progress in terms of technology and standards of living since the rise of capitalism in the modern age, than in any prior age.