Marxism survives
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Marxism survives
Marx observed that history is a series of actions and reactions (dialectic), and along with the contemporary reaction to industrialization, militant philosophers would (starting in 1848) lead society to cast off its entire set of traditional moral principles, in favor of a new set of principles based on absolute equality of all citizens and state controls that favor the least fortunate members of society. Idealism in its purest form.
Although the Soviet Union's experiment was a failure, these ideals continue in the form of Communism's first cousin, Socialism. One can hear echos of Marx, and especially Engels, in speeches and writings of the American left: Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, et al. Who can argue with a movement that is progressing toward greater equality and freedom for people everywhere? Of course, the lessons of history, particularly Communism in China and the Soviet Union, have pointed out the obvious shortcomings that come with concentrating this kind of power in a central authority.
FWIW, the American Communist movement clearly pursued the purest form of Engel's ideals. They fought the corrupt police in defense of striking workers, but largely avoided assassinations and terrorism. Current American antipathy to Communism is tempered by the relatively benign American experience with it.
I suggest that modern "democratic socialism" encompasses, to varying degrees, all of the same agenda points laid out so eloquently in the Manifesto of 1848. What do you think? - CW
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Marxism survives
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Marxism survives
I can say that Marxism is certainly something we cannot ignore. Capitalism is the best we have at the moment, but we have to look to Marxism to understand the flaws of Capitalism. It seems today that cracks in Capitalism are showing more and more. No one has any idea what system will replace it, and Marxism is certainly not viable. That said Marxism does a damn good job of pointing out the flaws in Capitalism even if it failed to offer a better solution.
I don't think an injection of Socialism will resolve the problem, only prolong it. That said I do think moving more toward Socialism will help ease the transition into whatever it is someone comes up with to replace Capitalism.
The most worrying thing I see is the enforced polarity of politics. It is as if we cannot help classing people as black or white, left or right, rather than appreciating the diversity of opinions and views. Discussion without slander is the way forward (not something I see in much social media and when I do someone steps in to accuse people of being "PC" or "liberal", like it is a disgrace to be rational, reasonable and respectful of other peoples views.
We can tolerate the intolerant rather than become them. That is the first step toward progress I think.
For the US I don't hold much hope. US society is plagued by sensationalism and glitz and glamour. Your political "debates" clearly show a degradation and twisted propaganda in action. Went terms used don't represent any form of the actual event and no one protests it is deeply worrying to watch.
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Re: Marxism survives
- Marx and particularly Engels, came from privileged backgrounds, its true, but in their early adulthood they turned to the new workingmans associations and became political activists. By the time of the first proletarian revolts in 1848, Marx was only 30 yo, Engels 28. Their "position in society", or the means why which they made a living, had changed dramatically from their bourgeois origins. They were avowed revolutionaries against big property owners, and living in poverty off the generosity of (and in sympathy with) industrial workers. Today, the same effect on political leanings can be seen among the various groups in American Society. Blue collar workers tend to like Trump, while Yuppies and their college-student offspring are mostly Trump haters, even BernieBros.
- Marx's critique of Capitalism was fatally flawed and has been thoroughly discredited, but modern democratic socialism retains its intense regard for the oppressed and neglected members of society, a good thing. But in doing so, they ignore the economic lesson of the world's experiments with Communism, viz. if you excessively tax wealthy property owners, you stifle incentives to work; and if you drive the nation state into unsustainable debt, the whole economy collapses, witness current events in Venezuela and Cuba. - CW
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Marxism survives
By this I mean removing the passion and value of production form the worker is not good. Today we are seeing a very obvious transition from manual labour to creative labour. If people can be replaced by machines they will be, if the cost is right.
Other ideas like meritocracies also produces problems. All ideals fail in some way in practice and we shouldn't be fearful of looking at opposing ideas to find ways to combat these blemishes.
I am not well versed in Marxism at all so I would be very interested to learn more about your views to expand my understanding (if you don't mind?)
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Marxism survives
According to Marx, the only source of so-called surplus value is from the worker. If true, then that would make the most profitable enterprises the most labor-intensive, but that's not the case at all. The problem for all Marxists is that "value" is non-empirical, as it is supposedly something different from price. That makes Marxism non-empirical, and hardly scientific.
Marx's predictions have also not been borne out.
While there may be problems with capitalism, Marxism is not the answer. In fact, Hyman P. Minsky is far more relevant to the crash of 2007 than Marxism could ever be.
-
- Posts: 290
- Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm
Re: Marxism survives
Fan of Science wrote: Marxism is not the answer.
What is the answer? It seems all systems in place are hybrids of one form or another. I don't see anything working great - anywhere. What do we do - what do you propose?
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Re: Marxism survives
Woodart: Further to the above, the larger dynamic as work in todays global economic life is our forms of government. Democracies and their managed economies have a built=in tendency to gradually "rob the public treasury" and produce a socialist-style nanny state. After the eventual economic collapse, turmoil and tyranny result, evolving into oligarcy and eventually another bourgeois revolution; the long-term cycle was described in some detail by the Roman historian Polybius. In short, there is little we can collectively do, except try to manage our forms of government and economic intervention in ways that slow down creeping socialist as much as possible. I'm optimistic this new century will amount to a golden age of Capitalist prosperity and American "exceptionalism", a euphemism for globalism and Pax Americana. - CW
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: Marxism survives
The problem is that while the other stakeholders are increasingly pressured or even forced to rearrange their lives and interests to better serve the enterprise, their share of the wealth produced is squeezed further and further. Companies in effect compete with each other to see who can pay the least, and thus return the most surplus to the capital providers. This leads to polluted and devasted communities, poor pay, unsafe working conditions, and so on. Meanwhile the actual purpose of the company, to provide goods and services, also degrades. The company gets less competitive in regards to serving customers, because it's focusing on competing as a source of revenue instead.
This ultimately isn't sustainable, because it's promoting wealth extraction from otherwise healthy systems. We've kept it going by increasing the provision of private debt, and trying to shift private citizens to an asset rental rather than asset ownership model, but we're still moving towards a 'hollowed out' economy where wealth is increasingly concentrated in very hands, for reasons that look increasingly spurious.
The answer is to put more emphasis on the other stakeholders. Far from focusing on shareholder value, owners and capital providers should be last. It's only if an enterprise has successfully served its customers, its workers, its community, its government, its suppliers and so on, that there can truely be said to be any surplus left for shareholders and owners.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Marxism survives
Much of the inequality that has occurred where stock holders have made huge gains is due to the policies of central banks -- in other words, government intervention in the economy to favor one group over another. It may be prudent for people to start looking at the real economic facts as opposed to adopting simple-downed versions that prop up an ideology, but have nothing to do with the real world.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Marxism survives
Oh, dat's easy to explain.Fan of Science wrote:Marxism is nonsense on steroids. Just take a look at your claim that a person's position in society determines their outlook? OK, then, how does Marxism explain Marxism? Marx was not a member of the working class, so why was he allegedly identifying with the working class, which would mean his political outlook was not determined by his class position.
Some people rely on their rational intelligence. For them it trumps everything else.
Marx's position in society was a philosopher, a thinker, a visionary. He also had other positions. One is not restricted to one position in life.
So he could not escape the greatness of his own thoughts and conclusions. His position was more of a social philosopher than a nobleman or bourgoiseiriaraire. (Or however else that F... that F... that French word is spelled.)
-- Updated 2017 July 10th, 10:02 pm to add the following --
Hehe! You are soooo far off the target that you would miss the moon with a pellet gun in the same target-range scenario even if you were two feet away.Fan of Science wrote:Engels was a capitalist, and Marx invested in the stock market with money lent to him by Engels. If they can be sympathetic to the working class, given their positions in society, especially Engels, then that does contradict their theory.
According to Marx, the only source of so-called surplus value is from the worker. If true, then that would make the most profitable enterprises the most labor-intensive, but that's not the case at all. The problem for all Marxists is that "value" is non-empirical, as it is supposedly something different from price. That makes Marxism non-empirical, and hardly scientific.
Marx's predictions have also not been borne out.
While there may be problems with capitalism, Marxism is not the answer. In fact, Hyman P. Minsky is far more relevant to the crash of 2007 than Marxism could ever be.
I won't even bother correcting you. Your post shows complete collapse of knowledge about Marx's teachings. You misinterpret phrases, and draw conclusions from it that are completely wrong.
I am not dissing you. I am just saying that your opinions are based not on anything Marx has theorised.
- Razblo
- Posts: 157
- Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am
Re: Marxism survives
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: Marxism survives
Then why do we get price-fixing, settle lack of innovation, buy-outs of disruptive competitors and industry-standard practices and margins. The margin on retail banking, for example, is the same across the industry*. Why?Fan of Science wrote:Boy, that last description given above about how capitalism works is so full of holes, it's not even remotely accurate. Capitalists don't compete with each other to see who can pay workers the least, they compete with each other, period.
Given a chance, they don't compete with each other, because they're mostly highly skilled people who could put up a decent fight. Far easier to complete against the customer, against their own employees, or aganst state actors.
So why aren't wages rising?Fan of Science wrote:As part of that competition, there often is a bidding war to hire away better workers from the competition, which increases wages.
Can you give me an example of such a policy, so we can discuss in detail?Fan of Science wrote:Much of the inequality that has occurred where stock holders have made huge gains is due to the policies of central banks -- in other words, government intervention in the economy to favor one group over another.
Then the fact that all the points you raised are common to a particular right-wing ideology of market behaviour, that's just a coincidence, right?Fan of Science wrote:It may be prudent for people to start looking at the real economic facts as opposed to adopting simple-downed versions that prop up an ideology, but have nothing to do with the real world.
To declare an interest, I should point out that dealing with the 'real economic facts' in this area, is part of my job.
(*within a single nation/market)
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Marxism survives
Has the salaries of medical doctors been falling? Perhaps some have fallen with the advancement of Obamacare. How about computer scientists? Are they having it rough? We don't see a falling wage rate among higher skilled employees. So, rather than engage in some irrational leftist agenda against the so-called "evils of capitalism" you would be better off arguing against the evils of an uneducated work force.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Marxism survives
Your quote is somewhat reminiscent of "you can't step in the same river twice". Both quotes are nonsensical, wise-sounding, and full of air.Razblo wrote:As long as people are prepared to eat themselves there will be Marxism. Marxism thrives on self sabotage and the human condition of envy.
My version is more pragmatic. "You won't step in the same cow pie twice." This does not exclude the capacity or possibility of doing so; but it gives a high prophetic chance to will, to motivation.
"As long as people are prepared to eat themeselves..." is that a condition, or a co-incidental occurrance? Such as, "as long as the river flows, the airplanes will fly."
"Marxism thrives on self sabotage" -- of the self, or of societal constructs?
"Marxism thrives on the human condition of envy" -- this I don't understand. You mean, Marx only came up with his proletar revolution idea, because he was envious of the richer people, who could afford more luxury and happiness than himself? That makes sense. It sort of creates an analogy between Marx and "Das Kapital" to between Hitler und "Mein Kampf".
Failed idealisms that base unsustainable economic and political systems seem all to ooze out of Germany.
Yet efficiency, orderliness, discipline, and tall, leggy women with light, blonde hair seem also to emanate from Germany.
Ideology, philosophy, religion -- fail, fail, fail.
Pragmatism, practice, efficiency -- win, win, win.
The Germans are a funny bunch. They only turn dangerous when they all in unison subscribe to the ideology of one of their thinkers.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023