Marxism: JakeStarky V. Uncensored2008

[Uncensored2008]

The first issue to be resolved when discussing Marxism is, just what is Marxism anyway?

Let's start with a few things that it is not, Marxism is not the model of Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot.

Marxism is those ideas and philosophies postulated and promoted by Karl Marx. So just who was Karl Marx? Marx was born in the German state of Prussia in 1818. Though Marx is often called German, he was born prior to Bismark forming Germany.

I hear terms like "Marx was an idiot" or other such statements. No, Marx was not an idiot, and was in fact highly educated. Born to a wealthy Jewish family, Marx followed the path that children of wealth often do, hating their parents and showing teen rebellion through attacking the systems that provided them comfort and advantage. Marx rebelled against his wealth and privilege by developing models that would end wealth.

Marx based his theories on dialectic materialism. Essentially, Marx believed that a dialectic exists between classes. Marx was a product of 19th Century Europe, where the trappings of feudalism remained strong. Class was a strong feature in life, the aristocracy still enjoyed not only wealth, but status that was denied others. Marx saw this as a natural part of life, that various castes of society were destined to perpetual war. A cycle of poverty which led to rebellion, with successful rebels assuming the role of a new aristocracy, with the cycle repeating. Marx had little problem with this. But a new caste arose, the Bourgeoisie, the middle class, which Marx viewed as the destruction of the cycle. As long as an Aristocracy ran roughshod on the Proletarians, then the cycle of revolution would continue. But the middle class found comfort in the status quo, ending the cycle of rebellion. The merchants, small land owners with farms and ranches, craftsmen and guilds all threatened the cycle.

Marx speaks fondly of dialectic materialism in Capital, Vol. 1; but does not suggest the restoration of the cycle per se, instead he proposes that society can be reshaped without a dialectic by creating a classless society. To do so, he envisioned placing authoritarian rule in the hands of the lowest caste, the Proletarians. Marx dubbed this the "dictatorship of the Proletariat." Marx postulates that with control of society in the hands of the lowest elements in a socialist state, equality of outcome can be achieved. With equality of outcome, where each is afforded according to their need, and each contributes according to their ability, the need for the state will fade, currency and government will become unneeded and a state of pure community will develop, Communism.

So Jake, tell us what the flaws in Marx's dialectic materialism are?

Refrences:

Economic Manuscripts: Capital: Volume One
Manifesto of the Communist Party

 

[regent]

Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, waving hand. You always call on Jakey first.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, waving hand. You always call on Jakey first.

Yeah, this question is for Jake.

 

[Newby]

Good luck with that.

 

[Steelplate]

I know too.....I 'll wait though.

 

[Intense]

Marxism is the Parasite, Capitalism is the Host. What do I win?

 

[Steelplate]

OK, I've waited long enough. The fatal flaw with any absolute system is simple. You can't trust people. Be it Communism, Socialism, or yes....even Capitalism.

People are greedy and self centered. In Communism and to a lesser degree, Socialism, working for the common good is the rule of the land. A person doesn't "own" anything and is expected to give up his/her hard earned fruits of their labor to be re-distributed accordingly. This goes against man's basic need to be self driven and reap the rewards of his labor.

Capitalism has the same problem, but works in reverse. You have a Capitalist class,who control everything, and a labor class who works for the Capitalist class. The shining light of Capitalism is that the labor class, if lightning strikes, can become a member of the Capitalist class. However, greed and power come into play in Capitalism too. The Capitalist class doesn't truly want competition. They want to squash it as much as possible. Because competition and the raising up of more people into the Capitalist class reduces their power and influence....not to mention taking a share of their market.

So, they fight to keep the labor class down as much as possible. Shitty wages, high consumer costs, being against education, etc.... because all of those things reduce the labor class's chances of acquiring enough Capital to become part of the Capitalist class.

That's why I personally believe in a hybrid system like ours that promotes both individuality AND community.

 

[editec]

No government that does not ultimately serve the people lasts.

Doesn't much matter what economic system you call it, if it doesn't serve the people, sooner or later there's going to be a change in the system.

When governments go rogue, it is seldom a revolution from the bottom that take it down.

Rather the elite gain so much control the lower classes are paralized, but various cabals within that power elite begin turning upon themselves.

And that, folks, is the path we are currently on.

 

[Saigon]

Let's start with a few things that it is not, Marxism is not the model of Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot.

Thi is not true.

Marxism is a theory.

What Lenin, in particular, did was to put Marxism into practice. Of course, Marxism-Leninism incorporate ideas of Lenin's own making, some of which Marx may not have agreed with, but if we imagine Marxism in practice on a national scale, then what we imagine is going to look much like the USSR looked in perhaps 1930.

With Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot I agree with you, but separating Lenin out from the practice of Marxism is not easily done.

 

[regent]

The biggest flaw of Marx and Hegel's dialectical is that capitalism changed before it reached the next step. Marx believed the next step was inevitable but it didn't happen. Governments stepped in with regulations regarding working conditions, distribution of wealth, labor unions, all the things that conservatives hate yet makes capitalism palatable. With capitalism under control we reaped the many benefits of the capitalistic system but did not let it run amok. We still haven't found the prevention and cure for the business cycles but the most recent recession/depression may be a sign that we are starting to get some understanding of that problem. Perhaps the primary problem with capitalism is that it is managed by politicians, then too maybe the politicial battle is the magic keeper of the flame. Imagine, Marx and his system, from each....

 

[sakinago]

The biggest flaw of Marx and Hegel's dialectical is that capitalism changed before it reached the next step. Marx believed the next step was inevitable but it didn't happen. Governments stepped in with regulations regarding working conditions, distribution of wealth, labor unions, all the things that conservatives hate yet makes capitalism palatable. With capitalism under control we reaped the many benefits of the capitalistic system but did not let it run amok. We still haven't found the prevention and cure for the business cycles but the most recent recession/depression may be a sign that we are starting to get some understanding of that problem. Perhaps the primary problem with capitalism is that it is managed by politicians, then too maybe the politicial battle is the magic keeper of the flame. Imagine, Marx and his system, from each....

Excellent point regent. Marx was trying to predict the future...and he was wrong. In my opinion, the best system puts its society's classes on a handsome looking bell-curve. In that case I would say that Benthem's Utilitarian principles come into play, as opposed to a Kantian system that Marx would adhere to. Kantianism sounds good, but breaks down at many levels. A utilitarian practice will continue to look out for the majority...but there will always, always, always be a bell curve in classes no matter how good a utopian society looks on paper.

 

[Uncensored2008]

OK, I've waited long enough. The fatal flaw with any absolute system is simple. You can't trust people. Be it Communism, Socialism, or yes....even Capitalism.

What you say is certainly true.

So an effective socioeconomic system would be one that relied on mechanics rather than people?

People are greedy and self centered.

So then, an effective system would recognize this fact and build on these mechanisms?

In Communism and to a lesser degree, Socialism, working for the common good is the rule of the land. A person doesn't "own" anything and is expected to give up his/her hard earned fruits of their labor to be re-distributed accordingly. This goes against man's basic need to be self driven and reap the rewards of his labor.

True.

Marx spoke of "enlightened self interest" as a means of combating this. Marx believed that an educated populace could be made to see that communism served their own interests.

Capitalism has the same problem, but works in reverse. You have a Capitalist class,who control everything, and a labor class who works for the Capitalist class.

Capitalism precludes slavery. Capitalism is based on the concept of trade. All interaction between men is based on voluntary trade. Thus, you cannot have any one person or group who controls everything, by design. Class is not a feature of true capitalism and cannot exist in a Laissez Faire system. A laborer in capitalism is a free trader, who can negotiate and trade his labor for the best price someone is willing to pay. This means that no one can "control everything" by the very fact that they will have to cede some portion to buy labor. Under capitalism, people sell their labor to the highest bidder. In effect, each works for themselves. Their employer is their customer.

The shining light of Capitalism is that the labor class, if lightning strikes, can become a member of the Capitalist class.

You misunderstand and misuse terms. There is no such thing as a "capitalist class." Capitalism is the act of trade. All participants engage in trade. These trades should be free and uncoerced.

However, greed and power come into play in Capitalism too. The Capitalist class doesn't truly want competition. They want to squash it as much as possible. Because competition and the raising up of more people into the Capitalist class reduces their power and influence....not to mention taking a share of their market.

In a capitalist system the only way to stop competition is to use the government. "Too big to fail" or corrupt unions like the UAW who bribe politicians subvert free trade using the implied violence of the government. Without this, competition cannot be stopped.

So, they fight to keep the labor class down as much as possible. Shitty wages, high consumer costs, being against education, etc.... because all of those things reduce the labor class's chances of acquiring enough Capital to become part of the Capitalist class.

What you claim is of course complete nonsense. But from the perspective of Marx, should lead to a proletarian revolt.

So, why hasn't it?

That's why I personally believe in a hybrid system like ours that promotes both individuality AND community.

Again, why has there been no proletarian revolt?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thi is not true.

Marxism is a theory.

A theory postulated by Karl Marx.

What Lenin, in particular, did was to put Marxism into practice.

What Lenin did was create a dictatorship that was in the loosest terms based on Marx. In reality, he bore little resemblance to what Marx postulated.

Of course, Marxism-Leninism incorporate ideas of Lenin's own making, some of which Marx may not have agreed with, but if we imagine Marxism in practice on a national scale, then what we imagine is going to look much like the USSR looked in perhaps 1930.

I don't believe that I can agree.

First off, Marx postulated that socialism would spontaneously arise. In the Lenin's USSR there was no such occurrence. The revolution was similar to those in Western Europe, with a republican government seeking market reforms to bring Russia in line with the rest of Europe. The Communists stages a violent coup and forced an unwilling populace to comply through murder, terrorism and brutality. Secondly, Russia was not an industrialized nation, thus not ready for Marxian revolt. Thirdly, by 1930, the USSR was fully under the thumb of Josef Stalin, who abandoned Marxism in favor of Fascism.

With Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot I agree with you, but separating Lenin out from the practice of Marxism is not easily done.

Again, I don't agree. Lenin attempted true Marxism in St. Petersburg circa 1922-23, which was an utter disaster. (Currency outlawed, housing, food, and work determined by neighborhood soviets or peoples congress) Lenin abandoned Marxism and instituted the NEP as an admission that Marxism couldn't work in Russia.

 

[oldfart]

What Lenin, in particular, did was to put Marxism into practice. Of course, Marxism-Leninism incorporate ideas of Lenin's own making, some of which Marx may not have agreed with, but if we imagine Marxism in practice on a national scale, then what we imagine is going to look much like the USSR looked in perhaps 1930.

I have to disagree. Lenin died in January 1924. Everything after War Communism is going to be primarily Stalin.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'll just add the Karl Marx was a lazy brat that lacked the ability to complete his own work. Engels, Marx friend and confidant, finished writing most of Marx work. He also funded the lazy brat through most of his life.

The flaws are Marx ideas are numerous.

http://mises.org/th/chapter7.asp

Marx, of course, cannot help admitting that capital accumulation is ?one of the most indispensable conditions for the evolution of industrial production.?[6] Part of his most voluminous treatise, Das Kapital, provides a history-wholly distorted-of capital accumulation. But as soon as he comes to his doctrine of materialism, he forgets all he said about this subject. Then the tools and machines are created by spontaneous generation, as it were.

Furthermore it must be remembered that the utilization of machines presupposes social cooperation under the division of labor. No machine can be constructed and put into use under conditions in which there is no division of labor at all or only a rudimentary stage of it. Division of labor means social cooperation, i.e., social bonds between men, society. How then is it possible to explain the existence of society by tracing it back to the material productive forces which themselves can only appear in the frame of a previously existing social nexus? Marx could not comprehend this problem. He accused Proudhon, who had described the use of machines as a consequence of the division of labor, of ignorance of history. It is a distortion of fact, he shouted, to start with the division of labor and to deal with machines only later. For the machines are "a productive force," not a "social production relation," not an "economic category."[7}

 

[there4eyeM]

Since the addressed person has not answered, but many others have, This interjection will hopefully be accepted.

Marx had a few ideas. A major contribution of Marx, however, can be merely that his thinking confronted a major, total revision of looking at society, economics and wealth.

That is the order, if not the kind, of thinking needed today. The entire system of the world must be reviewed and revised.

Well, 'must', but only in the context of trying to keep the human race in existence.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Marx revision of the division of labor, capital accumulation and materialism alone was enough to cause irrepairable damage in world philosophy. The last thing we need is some other whack job coming along with some revisionist ideas in social structure and economics to become popular in any regard. It creates a false thought paradigm that destroys enlightenment and innovation and reverts an entire population into regressive stances on important subjects like history and economics.

What we need are less people meddling around with human action adn critical thinkers to fend off the econ-charlatans in favor of freedom and liberty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'll just add the Karl Marx was a lazy brat that lacked the ability to complete his own work. Engels, Marx friend and confidant, finished writing most of Marx work. He also funded the lazy brat through most of his life.

The flaws are Marx ideas are numerous.

Marx was one of the original "over indulged" children who attacked their parents for providing them too much comfort, too much education, and too easy of a life. We see a lot of these now, but Marx is a very early example.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Since the addressed person has not answered, but many others have, This interjection will hopefully be accepted.

Marx had a few ideas. A major contribution of Marx, however, can be merely that his thinking confronted a major, total revision of looking at society, economics and wealth.

That is the order, if not the kind, of thinking needed today. The entire system of the world must be reviewed and revised.

Well, 'must', but only in the context of trying to keep the human race in existence.

I generally agree with your take. Marx put into play some ideas that legitimately needed to be addressed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Uncensored:
First of all, Marxism like any other label or group, has its extreme fundamentalist factions who stick to the letter and won't budge or work with others, and its liberal followers that take the basic concepts and apply them where they work, but don't get so rigid they defeat their own goals.

I have run into both.

A history professor and his wife, who are highly respected by me personally as a believer in isonomy under the Constitution (and by his many students over the years including very traditional conservative capitalists who have written recommendations for his tenure) apply their Marxist principles in the peace and justice community to work OPENLY "with everyone" WITHIN the current system of capitalist and political competition that otherwise reinforces class separation. They just don't "abuse" that to the point of oppression exclusion and bullying, but work within an "inclusive" approach that lives up to the "classless" ideal, even WITHIN a class-structured system. So working toward classlessness does NOT mean you wipe out the social groupings organized into classes! This man is a professor on a college level, so of COURSE there classes of people on different levels, as part of social structure and order, and of course he recognizes and works within that given system. The "classlessness" is in "respecting people equally" and not "discriminating or abusing" people of different classes, but working with each one fairly so it does not become a problem of unfair treatment. The class or levels people choose to group or affiliate, still exist.

I also ran into some people with a communist group, where some could and some could not relate to the idea of using the given academic system of organizing students and workers by class to provide education and training to 'move people' toward independence and even managing their own cooperatives and school/work programs on a sustainable basis.

Some of these people were personally too closed on the idea of REJECTING CLASSES to even work with reality, on a practical level,
of how to get TO the point of "open inclusion of all people" by actually USING the current system of social and economic classes
as a tool for ORGANIZING the masses so society CAN get there.

I argued that not all people are trained to resolve conflicts and manage their own communities and economies yet, so that is why people are not equal. But this can be taught over time in an educational environment, combining the best ideals of "free enterprise" and Constitutional rights/freedoms of the INDIVIDUAL with the ideals of collective equality of all humanity that would fulfill the ideals and goals in communism, marxism, socialism and other such systems. You can have both; you can acknowledge and work with the given system of "classes" and yet still treat people with equal respect and justice, no matter what level of development or group affiliation they identify with.

We just have to organize resources by these affiliations, instead of losing energy resources and focus fighting over whose system needs to be imposed on whom and which need to be eradicated. Let people organize themselves and take responsibility for their own systems, then link up the different schools of thoughts, like separate self-governing city-states under a central union, and set up systems of representation, conflict resolution within each group, and mediation teams to handle issues between groups, organizing locally first then globally.

The first issue to be resolved when discussing Marxism is, just what is Marxism anyway?

Let's start with a few things that it is not, Marxism is not the model of Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao Tse Tung, or Pol Pot.

Marxism is those ideas and philosophies postulated and promoted by Karl Marx. So just who was Karl Marx? Marx was born in the German state of Prussia in 1818. Though Marx is often called German, he was born prior to Bismark forming Germany.

I hear terms like "Marx was an idiot" or other such statements. No, Marx was not an idiot, and was in fact highly educated. Born to a wealthy Jewish family, Marx followed the path that children of wealth often do, hating their parents and showing teen rebellion through attacking the systems that provided them comfort and advantage. Marx rebelled against his wealth and privilege by developing models that would end wealth.

Marx based his theories on dialectic materialism. Essentially, Marx believed that a dialectic exists between classes. Marx was a product of 19th Century Europe, where the trappings of feudalism remained strong. Class was a strong feature in life, the aristocracy still enjoyed not only wealth, but status that was denied others. Marx saw this as a natural part of life, that various castes of society were destined to perpetual war. A cycle of poverty which led to rebellion, with successful rebels assuming the role of a new aristocracy, with the cycle repeating. Marx had little problem with this. But a new caste arose, the Bourgeoisie, the middle class, which Marx viewed as the destruction of the cycle. As long as an Aristocracy ran roughshod on the Proletarians, then the cycle of revolution would continue. But the middle class found comfort in the status quo, ending the cycle of rebellion. The merchants, small land owners with farms and ranches, craftsmen and guilds all threatened the cycle.

Marx speaks fondly of dialectic materialism in Capital, Vol. 1; but does not suggest the restoration of the cycle per se, instead he proposes that society can be reshaped without a dialectic by creating a classless society. To do so, he envisioned placing authoritarian rule in the hands of the lowest caste, the Proletarians. Marx dubbed this the "dictatorship of the Proletariat." Marx postulates that with control of society in the hands of the lowest elements in a socialist state, equality of outcome can be achieved. With equality of outcome, where each is afforded according to their need, and each contributes according to their ability, the need for the state will fade, currency and government will become unneeded and a state of pure community will develop, Communism.

So Jake, tell us what the flaws in Marx's dialectic materialism are?

Refrences:

Economic Manuscripts: Capital: Volume One
Manifesto of the Communist Party