What is your understanding of socialism and/or communism?

brianthebard

I see people spouting all sort of nonsense about what socialism is on these boards. So I thought people should have a thread to explain what they believe socialism is, or what is wrong with the way others interpret it. For instance, people in the conservatives thread seem to think that state controlled economy is a key tenet of socialism/communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In communism the ultimate goal is the dissolution of the state, Marx clearly stated this. Anything which involves the state taking total control of an aspect of society, especially the economy, is not socialism. What do people think?

Akrasia

Socialism is the cooperative pooling of resources from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

It is not necessarily a state beurocracy or a vanguard party of the people, but that has been the dominant version of 'socialism' in the 20th century.

Socialism requires major reform to the way we view private property and who controls essential resources like land labour and capital.

My preferred version of socialism would be networks of community controlled cooperatives that administer resources locally based on long term strategic planning for a sustainable society and not just driven by short term market demands.

Ostrom

brianthebard wrote: »

I see people spouting all sort of nonsense about what socialism is on these boards. So I thought people should have a thread to explain what they believe socialism is, or what is wrong with the way others interpret it. For instance, people in the conservatives thread seem to think that state controlled economy is a key tenet of socialism/communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In communism the ultimate goal is the dissolution of the state, Marx clearly stated this. Anything which involves the state taking total control of an aspect of society, especially the economy, is not socialism. What do people think?

They are correct, but they dont place it in context. State control of resources was key for many forms of communism, as it was understood and interpreted by those who practiced it. It is difficult to overcome that kind of distortion without reading.

I dont think rooting a definition of 'communism' in Marx's works is even possible considering he never outlined what it might look like anywhere near as extensively as he analysed capitalism. Capital should be read as a method of presentation, and aside from the exhaustive empirical evidence within it, it remains exactly that. Abstraction to analysis to understanding of internal laws and tendencies. Socialism was a stage in transition which he clearly outlines as a possible outcome of crisis tendencies within capitalism (again, a distinction between Marxist pragmatism and utopianism - utopian Marxists had a clear idea of what this would look like because they theorised from an abstract concept, wheras Marx himself worked from evidence)

You wont get any benchmark specification of communism from any of Marx's works because he had no idea what it would look like, the point of capital was to give a sense of process and presentation to the surface forms of capitalism and to derive concepts, laws and tendencies unique to it. There are as many definitions of the following stages as there are forms of Marxism.

I agree with your point on careless conservatives, just not on your interpretation

brianthebard

I disagree, he clearly calls for a decentralised country, so there are at the very least indications of how government should be run. The eventual falling away of the state is a core theme, but harder to initiate, if at all possible.

Ostrom

brianthebard wrote: »

I disagree, he clearly calls for a decentralised country, so there are at the very least indications of how government should be run. The eventual falling away of the state is a core theme, but harder to initiate, if at all possible.

Absolutely, but I do think both sides are just as guilty of trying to pin down something solid. I would be alright with it if people like those you mentioned gave it some context, were specific on historical instances of state socialism or whatever, rather than pinning it on Marx's writings.

bus77

The only person I've known who described themselves as socialist was a girl I used to work with. She wasn't mad into it, she hadn't read Marx or anything, but she knew what she liked.

One day she was telling me what it was like, or at least her view of what it was like in her own country in the past.
She got a bit misty eyed and said the people lived mostly in the forest and would come out to work together in the fields.
I laughed, and said if the people were living in the forest they probably hunted and didn't see each other for long stenches of time.

That, in some small way probably sums up our differences. She really did just love the idea of everyone working together.

brianthebard

That's not even close to socialism, thats a fantasy of someone's. Imo you can't be a socialist until you've read capital (which excludes me).

_Whimsical_

bus77 wrote: »

The only person I've known who described themselves as socialist was a girl I used to work with.

Don't forget everyones favourite self decared socialist Mr Bertie Ahern.

Kama

My preferred version of socialism would be networks of community controlled cooperatives that administer resources locally

Curious what other people think, but I've always been a fan of the Diggers or True Levellers as proto-socialists, a non-Marxist genealogy.

Admittedly, we mainly know them from Winstanleys writings, but always liked 'em. Egalitarian anti-authoritarian agrarian communities, with shared property, and a developed view of class analysis.

Ofc they got smacked down pretty hard, which almost *proves* they were socialist, hehe...That and they have great songs:

They make the laws
To chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven
Or they damn us into hell
We will not worship
The God they serve
The God of greed who feeds the rich
While poor men starve

We work, we eat together
We need no swords
We will not bow to masters
Or pay rent to the lords
We are free men
Though we are poor
You Diggers all stand up for glory

More Here

Clarehobo

What is the definition of the political leanings of a head of state that doesn't receive payments under the table, in brown paper bags, in assistance to buy property, etc... and also doesn't lie in front of a tribunal that the people are paying for?

On another note, I'm a bit utopian when it comes to socialism. I like the whole idea of everyone being equal. I like the idea of people looking out for each other.

It's like in Cuba where they do run the majority of the coffee and sugar plantations as state enterprises as well as controlling everything as far the tourist industry. They use the money for the good of the people. They provide first class health care in a third world country.(HSE take note) They educate their children for free.(While our kids fight for places in overcrowded schools & they dumb down exams every year because of falling grades)
Sure the kids have to work on the coffee bean plantations for a few summers when they are teenagers to help contribute to their society, but look at everything they have that we haven't.

But the reason everything is so controlled by the state in Cuba is if they loosen the reigns too fast, the US are just waiting to turn it into another holiday destination where the locals are poor as anything & the tourists can indulge themselves in prostitution or whatever they like.

In an ideal world, socialism would flourish. But this world is far from ideal & the socialists & lefties need to keep looking over their shoulders because the big bad wolf that is the US keeps trying to trip them up.

BTW, we might be heading for yet another cold war. Check out what Chavez & the Russians are up to. Isn't it amazing how when the magical word recession comes up, an arms race is sparked between the US & someone;)
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1151209320080912?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Akrasia

efla wrote: »

I dont think rooting a definition of 'communism' in Marx's works is even possible considering he never outlined what it might look like anywhere near as extensively as he analysed capitalism.

Thats probably why most communists (state communists) refer to themselves in relation to Lennin or Trotsky rather than marx himself. Democratic centralism is a major theme of both of those flavours of socialism and their vision of a vanguard peoples party is central to their ideology (and its also their most fundamental flaw and imo the biggest reason why socialism has been so destructive in the 20th century)

Marx said he wanted the state to wither away, but when you marry a vanguard with centralism you get a leviathan that will exercise most of its energy desperately trying to protect its own position of control.

Libertarian socialists are the only true socialists in my opinion, true democracy, true vision of equality and far less of a risk that it would lapse into totalitarianism.

SkepticOne

Everyone seems to have their own concept of what these terms mean. During the Soviet era, "socialism" was what they called the system they had operating at the time and "communism" was supposedly what the system was going to transform into. The Soviet Union was an attempt to implement the Marxist idea of communism.

Akrasia

Kama wrote: »

Curious what other people think, but I've always been a fan of the Diggers or True Levellers as proto-socialists, a non-Marxist genealogy.

Admittedly, we mainly know them from Winstanleys writings, but always liked 'em. Egalitarian anti-authoritarian agrarian communities, with shared property, and a developed view of class analysis.

Ofc they got smacked down pretty hard, which almost *proves* they were socialist, hehe...That and they have great songs:

More Here

yeah they're a very interesting part of history.

It's amazing to think what would have happened if there had been a more successful opposition movement to the land enclosure acts that were sweeping britain at that time. The amount of energy that the aristocracy devoted to smashing these small bands of radicals demonstates how fearful they were that the idea might catch on and become popular (much like the enormous violence nations like the U.S. inflicted on small island communities as part of the 'cold war' in order to smash the threat of a good example should successful examples of socialism arise to inspire the poor people of the world)

SkepticOne

Akrasia wrote: »

Libertarian socialists are the only true socialists in my opinion, true democracy, true vision of equality and far less of a risk that it would lapse into totalitarianism.

Also less of a risk of getting started in the first place and less of a risk of it lasting any length of time.

brianthebard

SkepticOne wrote: »

Everyone seems to have their own concept of what these terms mean. During the Soviet era, "socialism" was what they called the system they had operating at the time and "communism" was supposedly what the system was going to transform into. The Soviet Union was an attempt to implement the Marxist idea of communism.

I saw an interview with a Chinese official a while ago where he said they were still progressing towards socialism, and from there communism.

Ostrom

brianthebard wrote: »

That's not even close to socialism, thats a fantasy of someone's. Imo you can't be a socialist until you've read capital (which excludes me).

Marx had some interesting things to say about Ireland in that respect towards the end of his life with regard to Ireland. Socialism features more as a stage in transition rather than a state of being in Capital, communism was the social form of the productive processes after transition (the empirical state of which was never concretely established), which was present and commented on by Marx in the West of Ireland throughout the 19th century.

The idea of that particular case study was that a change in mode of production didnt necesserily require the stage of socialism to be realised. To answer your question, that is my understanding of it, and how I treat it. Socialism as a process of dissolution/transition, communism as a mode of production with distinct laws and tendencies.

Belfast

brianthebard wrote: »

I see people spouting all sort of nonsense about what socialism is on these boards. So I thought people should have a thread to explain what they believe socialism is, or what is wrong with the way others interpret it. For instance, people in the conservatives thread seem to think that state controlled economy is a key tenet of socialism/communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. In communism the ultimate goal is the dissolution of the state, Marx clearly stated this. Anything which involves the state taking total control of an aspect of society, especially the economy, is not socialism. What do people think?

Just some quick thought on the subject.
It is many years since I read Karl Marks works.

Socialism and Communism are political principles.

How they are to be implemented in the real world is the problem.

State controlled economy is a in Socialism and Communism has been seen to fail to deliver and adequate standard of living for most people.

Both Socialism and Communism are like all political principles are means delivering a desired out come.

Both Socialism and Communism are seek to build utopian societies.(
Worker paradise)

Kim Philby said after Communism collapsed in Russia, that society had not reached sufficient moral development to enable a Communism to succeed.
He state that Communism is an interim solution on the path to Socialism

The question is are they a practical way of achieve their end goals or can any other political principles achieve these goals or are all attempts to achieve these utopian societies doom to failure.

The masses are always tired of be exploited, but does this mean they want socialist society or to become rich and exploit others themselves.

"The working class can kiss my arse I got the foreman's job at last"

if they fail to achieve goals they should be consigned to the dust bin of history.

Socialism
The ideal of socialism is "Each according to his needs and each according his ability"

How to achieve these goals in practice is the problem.

1. Do you have to use force to make people share or to stop them going back to a free market economy or should it be voluntary communities like the Amish?

2. How do you motivate people to work for the common good?
Most people what to provide for themselves and their family, but are not as interested in providing for the common good.

3.if the state is dissolved how do you stop power hungry people from creating new one ?

4. In the absence of the state who makes sure that society continues to be socialist?

Communism is biased on class warfare.

Karl Marx's said that in any society a ruling class will arise and exploit the masses, over time this leads to revolution by the masses.
In time the new ruling class come to exploit the masses lead to another revolution and this repeals it self endlessly.

The idea of Communism was to break this cycle.

The proletariat representing the exploited masses control society, thus the Dictatorship of the proletariat.

Trotsky this was what Communism was about.

He said under Stalin that what they got was the dictatorship of the Bureaucracy and the state.

Again the same problem arises as to how you motivate people to serve the common good.

The Dictatorship of the proletariat would imply to me a bottom up from of government rather than top down.

I assume this would be achieve by local worker councils or (soviets).
The call during the Russian revolution for all power to the Soviets meant power to the local worker councils not to the state.

A Primal Nut

Clarehobo wrote: »

In an ideal world, socialism would flourish. But this world is far from ideal & the socialists & lefties need to keep looking over their shoulders because the big bad wolf that is the US keeps trying to trip them up.

I don't agree with this and I always find it odd that socialist & lefties always blamed the US for their troubles. For example Korea after it was split. Capitalist countries such as South Korea done ok in spite of a threat from Russia, China and Eastern Europe, while Communist countries such as North Korea apparently couldn't survive because of the US and Western Europe. The world was split between capitalist and socialist. The socialist side suffered whereas the capitalist side was much better off. The socialists always blamed the capitalist side for their woes, whereas the capitalist side got on fine in spite of threats from the socialists.

The ideal world that you mention not only assumes that everywhere is socialist, but also that everyone is the same: intelligents, work ethic, political belief, morals, etc. If this was the case, like in ants and bees, then socialism might work. But humans are all different and are hence are much better suited to capitalism, prefarably with socialist restrictions such as in Ireland.

Kama

Kiki and Bubu are the only true Marxists!

Also very good on the New Economy


On a less serious note, I'm less interested in theoretical conceptions of strict Marxist teleological progression and more interested in actually-existing socialisms. Much of the success of the current market-capitalist syetm came from integrating much of the original Marxist demands, things like old age pensions, workers rights, and the sundry package of social goods which became part of the programs of most advanced capitalist states, which tends to be unreflected in a harsh capitalist/communist dichotomy. Grey is all theory, but green the tree of life, to quote Goethe.

Belfast

Marxists Internet Archive
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/index.htm

Common Dreams(Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community)
http://www.commondreams.org/

World Socialist Web Site
http://wsws.org/

brianthebard

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I don't agree with this and I always find it odd that socialist & lefties always blamed the US for their troubles. For example Korea after it was split. Capitalist countries such as South Korea done ok in spite of a threat from Russia, China and Eastern Europe, while Communist countries such as North Korea apparently couldn't survive because of the US and Western Europe. The world was split between capitalist and socialist. The socialist side suffered whereas the capitalist side was much better off. The socialists always blamed the capitalist side for their woes, whereas the capitalist side got on fine in spite of threats from the socialists.

Do you know what an Embargo is?

The ideal world that you mention not only assumes that everywhere is socialist, but also that everyone is the same: intelligents, work ethic, political belief, morals, etc. If this was the case, like in ants and bees, then socialism might work. But humans are all different and are hence are much better suited to capitalism, prefarably with socialist restrictions such as in Ireland.

This is the sort of bull people assume to be true about socialism. Where are you getting this crap? There will still be a need for businesses in a socialist economy, because people will still want clothes, food, etc, and it will have to be produced. The point of socialism is that the means of production are put in the hands of the workers not the managers.

SkepticOne

brianthebard wrote: »

The point of socialism is that the means of production are put in the hands of the workers not the managers.

We kind of have two views of socialism on this thread. The view that the means of production should be in the hands of the workers I would call the Marxist view of socialism. On the other hand you have Kama's idea that you have social programs within a a broadly capitalist society e.g. Sweden.

brianthebard

Yeah but sweden isn't socialist, at best they follow a social democrat line of government, and while its had very good results its more a via media than anything else. Detractors would probably just say its a large welfare state with high taxation.

SkepticOne

brianthebard wrote: »

Yeah but sweden isn't socialist, at best they follow a social democrat line of government, and while its had very good results its more a via media than anything else. Detractors would probably just say its a large welfare state with high taxation.

So socialism must involve removing the means of production from private ownership according to your view. Merely taxing private enterprise and redistributing is not socialism.

ChocolateSauce

Socialism is a very arbitrary term. In the US, it is synonomous with communism. In France it is the norm, but communism is not.

My understanding of socialism is that it supports poor people at the expense of society. Generally, it is anti-business and hostile to the wealthy. If someone calls themself a socialist, alarm bells go ringing in my head. I think of people who want a 70% tax on the rich, a €15 minimum wage and don't respect corperation's right to exist.

Ironically, I consider myself a socialist who is also a capitalist. I guess economically I'm extreme centre.

Kama

I guess economically I'm extreme centre.

Depends where you're sitting, Chocolate. I'm somewhat similar in inclination, very roughly market-socialist. I regard markets as neutral, but am not a fan of 'The Market' as ideology, aka neoliberal/elite capital concentration. The irony is free trade theory requires lots of sellers and buyers, yet the system is characterised by large oligopolies and extreme centralization of capital.

The welfare state in its different variants was a compromise formation of capitalism and socialism; by raising it I was trying to A: discuss things which exist rather than theoretical ideals B: think of socialism as a direction that policy can move, more of a continuum than a place, more of an adjective than a noun.

I wouldn't be so brave as to say a country isn't socialist; the US seems very socialist at the moment, they are socialising risk and losses! As the old saying goes, I'd like some of that for people who aren't obscenely wealthy. But down to brass tacks; rather than macro phrases about public ownership, examples...

is a credit union socialist? is shared land ownership socialist? indeed, is state ownership socialist? Forgive me, I *really* like concrete examples, I ate too much theory once and got sick!

(Oh, and btw I don't support corporations 'right to exist', bizarre phrase to use imo)

brianthebard

I would say a credit union is a co-operative, same for shared land. Co-ops are a system to the best of my knowledge occured before Socialism, and from which socialism probably grew. They share some common traits. State ownership-well it depends on what you believe the role of the state should be, but I think the word generally used is "statist".

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

I would say a credit union is a co-operative, same for shared land. Co-ops are a system to the best of my knowledge occured before Socialism, and from which socialism probably grew. They share some common traits. State ownership-well it depends on what you believe the role of the state should be, but I think the word generally used is "statist".

Yeah, co-ops are wholly voluntary, and if you don't contribute you don't benefit. Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor isn't intrinsically voluntary.

Specific examples? Well the free market is in the process of proving for a second time that it isn't fit to rule itself, and that we need socially agreed limits and curbs to it. Business, including big business, it beneficial to society. It is business and not government that have made the majority of the technological advances of the last 250 years. I absolutely think they should and must exist, but they must operate according to rules, and these rules must be imposed on them as it is not in their nature to do what is best for society, even if we benefit from them indirectly.

DadaKopf

The welfare state in its different variants was a compromise formation of capitalism and socialism; by raising it I was trying to A: discuss things which exist rather than theoretical ideals B: think of socialism as a direction that policy can move, more of a continuum than a place, more of an adjective than a noun.

The point about Marx's Capital, as the classical explication of Marxism, is that its analysis took place in actual existing social practices. The whole point of Marx's 'dialectical' method was to start from what existed and build connections between them into a theory; at the same time, Marx was aware that theory would change what existed, and this would therefor change theory, ad infinitum. It's important to say, then, that Marxism has changed hugely since those first theoretical contributions by Marx and Engels.

Take the 'dialectic', one of the key concepts in Marxism. At the beginning of his life, Marx saw this as a necessary mechanism of history that inexorably led towards communism - it was a closed dialectic, moving towards one conclusion. By the 1950, Theodor Adorno had sufficiently deconstructed the dialectic (in Marxist terms) to reveal that there is no such determinism in it, as Marx had suggested. At the same time, it emerges on reading Capital that Marx wasn't so deterministic afterall.

Now, there's another thing about Marxism - it is a particular tradition in analysing political economy. It describes capitalism as a social relation, but recognises that capitalism is a tendency rather than something specific; capitalism is a social relation but the theory required to explain it in any age has to be reinvented every few years (see my first paragraph there). But it has uncovered one thing: accumulation crisis. During periods of economic growth, due to the profit motive, some will begin to make supernormal profit which they pile into a new form of investment; as more and more people cop on to this, it creates a bubble that gradually leads toward its collapse. This tendency is built on the exploitation of workers - basically, the idea that to survive we must rent our bodies for money.

This 'credit crunch' is the latest version of this.

Akrasia

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

don't respect corperation's right to exist.

Damn right, corporations don't have rights, especially not to exist. They ought to be here by the good grace of the people they are supposed to serve. The worst move capitalism made was giving corporations 'rights' which have grown to superceed the rights of actual human beings.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

Damn right, corporations don't have rights, especially not to exist.

A corporation is a legal entity, and as such has intrinsic rights, such as the right to own property (same as a person).

I know the word "corporation" is generally used to describe the Microsofts and GEs of this world, but my company is also a corporation, and it owns stuff. If it didn't have a right to own that stuff, then anyone who wanted could just wander off with it - not exactly the basis of a sound business model.

The worst move capitalism made was giving corporations 'rights' which have grown to superceed the rights of actual human beings.

I actually don't disagree with this. I believe it was the fruit of a particularly partisan (I hesitate to say "corrupt") US Supreme Court in the early 20th century, which ruled that corporations are legally "people". The same court refused to recognise several monopolies as such, but used anti-trust law to break strikes.

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

The point of socialism is that the means of production are put in the hands of the workers not the managers.

Can't say I've read much on the subject but this is what I've always taken socialism to mean. Ironically, I think the capitalist model actually supports this ideology better though I'm not too sure exactly how socialists propose we put the means of production back in workers' hands.

Communism, on the other hand, I've always associated with centralised, command economies, at least in practise. Not too sure how the theory differs.

From the little I've read I would say literature on socialism and communism seems to be bound into political ideologies, whereas literature on capitalism doesn't (or does to a lesser extent).

DadaKopf wrote: »

Now, there's another thing about Marxism - it is a particular tradition in analysing political economy. It describes capitalism as a social relation, but recognises that capitalism is a tendency rather than something specific; capitalism is a social relation but the theory required to explain it in any age has to be reinvented every few years (see my first paragraph there).

Can you explain what is meant by "social relation" please?

brianthebard

Earthhorse wrote: »

Can't say I've read much on the subject but this is what I've always taken socialism to mean. Ironically, I think the capitalist model actually supports this ideology better though I'm not too sure exactly how socialists propose we put the means of production back in workers' hands.

Can you explain how? Capitalist systems often talk about choice and freedom as benefits of their system, where workers are free to move up the social ladder. Is that what you mean?

Communism, on the other hand, I've always associated with centralised, command economies, at least in practise. Not too sure how the theory differs.

From the little I've read I would say literature on socialism and communism seems to be bound into political ideologies, whereas literature on capitalism doesn't (or does to a lesser extent).

Communism is about decentralising, giving power to communities. The states you are referring to would generally be called "state socialism" by socialists. Are they right or wrong? That's up to you I guess, but when you get to the level of centralisation seen in the USSR or PRC you are no longer looking at a system which could even turn towards Communism imo. (although Chinese politicians would say that they are not even Socialist yet).

I think the ideology of Capitalism is out there, but it doesn't have one particular text from which all else emanates.

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

Can you explain how? Capitalist systems often talk about choice and freedom as benefits of their system, where workers are free to move up the social ladder. Is that what you mean?

Essentially, yes. If we go back to first principles there are four means of production; labour, land, capital and, uhm, strawberries. Okay, it's not strawberries. I forget the fourth one.

Capitalism basically puts as few restrictions as possible on how we move these about and who can own them. So the means of production are in the hands of the workers (including managers, who are also workers). This is especially true in a knowledge based economy where you are the means of production. How Orwellian.

But...I would not use the term social ladder.

Would be very interested in hearing how socialists see their model working and what they mean by having the means of production in the hands of the workers.

brianthebard wrote: »

Communism is about decentralising, giving power to communities.

Again, I would argue that this is best supported by captialism. Essentially, the organistions existing in a capitalist system are communities; whether they be clubs, charities, companies or what have you. These communities are, again, self organising and probably not really recognised as communities by the communist model (I'm guessing).

brianthebard wrote: »

The states you are referring to would generally be called "state socialism" by socialists. Are they right or wrong? That's up to you I guess, but when you get to the level of centralisation seen in the USSR or PRC you are no longer looking at a system which could even turn towards Communism imo. (although Chinese politicians would say that they are not even Socialist yet).

Nothing fundamentally right or wrong about them in theory but in practise they've produced some terrible results. Centralised power is a bad idea, in my opinion, as it tends to attract not just the corruptable but the downright sadistic.

brianthebard wrote: »

I think the ideology of Capitalism is out there, but it doesn't have one particular text from which all else emanates.

I would argue that capitalism isn't really an ideology at all; it's an economic model. Communism and socialism on the other hand seem to make more ideological claims. This is actually a drawback with them as the noble goals of both, interfere with describing how things work in a frank manner that produces discussion of what methods best result in those goals.

sink

Earthhorse wrote: »

Essentially, yes. If we go back to first principles there are four means of production; labour, land, capital and, uhm, strawberries. Okay, it's not strawberries. I forget the fourth one.

Entrepreneurship?

DadaKopf

Again, I would argue that this is best supported by captialism. Essentially, the organistions existing in a capitalist system are communities; whether they be clubs, charities, companies or what have you. These communities are, again, self organising and probably not really recognised as communities by the communist model (I'm guessing).

So you're saying 'the market' is the best way to optimally distribute resources in a way that ensures equality. But equality of what? And for whom does this arrangement really benefit? Rather than using the 'neutral' term communities, Marxism segments society into 'classes' - it's here you see the market being very un-neutral: capitalism, whereby capitalists own the means of production and labourers rent their bodies for income, is a social relation whose tendency is towards alienation and exploitation. Always, always ask: qui bono? (who benefits?).

A latter day example is the financial market crisis: hailed as the most advanced, self-regulating, efficient, wealth-producing, wealth-redistributing marketplace and look what's happened. Not only was it not good at distributing resources, it created a clobal economic crisis (as expected by left-wing analyists) affecting millions of people, reinstating the inequalities the capitalist tubthumpers said were a thing of the past. But Marxian analysis knows better (IMHO).

It must be said, the world now is a different place; things aren't so simple, and Marxist analysts have moved with the times.

Kama

Earthhorse wrote:

From the little I've read I would say literature on socialism and communism seems to be bound into political ideologies, whereas literature on capitalism doesn't (or does to a lesser extent).

Seen the Usual Suspects? 'The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist'; the greatest trick liberal capitalism (imo) has ever pulled is convincing people it's non-ideological. That there's less attention to and awareness of ideology does not equal that there is less of it. Again, my epeenion...

DadaKopf wrote:

Always, always ask: qui bono? (who benefits?).

But...but...that's Conspiracy Theory!

brianthebard

Earthhorse wrote: »

Essentially, yes. If we go back to first principles there are four means of production; labour, land, capital and, uhm, strawberries. Okay, it's not strawberries. I forget the fourth one.

Capitalism basically puts as few restrictions as possible on how we move these about and who can own them. So the means of production are in the hands of the workers (including managers, who are also workers). This is especially true in a knowledge based economy where you are the means of production. How Orwellian.

But...I would not use the term social ladder.

Would be very interested in hearing how socialists see their model working and what they mean by having the means of production in the hands of the workers.



Again, I would argue that this is best supported by captialism. Essentially, the organistions existing in a capitalist system are communities; whether they be clubs, charities, companies or what have you. These communities are, again, self organising and probably not really recognised as communities by the communist model (I'm guessing).



Nothing fundamentally right or wrong about them in theory but in practise they've produced some terrible results. Centralised power is a bad idea, in my opinion, as it tends to attract not just the corruptable but the downright sadistic.



I would argue that capitalism isn't really an ideology at all; it's an economic model. Communism and socialism on the other hand seem to make more ideological claims. This is actually a drawback with them as the noble goals of both, interfere with describing how things work in a frank manner that produces discussion of what methods best result in those goals.

I pretty much disagree on all counts (except that centralisation is bad). What you are talking about is free trade/laissez faire society, in which the market is supposed to govern itself and the hand of god is supposed to play a key part in equality. (Check out Adam Smith for more info) This is not a fair and equitable system. Moreover it was created with the middle class industrialists in mind, not the working class. The equality it is supposed to supply is between aristocracy and middle classes, the working classes were and still are disenfranchised to a large degree. Capitalism obviously has an ideology, otherwise how could it set itself in opposition to Socialism? Everything you have outlined is capitalism's ideology.

Edit: for capitalist ideology, look at Adam Smith, the anti corn law lobby, the economist, and various other nineteenth century philosophers/radicals.

Kama

I would argue that capitalism isn't really an ideology at all; it's an economic model.

Why would one think economics couldn't contain or embody an ideology? Economic theories are socially constructed, in particular times and places, , have the interests of some served more than others, and contain many philosophical or ideological presuppositions. Dada's question is pertinent here: who benefits? Neoliberal economics I would not consider a 'disinterested science', it serves certain interests *far* more than others. Economic models in their effect can be far from neutral.

Nothing fundamentally right or wrong about them in theory but in practise they've produced some terrible results.

Socialised states have also produced some impressive outcome figures in terms of quality of life, mortality, and so on. Iraq pre-sanctions won WHO awards for its healthcare (which existed pre-Saddam, lest someone yell). Market-state Yugoslavia had free medical care, 90-plus percent literacy, and 6% growth. Kerala in India had Communist local government, and India-leading figures for women's participation, literacy etc, high human development with a relatively low economic base. Examples abound. In outcomes, especially for the less privileged, a degree of socialization seems efficacious.

You can also make a fair argument that for a 'free market' to work in any way well, and provide actual meritocratic opportunity, a measure of socialist redistribution and investment in the people (creches, healthcare, education, etc) is not just healthy but necessary. Otherwise accumulation makes a joke of the meritocratic ideology of opportunity, on which liberal capitalism is dependent for legitimacy.

Capitalism basically puts as few restrictions as possible on how we move these about and who can own them.

In theory yes, in practice no. For an example, take the Zapatistas in Mexico...a main irritant leading to the uprising was the removal of peasant group-ownership land rights from the Mexican constitution in line with NAFTA, which is an example of the ideological bias in liberal-capitalism toward individuals.

Also, the critique of corporate human rights in reference to 'free ownership' is relevant here, imo. And has often been noted, laissez-fair 'deregulation' required a colossal amount of rules and regulation, which due to greater 'voice' by corporate bodies such a 'lack of restrictions' on ownenership can result in a 'grab' by dominant players; a lack of restriction on a regulatory level in a zero-sum situation can lead to significant 'restrictions' on a lived level.

Earthhorse

DadaKopf wrote: »

So you're saying 'the market' is the best way to optimally distribute resources in a way that ensures equality. But equality of what?

No, not quite. I never said anything about equality, just about community. You can organise the community whatever way you want. If you want everyone to have an equal say you can structure your community that way. If you want one person to have all the power you can do it that way too.

Self-organising communities, be it family, friends or franchises, tend to organise themselves into hierarchies where there are people at the top and people at the bottom. Leaders and followers, winners and losers, if you will. Rather than asking whether we can create a world where everyone is equal I think it's more fruitful to ask whether we can create one where everyone is a winner regardless of whether some win more than others.

Personally, I think the capitalist model nearly produces this result and could produce it with refining; hard to judge the marxist model, I'm not familiar with any real world examples.

DadaKopf wrote: »

And for whom does this arrangement really benefit? Rather than using the 'neutral' term communities, Marxism segments society into 'classes' - it's here you see the market being very un-neutral: capitalism, whereby capitalists own the means of production and labourers rent their bodies for income, is a social relation whose tendency is towards alienation and exploitation.

Terms such as class come loaded with connotation. It doesn't matter to me how class is split; that is, I'm not concerned with whether anyone has too much provided everybody has enough. Even the term "labourers rent their bodies for income" implies something sinister in play. Personally, I disagree that capitalism tends towards alienation and exploitation though there is no doubt this occurs under capitalism.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Always, always ask: qui bono? (who benefits?).

Pffft. More U2 bashing. Where are the mods!

DadaKopf wrote: »

A latter day example is the financial market crisis: hailed as the most advanced, self-regulating, efficient, wealth-producing, wealth-redistributing marketplace and look what's happened. Not only was it not good at distributing resources, it created a clobal economic crisis (as expected by left-wing analyists) affecting millions of people, reinstating the inequalities the capitalist tubthumpers said were a thing of the past. But Marxian analysis knows better (IMHO).

Any analyst worth his salt would have said the sub-prime market wouldn't hold in the long run. The problem here is unfettered markets, which I wouldn't be for, rather than markets themselves.

brianthebard wrote: »

What you are talking about is free trade/laissez faire society, in which the market is supposed to govern itself and the hand of god is supposed to play a key part in equality. (Check out Adam Smith for more info)

Smith talked about the invisible hand which is taken today to mean the self-correcting market mechanisms guided by individual self-interest. Nothing to do with God, even if that might have been Smith's original intent. Also, although I am talking about the market system I don't believe in an unregulated one.

brianthebard wrote: »

This is not a fair and equitable system. Moreover it was created with the middle class industrialists in mind, not the working class. The equality it is supposed to supply is between aristocracy and middle classes, the working classes were and still are disenfranchised to a large degree.

It may not be perfectly fair and equitable but it is pretty fair and equitable if you ask me. It doesn't matter, to me at least, with whom it was created in mind; if it provides the best distribution of wealth to create a better standard of living for the most people, that is all that matters. The working classes may very well be disenfranchised but that is a problem with implementation of the model rather than the model itself.

Would be interested in knowing how the working class fair under a Marxist model. Is there any existing Marxist model in the real world?

brianthebard wrote: »

Capitalism obviously has an ideology, otherwise how could it set itself in opposition to Socialism? Everything you have outlined is capitalism's ideology.

Capitalism doesn't have an ideology as I see it; that is like saying biology has an ideology. Capitalism is merely a model of how people interact with each other economically. Capitalists sometimes set it in opposition to socialism, which doesn't mean they should.

brianthebard wrote: »

Edit: for capitalist ideology, look at Adam Smith, the anti corn law lobby, the economist, and various other nineteenth century philosophers/radicals.

Those are the roots of capitalist thinking but not necessarily reflective of where we stand today. Capitalists seem to have shed themselves of these ideas whereas socialists seem to hold on to their ideological roots. Totally open to correction on this, just my experience on reading around the subjects.

Kama wrote: »

Seen the Usual Suspects? 'The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist'; the greatest trick liberal capitalism (imo) has ever pulled is convincing people it's non-ideological. That there's less attention to and awareness of ideology does not equal that there is less of it. Again, my epeenion...

No doubt there are people out there that view it as an ideology and practise it as a way of life. But most are happy to see it merely as a model of interaction; nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, I think my presence on this thread is dragging it off topic into a debate which has probably been done to death round these parts and this was not my intention. Would be interested in hearing more detail about how the Marxist model is supposed to work.

sink wrote: »

Entrepreneurship?

That's the one. They should have gone with strawberries though. Would have won the popular vote.

DadaKopf

No, not quite. I never said anything about equality, just about community. You can organise the community whatever way you want. If you want everyone to have an equal say you can structure your community that way. If you want one person to have all the power you can do it that way too.

Self-organising communities, be it family, friends or franchises, tend to organise themselves into hierarchies where there are people at the top and people at the bottom. Leaders and followers, winners and losers, if you will. Rather than asking whether we can create a world where everyone is equal I think it's more fruitful to ask whether we can create one where everyone is a winner regardless of whether some win more than others.

Personally, I think the capitalist model nearly produces this result and could produce it with refining; hard to judge the marxist model, I'm not familiar with any real world examples.

I think you're confusing 'trade' with 'capitalism'. In pre-capitalist societies there was trade, trade is an activity in which people exchange goods for other goods. Capitalism is a 'social relation' different to feudalism, for example, which is what capitalism replaced in Europe. This social relation has a particular form: a minority owns the property required to generate certain goods, which are traded, and the majority works for the minority, transferring a portion of the minority's profit in the form of money/benefits to those workers as they exchange their bodies/minds for it.

In theory, this sounds like a fair deal, except when applied to the real world (which is what left-wing analysts do, rather than classical economists who build unrealistic 'models') reveals that the flow of power is generally in favour of the minority than the majority.

Terms such as class come loaded with connotation. It doesn't matter to me how class is split; that is, I'm not concerned with whether anyone has too much provided everybody has enough. Even the term "labourers rent their bodies for income" implies something sinister in play. Personally, I disagree that capitalism tends towards alienation and exploitation though there is no doubt this occurs under capitalism.

Now, if you want to define this in terms of traditional class divisions, fine. This is an interesting (if incomplete) attempt to redefine class in contemporary Ireland. You could define things in terms of 'social stratification' (e.g. Weber's typology), or much more innovative and influential approaches like 'field theory' of Pierre Bordieu, or even those use by comparative politics analysts where people are simply defined by profession. All of these, though, underly the fact that the power relations among each of these groups are interpenetrated with economic power, and that one of the key structures influencing our social hierarchies is the political economy. This even applies to the socio-spatial stratification of urban spaces.

Now, you accuse me of making loaded statements. Yes, it was loaded. What's the problem, it's what I believe to be the case and I see it as a hypocrisy to conceal this reality in pseudo-objective language.

brianthebard

Earthhorse wrote: »

Smith talked about the invisible hand which is taken today to mean the self-correcting market mechanisms guided by individual self-interest. Nothing to do with God, even if that might have been Smith's original intent. Also, although I am talking about the market system I don't believe in an unregulated one.



It may not be perfectly fair and equitable but it is pretty fair and equitable if you ask me. It doesn't matter, to me at least, with whom it was created in mind; if it provides the best distribution of wealth to create a better standard of living for the most people, that is all that matters. The working classes may very well be disenfranchised but that is a problem with implementation of the model rather than the model itself.

If it is fair and equitable, please explain how. I don’t believe disenfranchisement is just a problem with implementation, it is fundamental to the model that working class interests be seen as base, static, and undemanding, and any demands that they may have must be suppressed by the market if industry is to thrive.

Would be interested in knowing how the working class fair under a Marxist model. Is there any existing Marxist model in the real world?

The more I learn about Marx the less I believe his model is to be enacted directly on the world, it has to be adapted to the times, the place, it has to be updated every few years as society moves along. Marxism today is by necessity very different to his day.

Capitalism doesn't have an ideology as I see it; that is like saying biology has an ideology. Capitalism is merely a model of how people interact with each other economically. Capitalists sometimes set it in opposition to socialism, which doesn't mean they should.
Those are the roots of capitalist thinking but not necessarily reflective of where we stand today. Capitalists seem to have shed themselves of these ideas whereas socialists seem to hold on to their ideological roots. Totally open to correction on this, just my experience on reading around the subjects.

All you have to do is open the latest copy of The Economist or the Financial times to see Capitalist ideology today in action. I have no idea what capitalists are supposed to have shed, free market ideology is as widespread as ever, perhaps more so, in business today. Please outline what ideas capitalism had that have been shed, and what ideas socialists have that need to be dropped.

DadaKopf

brianthebard wrote:

The more I learn about Marx the less I believe his model is to be enacted directly on the world, it has to be adapted to the times, the place, it has to be updated every few years as society moves along. Marxism today is by necessity very different to his day.

Precisely. As I said earlier, Marx realised that the real world informs theory, and theory informs the real world in an infinite loop - the 'dialectic'. That goes as much for capitalism as anything that some would replace it with. Marx himself wasn't prescriptive about the precise form of a proletarian democracy, it was his accolytes in Russia, Ukraine etc. who provided that form. I'd argue that didn't work, but as with any revolutionary change, it was as much product of historical baggage as a product of passionate utopianism. So everywhere you have the intrinsic tendency of capitalism, as argued by leftists, but very different ways of implementing leftist reforms.

Kama

I'm quite interested in an analysis of the Strawberry factor of poduction, could be quite fertile. Are strawberries fungible with mushrooms? :D:D

DadaKopf wrote:

I think you're confusing 'trade' with 'capitalism'.

Key point here...capitalism as a social formation and ideology is not identical with trade; trade pre-existed capitalism, and is not inconsistent with socialism. You can have states which are highly socialised competing in capitalist world-markets (Scandinavia is a general model), or socialist businesses trading (Spanish anarchist industrial cooperatives spring to mind), and so on.

Capitalism doesn't have an ideology as I see it; that is like saying biology has an ideology.

If social arrangements come to be seen as 'natural' and 'inevitable', some would call this ideology. Whether biology has ideology in it is off-topic, there's actually some very interesting work on that by people like Donna Haraway, but a principal initial difference is between a interested and involved social science, and a disinterested and objective natural science; it's famously difficult to be 'objective' in social matters or political economy. Imo economics is often highly ideological, but thats probably a debate for a different thread. As Dada said, the results in a real-world of economic models can have definite social-political consequences.

It may not be perfectly fair and equitable but it is pretty fair and equitable if you ask me.

A lot of this depends on what one's definition of 'fair' is; socialist conceptions of fairness have tended to emphasise equality of outcomes, whereas liberal-capitalist conceptions have tended to focus on equality of opportunity this is where the meritocratic ideology in capitalism gains its legitimacy, but the dynamics of capitalist accumulation weigh against the meritocratic ideal. I wouldn't agree that it is equitable btw...

if it provides the best distribution of wealth to create a better standard of living for the most people, that is all that matters.

Agree with this, the question for me is how, on an evidence-based approach, that this can be accomplished. The distribution of wealth under neoliberal-corporate capitalism appears been closer to the robber-baron period than, say, the Keynesian post-war consensus; extreme concentration of wealth in capital markets, stagnant or declining incomes for the middle and working classes.


Apropos of self-organising communities and social means of production, there's a line of techno-booster thought which looks at think like fabbers meeting open source design principles and p2p sharing as allowing decentralised production on a local basis. You could have group ownership of the means (as it's a little capital-intensive), open IP for designs, but private ownership of produce, for instance.

DadaKopf

Alfred Kahn, an economic adviser to President Carter, was told by the White House to avoid using the word "recession" and so substituted "banana". In 1978 he declared that: "We're now in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years." The words "credit crunch" first entered the economic lexicon in 1967; this month they made it into the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, along with "sub-prime".

url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/30/economicgrowth.creditcrunch]Source[/url

Kama

'credit crunch sounds like a cheerful breakfast cereal'

ahahaha!

DadaKopf

Kama wrote: »

'credit crunch sounds like a cheerful breakfast cereal'

ahahaha!

George Bush = Cap'n Crunch?

Kama

Nah, Cap'n Crunch reappropriated the means of communication for the phreaking masses, that's a highly underserved slur on a revolutionary figure there Dada...

Earthhorse

Kama wrote: »

Why would one think economics couldn't contain or embody an ideology?

It's not that I don't think it can so much as I don't think it needs to or should. Just because certain interested bodies are for the model does not mean we need follow suit (I mean purely in terms of viewing it as an ideology).

Kama wrote: »

Socialised states have also produced some impressive outcome figures in terms of quality of life, mortality, and so on. Iraq pre-sanctions won WHO awards for its healthcare (which existed pre-Saddam, lest someone yell). Market-state Yugoslavia had free medical care, 90-plus percent literacy, and 6% growth.

Well, I hope they enjoyed reading about all the jobs that weren't available. Individual successes in healthcare, literacy etc. don't show the whole picture in terms of quality of life.

Kama wrote: »

Examples abound. In outcomes, especially for the less privileged, a degree of socialization seems efficacious.

And hey, I'm not against a degree of socialisation. Some of my best friends are degrees of socialisation.

Kama wrote: »

You can also make a fair argument that for a 'free market' to work in any way well, and provide actual meritocratic opportunity, a measure of socialist redistribution and investment in the people (creches, healthcare, education, etc) is not just healthy but necessary. Otherwise accumulation makes a joke of the meritocratic ideology of opportunity, on which liberal capitalism is dependent for legitimacy.

Sure, I'll go along with that.

Kama wrote: »

In theory yes, in practice no. For an example, take the Zapatistas in Mexico...a main irritant leading to the uprising was the removal of peasant group-ownership land rights from the Mexican constitution in line with NAFTA, which is an example of the ideological bias in liberal-capitalism toward individuals.

Oh, so one example means it doesn't largely work in practise? Please.

Kama wrote: »

Also, the critique of corporate human rights in reference to 'free ownership' is relevant here, imo. And has often been noted, laissez-fair 'deregulation' required a colossal amount of rules and regulation, which due to greater 'voice' by corporate bodies such a 'lack of restrictions' on ownenership can result in a 'grab' by dominant players; a lack of restriction on a regulatory level in a zero-sum situation can lead to significant 'restrictions' on a lived level.

The important point is not that people should be allowed move the means of production with no restriction but with as little restriction as possible. This can include measures to ensure such grabs do not take place if we regard them as necessarily undesirable.

DadaKopf wrote: »

I think you're confusing 'trade' with 'capitalism'. In pre-capitalist societies there was trade, trade is an activity in which people exchange goods for other goods.

Kama wrote: »

Key point here...capitalism as a social formation and ideology is not identical with trade; trade pre-existed capitalism, and is not inconsistent with socialism.

Maybe. Perhaps it is because I'm approaching this from a pure economics background rather than with a grounding in political theory. Personally, I think the economic and political model should be kept separate, the same way we separate church and state (or should). I don't contend the two won't interact, merely that one should be concerned with creating and distributing wealth, and the other with allowing this to happen and redistribution of wealth to where the first failed to place it.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Capitalism is a 'social relation' different to feudalism, for example, which is what capitalism replaced in Europe. This social relation has a particular form: a minority owns the property required to generate certain goods, which are traded, and the majority works for the minority, transferring a portion of the minority's profit in the form of money/benefits to those workers as they exchange their bodies/minds for it.

A minority, maybe, but how fixed and significant a minority? In the essay you linked the split was 40/60 middle/working class. And that's just a rough macro model, the split could be different. I'm still interested in hearing how Marxists would have the means of production handed back to the workers.

Kama wrote: »

You can have states which are highly socialised competing in capitalist world-markets (Scandinavia is a general model), or socialist businesses trading (Spanish anarchist industrial cooperatives spring to mind), and so on.

So, are the means of production in the hands of workers in Scandinavian countries or are they still following a broadly capitalist model underpinned by strong socialist leanings?

DadaKopf wrote: »

In theory, this sounds like a fair deal, except when applied to the real world (which is what left-wing analysts do, rather than classical economists who build unrealistic 'models') reveals that the flow of power is generally in favour of the minority than the majority.

In practise that minority might not be that minor and the majority may be little or no worse off because of this concentration of capital. Hardly think it's fair to compare modern left-wing analysts with classical economists; I'm sure there are modern "right-wing" analysts that study the real world and it's implications too.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Now, if you want to define this in terms of traditional class divisions, fine. This is an interesting (if incomplete) attempt to redefine class in contemporary Ireland. You could define things in terms of 'social stratification' (e.g. Weber's typology), or much more innovative and influential approaches like 'field theory' of Pierre Bordieu, or even those use by comparative politics analysts where people are simply defined by profession. All of these, though, underly the fact that the power relations among each of these groups are interpenetrated with economic power, and that one of the key structures influencing our social hierarchies is the political economy. This even applies to the socio-spatial stratification of urban spaces.

Well, I didn't want to bring class into it at all actually, but yeah, the essay you linked contains a far more interesting, and useful, model of classes than the traditional ones. Like you say it's incomplete though; long on critique of the existing model, short on suggestion of how we can change it for the better or even whether such change is possible.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Now, you accuse me of making loaded statements. Yes, it was loaded. What's the problem, it's what I believe to be the case and I see it as a hypocrisy to conceal this reality in pseudo-objective language.

It wasn't so much an accusation given that you'd already admitted the language was biased. The problem with it is you've basically traded one form of obfuscation (pseudo-objective language) for a worse one (actual-subjective language). Phrases such as "labourers rent their bodies for income" implies some form of prostitution or exploitation whereas a phrase such as "labourers rent their labour for income" neither pre-supposes nor precludes such a possibilty, allowing us to determine whether this has taken place on a case by case basis, thus bringing us closer to an understanding of reality.

brianthebard wrote: »

If it is fair and equitable, please explain how.

Kama wrote: »

A lot of this depends on what one's definition of 'fair' is; socialist conceptions of fairness have tended to emphasise equality of outcomes, whereas liberal-capitalist conceptions have tended to focus on equality of opportunity this is where the meritocratic ideology in capitalism gains its legitimacy, but the dynamics of capitalist accumulation weigh against the meritocratic ideal. I wouldn't agree that it is equitable btw...

That would be part of my thinking yes; once you have broadly equal access to education, employment, healthcare and I'm not concerned with where you end up so long as it's not the gutter and we can hopefully put means in place to prevent that (though not with 100% success). There is also plenty of evidence that as countries engage in more free trade, standard of living indexes rise, income gaps narrow, poverty rates decline etc. So it is pretty fair and equitable.

Also, the socialist emphasis on outcomes may not be helpful. It pre-supposes we can reach a state where inequities are eliminated (I assume by eliminating the class struggle which I can only imagine is achieved by eliminating class - could be wrong here) by transferring the means of production back to the workers. This is like saying the patient is ill and we need to cure them by eliminating the disease, rather than studying the disease to see how it works and see what we can do about it. It puts the cart before the horse.

brianthebard wrote: »

I don’t believe disenfranchisement is just a problem with implementation, it is fundamental to the model that working class interests be seen as base, static, and undemanding, and any demands that they may have must be suppressed by the market if industry is to thrive.

If it is fundamental to the model that working class interests be seen as base, static, and undemanding, and that they must be suppressed by the market if industry is to thrive, please explain how.

brianthebard wrote: »

The more I learn about Marx the less I believe his model is to be enacted directly on the world, it has to be adapted to the times, the place, it has to be updated every few years as society moves along. Marxism today is by necessity very different to his day.

Nice dodge. Let me rephrase; how do you see the transition to a Marxist model, and the maintenance of it, working in an economy - any economy - today or in the recent past?

brianthebard wrote: »

All you have to do is open the latest copy of The Economist or the Financial times to see Capitalist ideology today in action. I have no idea what capitalists are supposed to have shed, free market ideology is as widespread as ever, perhaps more so, in business today. Please outline what ideas capitalism had that have been shed, and what ideas socialists have that need to be dropped.

You provided an example yourself when you talked about Smith referring to God. Will I find references to God's hand balancing inequities in recent issues of The Economist or the FT? I can't provide you with an example on the socialist front at the moment; I only encounter socialist writing in a haphazard manner and no definite example springs to mind.

Kama wrote: »

it's famously difficult to be 'objective' in social matters or political economy.

Difficult but not undesirable.

Kama wrote: »

Apropos of self-organising communities and social means of production, there's a line of techno-booster thought which looks at think like fabbers meeting open source design principles and p2p sharing as allowing decentralised production on a local basis. You could have group ownership of the means (as it's a little capital-intensive), open IP for designs, but private ownership of produce, for instance.

That's a fascinating idea.

It'll never work.

Earthhorse

Kennedy wrote:

Kennedy lampooned Eisenhower's circumlocutions when, in 1958, he quipped: "We're now at the end of the beginning of the upturn of the downturn."

Nice work!

DadaKopf

Phrases such as "labourers rent their bodies for income" implies some form of prostitution or exploitation whereas a phrase such as "labourers rent their labour for income" neither pre-supposes nor precludes such a possibilty, allowing us to determine whether this has taken place on a case by case basis, thus bringing us closer to an understanding of reality.

Very important point to my mind. It's a philosophical one, but nonetheless vital to understanding Marx's ideas (and various, IMHO, real Marxists rather than scientistic, economistic Marxists).

Basically, what I mean is: at what point can a human being realistically be disconnected from his or her activity? Is what you say simply a language game that functions to preclude such questions (hence revealing an ideological bias)? Or, to pick an extreme but nonetheless real example, can a woman prostitute truly separate her 'labour' from her body?

Interestingly, the global economy (though concentrated in the economic north) has shifted its productive system from producing things to producing feelings (what Hardt and Negri call 'affective production'). This takes the production of capitalism right into the core of people's psychology, their inner space. Capitalism in our world has gone far beyond this convenient distinction between your work and your soul, and I would argue it was never so clear to begin with. Talking about capitalism means talking about personal experience. Afterall, Marxism is a methodology rooted in the everyday.

In sum, this is the general concern (based on Marx's ontology derived from Hegel and Feuerbach) of Marx and that which gave rise to his labour theory of value as a replacement for capitalist conceptions of value where he draws a distinction between exchange value and use value.

I'd love to type more, but I've to go to bed!