Sell Marxism/Communism to me

Anonymous1987

The vast majority of the world consists of capitalist or socialist governments so why should anyone believe that Marxism or Communism will ever or even should ever be adopted as a from of government given the spectacular failures of states that attempted to adopt it specifically the Soviet Union?

China has retained its communist identity in name but really it behaves like a command capitalist state. North Korea is practically a dictatorship. Given that so many of these communist states have gone the way of control why should we ever expect any different? It seems communism requires a strong consolidated power base to direct the economy and therefore seems to end in failure as the all the power falls in the hands of a few who inevitably abuse their positions. Still there is a small following that support the ideals of Marx. My question to you is why given that the evidence is so much against communism do you consider it a viable form of government?

Ostrom

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

The vast majority of the world consists of capitalist or socialist governments so why should anyone believe that Marxism or Communism will ever or even should ever be adopted as a from of government given the spectacular failures of states that attempted to adopt it specifically the Soviet Union?

China has retained its communist identity in name but really it behaves like a command capitalist state. North Korea is practically a dictatorship. Given that so many of these communist states have gone the way of control why should we ever expect any different? It seems communism requires a strong consolidated power base to direct the economy and therefore seems to end in failure as the all the power falls in the hands of a few who inevitably abuse their positions. Still there is a small following that support the ideals of Marx. My question to you is why given that the evidence is so much against communism do you consider it a viable form of government?

It is unfortunate that every time a discussion such as this begins, the 'idealistic' Marx completely overshadows the depth of his historical work.

Marxist idealism in its present forms, as far as I am concerned, is redundant. I will say though, that it is only in the context of his later writing that you can get an appreciation of why he spent so much time investigating communal production historically. I dont think many would consider communism a viable form of government, and as to those that do, it is one of the most baseless abuses of (what I consider to be) a still very relevant theorist. Donegalfella has pointed out a number of times that it tends to be the most insulated academics that continue this.

It is unfortunate that this thread will probably focus solely on capital in contemporary context.

Anonymous1987

The way I see it Marx was a product of his time when class struggle was a larger issue and while his theories didn't quite develop as planned they set the ground work for for the improvement of labour barginning power. For example labour organised and formed unions in order to negotiate terms with big business.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ostrom

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What was the name of that book you mentioned on another thread, sounded like Intellectual Impostures, but I think it was about Marxism in academia?

turgon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You failed to mention that while they will praise certain aspects of Cuba and the Soviet Union, they will also, when pushed, declare these arent real Communist countries after all. So its fundamentally a contradictory argument: they praise a state hoping to buoy up Communism while simultaneously declaring that that state is not Communist.

Communism is really a "Second Coming," in the sense of WB Yest poem. They talk idealistically of freedom and equality etc but were a Communist regime be founded, its leaders would only resort to the same old totalitarian ways of their past "comrades." "And what rough beast, its hour comes at least, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" Communism has been attempted many many times, and have we not learned from the senseless slaughter of the past that its simply an ideal system one cannot create?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Well while I would say that that perhaps thats not the spirit Yeats' poem was written in, I think it is plausible to apply it to this situation. Combined with the what I thought to be mocking dismissive "Surely a revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand; The Second Coming!" Considering that Harold Bloom said it was partly about the Russian Revolution I took to reading it as an examination of communism, perhaps erroneously.

I suppose this is outside the remit of Politics. I dont know if you saw the thread I started in Lit about this poem.

Anonymous1987

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with much of the above however having attempted to read Atlas Shrugged i found it too simplistic both in a literary (one dimensional characters) and a political sense (blindly anti-government). In fact I would go as far to say that Ayn Rand's "objectivism" is just as idealistic as Marxist "collectivism". Capitalism without a strong rule of law protecting society from unfair practices ultimately ends in undemocratic societies. Capitalism does not necessarily bring about or even require democracy, take for example China. It is my belief that democracy enhances the performance of a capitalist society as the transparency inherent is such a society requires greater competitive pressure and thus greater efficiency.

The negative effects of the industrial revolution are a prime example of this and as I implied above these excesses of capitalism in that era brought about the emergence of Marxism. Today we are moving towards finding the right balance between government and the individual.

This tread has not quite been the lighting bolt for Marxist debate as I imagined. Maybe the Marxists have finally called it a day or maybe the idea of selling anything has put them off .

turgon

No, theres plenty of debate here, here and here. I used to post in them but got a tad frustrated at the way arguments circled and people dodged etc etc.

What is clear from those threads is that the communist proponents - even the educated dedicated ones - cant outline a practical plan on how communism could work. I posed the question on the last link as to how a spatula would be made, and how many would be made etc. It took a few weeks to get any semblance of an answer, and than that talked about competing factories and workers so it was more capitalism than communism in my estimation.

This is why I mentioned the "Second Coming." The communist supporters blindly tell us it will work, without telling us how it will work. Some even say we (non-communist supporters) need to be "educated" into believing it. This reeks of gulag era re-education, in my opinion. It is the lack of a solid pragmatic economic plan that has me doubting these communists would be any different to their fellow theorists of before.

Ostrom

Complete agreement, but rather than repeat what has been done more than enough across multiple threads, I would love if this one debated the following points: (From OP)

"Still there is a small following that support the ideals of Marx"

"Why should anyone believe that Marxism or Communism will ever or even should ever be adopted as a from of government"


I can see where the thread will probably go, but in the hopes of directing it toward your original question, I wonder if some of the aforementioned supporters could justify such a conclusion on the latter point, and explain the former.

turgon

efla wrote: »

"Why should anyone believe that Marxism or Communism will ever or even should ever be adopted as a from of government"

As with any belief system, the onus is on the current adherent to argue his case. It is not satisfactory to begin with a "why not?," a debate like this should always begin with the "why?"


In the case of communism, there is a tendency take criticism of capitalism as rationale for communism. There is two reasons this is foolish. Firstly arguing communism is good simply because capitalism is bad is like saying non-free range eggs are good simply because free-range eggs aren't organic. Just because one system is not to your liking does not mean your alternative is necessarily better.

Secondly, and specifically within the communist debate, there is a tendency by its supporters to blame everything on capitalism. Communist supporters appear to presume that if a negative act or atrocity is conducted within a capitalist country, said act is directly (and even solely) attributable to capitalism. So people here on Boards have declared that those who died from American Imperialism in the 1700's actually died because of capitalism. Similarly deaths due to British Imperialism in Africa were actually because of capitalism. This is ridiculous when you consider that Ireland is also capitalist, and we don't have anyone dying. So the only thing we can take from this is that capitalism does not cause murder.

The latter point is usually a knee jerk reaction to claims that communist countries have consistently curtailed freedom of expression, liberty etc. Instead, however, of giving reasons why this wouldn't happen again in their system, communist supporters point the finger at the most evil thing that comes to mind and blame that on capitalism. So instead of being reassured that 60 million would not be killed again were Russia to return to communism, I'm left with an uneasy feeling that such atrocities may, in fact, re-occur. At the end of the day, I value my life more than anything else.



As well as the poor general method of argument taken, the specific points argued by communist supporters dont appear any better. We have heard, on Boards, that there will be no laws and that jurers will decide only "on their conscience." So heres hoping that when Im hauled up for sunbathing naked on a beach that the 12 juries aren't members of Cóir.

We have also heard that such things as marketing and advertising wont be allowed. Well, "not needed" is the wording communist supporters use, but when they say this they mean "not allowed." So despite the fact that one of the reasons we should apparently accept communism is that we will be "free" there are already things we are simply not allowed do.

These are just two small things that struck me as ridiculous. Theres more where that came from.

synd

It is unfortunate that every time a discussion such as this begins, the 'idealistic' Marx completely

Liberals typically use the term (idealistic) with the implication that they themselves occupy some sort of ''objective ground''. This however is not the case, you cannot divorce yourself from idealogical position. Sociology, like economics is not value free - the denounciation of subjective involvement in social conceptualization is nothing but veiled support for the existing mode of organization and subsequently the ideology it is predicated upon.

Moreover, the term radicalism - so often thrown around by revisionists means absolutely nothing. Its an entirely subjective term - the fact that it is used in offence is due to its unwarranted negative connotation. Needless to say that in a socialist society liberalism would be ''radical'' - those who advocated womans rights and the abolishment of slavery were also ''radical''.

overshadows the depth of his historical work.

Marx's historical work is idealogical in essence - blatantly obvious.

Marxist idealism in its present forms, as far as I am concerned, is redundant.

I personally have no illusions about the nature of social re-construction or the bloodshed it typically entails, and I would under no circumsatnces deny that the USSR was socialist in the broad sence.

I will say though, that it is only in the context of his later writing that you can get an appreciation of why he spent so much time investigating communal production historically.

The myth of primitive accumulation comes to mind, or is that something you prefer to ignore >? It is by no means redundant, accumulation through dispossession is ongoing and central feature of liberal capitalism.

I dont think many would consider communism a viable form of government,

Communism is the absence of Gov - more a variation of direct democracy.

and as to those that do, it is one of the most baseless abuses of (what I consider to be) a still very relevant theorist.

I think Marx would disagree with you, silly revisionism basically ignores the central component of his work. Kapital deals with the creation of value, capitalist social relations and the nature of class exploitation

Donegalfella has pointed out a number of times that it tends to be the most insulated academics that continue this.

The problem liberals have with Marxism is that it threatens their favored form of stratification. Proponents of bourgeoisie rule like to peddle the fairy tale that society works in unison, and stability becomes undermined when nasty Marxists start putting ideas like class into peoples heads. This is self serving tripe, class struggle is a pre-existing reality Marxism merely provides a conceptual padagram. Liberals become upset when their beloved bourgeoisie are framed in a negative light - and inflammatory notions of social re-construction are espoused. The upper class are aware that society is easier to control when people conceptualize themselves in atomic terms, hence liberalism must be internalized by the majority to better facilitate the process of bourgeoisie accumulation.

It is unfortunate that this thread will probably focus solely on capital in contemporary context.

What would you prefer ?

Ostrom

synd wrote: »

Liberals typically use the term (idealistic) with the implication that they themselves occupy some sort of ''objective ground''. This however is not the case, you cannot divorce yourself from idealogical position. Sociology, like economics is not value free - the denounciation of subjective involvement in social conceptualization is nothing but veiled support for the existing mode of organization and subsequently the ideology it is predicated upon.

I'm not asking for a separation, just a little development and context

synd wrote: »

Marx's historical work is idealogical in essence - blatantly obvious.

As with my other post, my point of discussion concerned the use of Marx academically, and in discussions such as this. Within the former there is a clear distinction between academics who use Marx to construct and debate utopian ideal types, and those who treat his method of analysis (usually based capital) and Marx's own notes (including Grundrisse and the later Ethnological notebooks) historically through mode of production analyses.

synd wrote: »

The myth of primitive accumulation comes to mind, or is that something you prefer to ignore >? It is by no means redundant, accumulation through dispossession is ongoing and central feature of liberal capitalism.

That point had nothing to do with primitive accumulation - I am referring to a much later line of thinking. Retrospectively, Marx wrote that the theoretical import of the study of communal property was to illustrate the historical necessity of private property - as it arose from the demise of communal property through feualization in various forms (Russia and Ireland for example).

He raised this point in a letter to Vera Zasulich just before his death on her inquiry into the possibility of transitioning from primitive communal (Mir) to communism. Grundrisse contains extensive historical notes - the latest from MEGA inform us that he may have held up to 1000 pages of notes on Ireland alone - the justification for which is not made explicit in capital. Engels also added a famous footnote to the revised edition of the communist manifesto in 1888 changing the line to 'the written history of all hitherto existing society...' adding a footnote on the importance of the above.

The point to all this was to qualify that modes of production had existed historically without subsumption. My problem with the typical left interpretation is that it tends to gloss over critical notes and details such as these.

synd wrote: »

I think Marx would disagree with you, silly revisionism basically ignores the central component of his work. Kapital deals with the creation of value, capitalist social relations and the nature of class exploitation

Capital is but one component, a method of presentation and nothing more. The framework stands, its transposition without qualification does not.

Besides, the above is hardly revisionist - these 'revisions' are coming from the previously untranslated notes of the man himself.

synd wrote: »

What would you prefer ?

A debate that moves beyond Capital. The breadth of empirical work in grundrisse, the historical anthropology, soil chemistry, ecology.... Anything but the same tired back and forth.

The end result will probably be me posting points like this, coming off like a twat

Anonymous1987

I think where Marxism fails is the empirical foundations of its support the lack thereof and the political power structures that evolve from it. Marxism is heavily theoretical and has been abused as a rallying point to gain support from the working class to impose an often dictatorial government. Marxism ironically invests too much faith in a small power base of leaders to direct the economy and ultimately results in the abuse of this power. My understanding is that the lack of empirical evidence and the philosophical nature of Marxism essentially means it cannot be either proved or disproved.

Ostrom

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

I think where Marxism fails is the empirical foundations of its support the lack thereof and the political power structures that evolve from it. Marxism is heavily theoretical and has been abused as a rallying point to gain support from the working class to impose an often dictatorial government. Marxism ironically invests too much faith in a small power base of leaders to direct the economy and ultimately results in the abuse of this power. My understanding is that the lack of empirical evidence and the philosophical nature of Marxism essentially means it cannot be either proved or disproved.

What I couldn't articulate in the response to synd -that point is all well and good as long as you are referring to its interpretations. I'm not suggesting a true 'original' definition exists, nor arguing for any sanctity of the original work, just that the points you make above result, in my opinion from a tendency amongst their proponents to draw the most limiting conclusions, and pick the most normative details from Marx's work.

Anonymous1987

efla wrote: »

What I couldn't articulate in the response to synd -that point is all well and good as long as you are referring to its interpretations. I'm not suggesting a true 'original' definition exists, nor arguing for any sanctity of the original work, just that the points you make above result, in my opinion from a tendency amongst their proponents to draw the most limiting conclusions, and pick the most normative details from Marx's work.

I'll give you an example of where I have trouble understanding Marxism to illustrate my point. Marx argues that labour is exploited by the ruling class. My interpretation of the ruling class is the owners of resources namely entrepreneurs. However the entrepreneur as a factor of production must obtain a return for organising the labour capital and natural resources. Therefore I would argue that labour is not exploited except for the specific condition that the entrepreneur is earning a profit far in excess of its compensation for organising the other factors of production. Correct if I'm wrong but it seems that followers of marxism suggest all profit is exploitative of labour. I am by no means an expert in Marxism however this is my interpretation

Ostrom

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

I'll give you an example of where I have trouble understanding Marxism to illustrate my point. Marx argues that labour is exploited by the ruling class. My interpretation of the ruling class is the owners of resources namely entrepreneurs. However the entrepreneur as a factor of production must obtain a return for organising the labour capital and natural resources. Therefore I would argue that labour is not exploited except for the specific condition that the entrepreneur is earning a profit far in excess of its compensation for organising the other factors of production. Correct if I'm wrong but it seems that followers of marxism suggest all profit is exploitative of labour. I'm am by no means an expert in Marxism however this is my interpretation.

Exploitation in this sense is something of a fixed term - the labourer is 'exploited' (ignoring the connotative aspects of the wording for a moment) insofar as the profit is appropriated, and he receives enough to reproduce himself as a labourer. The followers you are referring to would likely suggest that this exploitation is inherently negative and damaging, even though subjectively, it may not be experienced as such. The 'fixed' nature of the term becomes ambiguous and more value laden as class structure becomes more complex (generally with respect to time) and as labourers are not only perhaps exploited more disporportionately by class (if you favour the term), but also rewarded more.

Soldie

efla wrote: »

[...] I would love if this one debated the following points: (From OP)

"Still there is a small following that support the ideals of Marx"

"Why should anyone believe that Marxism or Communism will ever or even should ever be adopted as a from of government"


I can see where the thread will probably go, but in the hopes of directing it toward your original question, I wonder if some of the aforementioned supporters could justify such a conclusion on the latter point, and explain the former.

I'll start with a disclaimer; I'm aware that the following may come across as somewhat insulting in that attempts to label a large amount of people who post in the politics forum. My intention isn't to insult people - it's to answer the above question.

For a start, I'd say that there is a very large number of people who support the ideals of Marx. To use boards.ie as a barometer, I think the socialists here can be split into two groups. The first group is comprised of moderate socialists - supporters of the left-of-centre mixed-economy, and nationalists whose left-leaning views are entangled with said nationalism. The second group is comprised of well-versed Marxists who have a more in-depth knowledge of the teachings of Marx.

I'd describe the first group as uninformed, and the second group as naïve. I think that socialism appeals to the first group because, put simply, at first glance, it sounds appealing. The idea of 'free' education and healthcare sounds much more lucrative than having to pay for it, especially if you're on a low-to-middle income and you know that someone else will be footing the majority of the bill. A characteristic I think that both groups share, but in different ways, is that they continuously misidentify and misdiagnose. To expand on this; you need only look at a handful of threads in the main politics forum to see criticisms of bankers and developers being bandied around all the time. You'll see unconditional defences of the dole and minimum wage, together with emotive pleas to protect to 'most vulnerable'. I believe this to be a misidentification of the problems facing the country in that many people seem to be unaware of the economic policies that caused the recession, and the current ones that are prolonging it. As for the second group, I believe that the misidentification they engage in pertains more to terminology. To a Marxist, capitalism is a mutually interchangable with exploitation, and incorporates sweatshops, 'unethical' harvesting of resources in third world countries, and so on, whereas to me, capitalism simply means private ownership of property, and voluntary participation in the market. To a Marxist, surplus value is expropriated from workers, whereas to me that simply cannot be true in that workers work on a voluntary basis, and the Marxist theory fails to account for companies that are operating at a loss. To a Marxist, the labour theory of value details how the value of something is dependent on the labour expended in producing it, whereas to me, the value of something is entirely dependent on what someone is willing to pay for it. I think that it is this fundamental misunderstanding/disagreement on terminology which leads people to believe that socialism is a workable and equitable alternative to capitalism. What I find very telling is the fact that the more hardcore proponents of Marxism tend to come from a humanities background - I can't think of a single Marxist on boards who is well-versed in economics.

Anonymous1987

Soldie wrote: »

I'll start with a disclaimer; I'm aware that the following may come across as somewhat insulting in that attempts to label a large amount of people who post in the politics forum. My intention isn't to insult people - it's to answer the above question.

For a start, I'd say that there is a very large number of people who support the ideals of Marx. To use boards.ie as a barometer, I think the socialists here can be split into two groups. The first group is comprised of moderate socialists - supporters of the left-of-centre mixed-economy, and nationalists whose left-leaning views are entangled with said nationalism. The second group is comprised of well-versed Marxists who have a more in-depth knowledge of the teachings of Marx.

I'd describe the first group as uninformed, and the second group as naïve. I think that socialism appeals to the first group because, put simply, at first glance, it sounds appealing. The idea of 'free' education and healthcare sounds much more lucrative than having to pay for it, especially if you're on a low-to-middle income and you know that someone else will be footing the majority of the bill. A characteristic I think that both groups share, but in different ways, is that they continuously misidentify and misdiagnose. To expand on this; you need only look at a handful of threads in the main politics forum to see criticisms of bankers and developers being bandied around all the time. You'll see unconditional defences of the dole and minimum wage, together with emotive pleas to protect to 'most vulnerable'. I believe this to be a misidentification of the problems facing the country in that many people seem to be unaware of the economic policies that caused the recession, and the current ones that are prolonging it. As for the second group, I believe that the misidentification they engage in pertains more to terminology. To a Marxist, capitalism is a mutually interchangable with exploitation, and incorporates sweatshops, 'unethical' harvesting of resources in third world countries, and so on, whereas to me, capitalism simply means private ownership of property, and voluntary participation in the market. To a Marxist, surplus value is expropriated from workers, whereas to me that simply cannot be true in that workers work on a voluntary basis, and the Marxist theory fails to account for companies that are operating at a loss. To a Marxist, the labour theory of value details how the value of something is dependent on the labour expended in producing it, whereas to me, the value of something is entirely dependent on what someone is willing to pay for it. I think that it is this fundamental misunderstanding/disagreement on terminology which leads people to believe that socialism is a workable and equitable alternative to capitalism. What I find very telling is the fact that the more hardcore proponents of Marxism tend to come from a humanities background - I can't think of a single Marxist on boards who is well-versed in economics.

I agree with much of what you said however I would draw a line between Marxism and socialism. The Welfare state is pretty much socialist but it is necessary to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and its also necessary to provide a reasonable level of healthcare and education to all so as to each individual has a at least a fair chance at competing with others.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget millionaire Terry Eagleton - he's raking it in for his valued input on Marxist literary theory, and he's laughing all the way to the bank!

Lockstep

Are there any communists/Marxists on Boards.ie?

I've yet to see anyone attempting to defend communism so far.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

Fair enough, I've met Brianthebard before (he's going out with a friend of mine) and he'd be a socialist for sure.

Wouldn't have referred to him as a communist though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ostrom

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is most important - there is a whole intellectual community beyond this that would clearly separate the above. 'Marxism' does not imply nor necessitate 'a way of living and working', unless made explicitly political - and I do not accept that any engagement with Marx is inherently political; it can, and should be analytical. It is through analysis that a good student should be able to confront the many limitations of Marx in practice, but unfortunately 'Marxism' seems to always be presented (understandably) as what you say above - an analytical framework inseparable from praxis.

To address the OP - I would hope, although it rarely works out as such, that on asking to be sold Marxism/Communism, you would arrive at two very different arguments, but it is likely you will be sold utopian praxis without critical contemporary analysis.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Are there any communists/Marxists on Boards.ie?

I've yet to see anyone attempting to defend communism so far.

Yes, me I suppose (Marxist/Marxian). All my graduate work so far has been based on pre-capitalist economic formations (amongst others). I have no defense of communism.

Kama

Just two points, apologies if OT, I haven't had time recently to reply...

Firstly, the thread-title embodies an irony in 'discursive construction'; Marxism as something to be 'sold' in the marketplace of ideas, and the paradox of the continued, competitive success of Marxism/Marxian theory within the academy, where it enjoys a far more 'privileged' (and is not privilege just a synonym for success in a meritocracy?) position in terms of social or cognitive capital compared to, say, Rand, or for a closer comparison, the 'pseudo-scientific praxeology of Mises' (:p), with its rejection of observation. I know they lost the Methodenstreit, but their representation within academe in my short experience is hardly magnitudes greater than Georgists, who are experiencing somewhat of a renaissance in ecological economics, while Austrians appear primarily inhabitants of the internet.

I exaggerate, but not by much. DF, I'm only echoing your earlier comments here on the 'relative poverty' of Austrians in academe, I mean no rancor. But seriously, and directly addressing the OP and thread-trend, have not Eagleton, and more especially Zizek, successfully 'sold' Communism with an entrepreneurial success that would make any self-respecting bourgeois capitalist (and many a 'Communist') blush? Besides the accusation of hypocrisy, why are there so many buyers?

The question for the devoted opponents of 'Communism', 'Marxism', 'Socialism' etc, is how to account for this success; to merely call them 'ignorant', 'gullible', 'deluded', 'naive' and so forth reminds me of the Marxist trend of 'False Consciousness': how to account for the 'wrongthinking' of so many people, over a prolonged period of time. To claim academe has a left-wing bias merits the question, which the 'leftist-academic conspiracy' theory only occludes: why do so many apparently quite intelligent individuals find merit or value in, and express their preference for, a supposedly-discredited ideological system? I believe this to be a perfectly valid question, and one which isn't robustly answered by argument-by-gulag, or the spoilt-brat classist slur (again reminiscent of some of the less-savoury episodes in the history of the Left). Rather than 'retreating to the academy to find a quiet place to die', they are (re)producing, and their output consumed. Jacques Lacan, to quote another bete noire, stated in in his proto-memetic dictum that 'the purpose of psychoanalysis is to produce more analysts'. Evolutionary success is survival, and survival is contingent on reproduction. It's quipped that theorists are never refuted, but they lose the battle of ideas when they have no intellectual descendants to fight their battles for them. Marxism is reproducing quite successfully, and the question for the 'antis' must be...why?

Secondly, contra to Donegalfellas deployment of Impostures Intellectuelle as 'not about Marxism per se', in a sense the Sokal Hoax was entirely about Marxism, or the direction Marxist theory was taking, a contestation of its concepts. It also lacks unique status, or functions adequately as a refutation of discipline entire, though it has been socially constructed construed as one in the 'Science Wars'. Extrapolating from my xp, a lot of academic hoaxes fly well under the radar, and the real kudos goes for ones which are never caught; academic e-peen tbh, departments are rife with it, and much like sarcasm-without-the-sarcastic-voice, its lost on most people, hence its appeal.

'Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' was intended as a critique, albeit a satirical one, of the effects of postmodern, deconstructive theory on the Left, analogous to Susan George writing The Lugano Report satirizing neoliberal ideological fixations through consistent over-identification. Satire is always polemic, always an attack, but 'transgresses' by wearing the uniform of the opposed forces.

Yet Sokal's expressed intent was surgical, rather than annihilatory: 'But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class'. In his opinion the postmodern turn was intellectually vapid, lacked a B**sh*t Detector, and therefore for the good of the Left should be stridently opposed, by that mightiest of means, mockery. Many here have nothing but mockery for Marxism...Sokal has mockery of postmodernism, but for Marxism.

Though perhaps this again is a hoax, an imposture? As with Marxism, how do we account for the expressed preference for, and apparent utility value derived from, post-modernism? It again seems to easy to say 'pretty baubles for open and empty minds to play with', or that Gresham's Law applies to the currency of ideas, but I find this neither satisfying nor sufficient: returning to the beginning, if Marxian theory, efla's analytic approach, was not 'good to think with' in some valid sense (even divorced or domesticated from its origins in radical-revolutionary praxis) why, evolutionarily, would it prosper?

My basic suspicion or operating assumption being that anything which continues serves a need, performs a function; its survival is brute testimony of its fitness. The question then becomes, how is it fit, what work does it do, what comparative advantage does it enjoy? Merely to say Marxism doesn't work can only prevent one from seeing the work it performs; an developed analysis of conflict (notably lacking in its 'competitor'), a critique of power, a historical-economic tradition, and crucially, a oligopoly on the concept of human solidarity, which (imho) can be at least partially explained by its opponents yielding the field. Adam Smith may have written of moral sentiments, and the study of the economic benefits of social capital may demonstrate the economic utility of solidaristic drives, but for at least a century the 'dominant discourse' articulating these human moral values in the political realm has been, and remains, derived from a Marxist genealogy.

If I may digress Jungian in conclusion, as in many matters I am reminded of religion: I used always marvel that groups of people, for long durations of time, believed what appeared to be (to my mind) utter idiocy, but then marvelled all the more that out of this idiocy, ignorance, and superstition comes much of our greatest art, our noblest human deeds and aspirations. I may be an atheist, but seeing sh*t turn to gold seems like a miracle to me.

Ostrom

Kama wrote: »

I know they lost the Methodenstreit, but their representation within academe in my short experience is hardly magnitudes greater than Georgists, who are experiencing somewhat of a renaissance in ecological economics, while Austrians appear primarily inhabitants of the internet.

Might there be a thread in this? I have noticed many parallels between both Marx and later authors in terms of their use of ecological concepts - moving away from valuation of ecological problems for a moment. Ecological economics and certain strands of environental sociology drew heavily on systemic theory in their formative years (Walter Buckley, Kenneth Bailey and Niklis Luhman), who themselves had drawn on Marxist dialectical presentation to criticise Parsonian theory's tendency toward equilibrium by introducing both entropy and multiple levels of organization without determination.

Kama wrote: »

To claim academe has a left-wing bias merits the question, which the 'leftist-academic conspiracy' theory only occludes: why do so many apparently quite intelligent individuals find merit or value in, and express their preference for, a supposedly-discredited ideological system? It's quipped that theorists are never refuted, but they lose the battle of ideas when they have no intellectual descendants to fight their battles for them. Marxism is reproducing quite successfully, and the question for the 'antis' must be...why?Marxism is reproducing quite successfully, and the question for the 'antis' must be...why?

I would suggest this had more to do with modification in various guises. Historical sociology is largely hated by historians who consider it revisionism and reject Marxist orientations on personal grounds because they assume some underlying political motive (this is from personal experience). Marx's presence in economic sociology for example could be attributed to its tendency to draw on authors such as Polanyi's work on the embeddedness of markets in structural and cultural relations - the bones (labour theory etc) of Marxist economic theory itself absent, but with critical attention on the role of the states in shaping global markets and economic policy. Marxism survives in modified form, but the more 'quantitative' aspects of Marxist theory tend to dominate the debate.

Kama wrote: »

Secondly, contra to Donegalfellas deployment of Impostures Intellectuelle as 'not about Marxism per se', in a sense the Sokal Hoax was entirely about Marxism, or the direction Marxist theory was taking, a contestation of its concepts. 'Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' was intended as a critique, albeit a satirical one, of the effects of postmodern, deconstructive theory on the Left. Yet Sokal's expressed intent was surgical, rather than annihilatory: 'But why did I do it? I confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class'. In his opinion the postmodern turn was intellectually vapid, lacked a B**sh*t Detector, and therefore for the good of the Left should be stridently opposed, by that mightiest of means, mockery. Many here have nothing but mockery for Marxism...Sokal has mockery of postmodernism, but for Marxism.

I'm not sure I agree with you entirely on this. In chapter two, Sokal clearly set out his programme against epistemic relativism - largely citing the most prominent mainstream (French) thinkers (latour, Callon, Law). The 'science wars' debate had begun long before Sokal, and he did show some measure of admiration for the earlier work of Latour (Science in Action, for example isn't a bad read - and an excellent piece of empirical work). The later 'cultural turn' was what raised the ire of the natural sciences (Chapter 4 on Einsteins relativity and social construction for example). But Sokal himself missed the mark in a number of respects. On complexity theory, for example, things turned out much different. David Byrne (heavy Marxist influence) has written complexity into quantitative analysis, again drawing heavily on dialectical analysis. I found little explicit reference to Marx in Sokal (it has been a while since I have read it, so I am open to correction).

In all though, it was an excellent and timely publication. John Hutnyk traces the cultural turn much better in 'Bad Marxism' - if you enjoyed Sokal it is worth a look, although it only refers to anthropology.

Kama wrote: »

Though perhaps this again is a hoax, an imposture? As with Marxism, how do we account for the expressed preference for, and apparent utility value derived from, post-modernism? It again seems to easy to say 'pretty baubles for open and empty minds to play with', or that Gresham's Law applies to the currency of ideas, but I find this neither satisfying nor sufficient: returning to the beginning, if Marxian theory, efla's analytic approach, was not 'good to think with' in some valid sense (even divorced or domesticated from its origins in radical-revolutionary praxis) why, evolutionarily, would it prosper?

My short answer would be that we dont have to account for it (expressed preference) at all. Postmodern theory, and certainly the justification for 'research' conducted under the auspices of relativism (an excuse for not conducting fieldwork in my opinion) has been on the decline for many years.

Many thanks for an interesting post!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

In the case of communism, there is a tendency take criticism of capitalism as rationale for communism.

No, socialism is advocated on the basis that it would be better able to provide for the material and social requirements of the worlds population. Capitalism is not rational or efficient in its allocation of existing resources considering need cannot be expressed via market demand, given that those with insufficient income are unable to express their immediate requirements. Thus, production is geared towards the creation of luxury goods, skin lotion may be more profitable a commodity than generic drugs for instance, however beyond bourgeoisie discourse the subsequent priority in production can only be described as irrational given the immediate requirements of society.

Secondly, and specifically within the communist debate, there is a tendency by its supporters to blame everything on capitalism. Communist supporters appear to presume that if a negative act or atrocity is conducted within a capitalist country, said act is directly (and even solely) attributable to capitalism. So people here on Boards have declared that those who died from American Imperialism in the 1700's actually died because of capitalism. Similarly deaths due to British Imperialism in Africa were actually because of capitalism.

This is largely in response to propagandistic Liberal accusations that negative events occurring under socialist regimes must necessarily be a consequence of ''socialism''. Taking famine as a much cited example - the deaths in China during the great leap forward are attributed by liberals to socialism as opposed to ill planned industrial reform resulting in the subsequent neglect of agriculture. Supposing we apply this same rational to capitalism - Amartya Sen has estimated that during the Bengal famine of the 1940s the death toll compared to that of the great leap forward numbers an additional 4 million per year. Chomsky argues therefore, that India alone under a democratic capitalist system has during one famine seen excess of the total 100 million deaths attributed to global communism by liberal propagandists. - ''China in the late 1940s began to institute rural public health and educational programs, as well as other programs oriented towards the mass of the population. India played the game by our rules. It didn’t do any of this and there are consequences, for example, in mortality rates. These started to decline sharply in China from around 1950 until 1979. Then they stopped declining and started going up slightly. That was the period of the reforms. During the totalitarian period, from 1950 to about 1979, mortality rates declined. They declined in India, too, but much more slowly than in China up to 1979. Sen then says, suppose you measure the number of extra deaths in India resulting annually from not carrying out these Maoist-style programs or others for the benefit of the population, what you would call reforms if the term wasn’t so ideological. He estimates close to four million extra deaths every year in India, which means that, as he puts it, every eight years in India the number of skeletons in the closet is the same as in China’s moment of shame, the famine. If you look at the whole period, it’s about 100 million extra deaths in India alone after the democratic capitalist period enters.''

In relation to your despicable neo-liberal attempts to label Maoist China an ''economic failure'' a wealth of historical research illustrates sizable progress in terms of overall living standards relative to the prior period. ''It was due to this revolution that the average life expectancy of the majority Chinese rose from 35 in 1949 to 63 by 1975 (Bergaglio 2006) in a space of less than 30 years.'' Gao -. And before you go looking for your copy of the highly discredited ''unknown story'' Il have you know that Jung Chang isn't a historian, shes a sensationalist dissident who had a rough time due to her fathers post as deputy head of Sichuan province propaganda dept. Chang changes his post to ''head of public relations'' - in both her main works. Repression in contemporary China is increasingly used against an emerging neo-left - the Tienanmen square massacre for instance was ordered by Deng Xiaoping (an ardent proponent of economic liberalism) - and contrary to the message espoused by the western media many of the protester's where actually unemployed urban workers, dissatisfied with the privatization of public assets and the wholesale removal of social security (iron ricebowl).

On the issue of imperialism - yes, imperialism is an essential component of capitalism. The industrial revolution was fueled on revenue appropriated directly via slavery, plunder and narco trafficking. The only reason north America industrialized was due to cheap textiles (slavery), and only after the subsequent development of industrial technology when wage labor became a more profitable means of exploitation was chattel slavery abolished. Imperialism is nothing more than an expression of the market - the state apparatus utilized to facilitate the process of bourgeoisie accumulation.

his is ridiculous when you consider that Ireland is also capitalist, and we don't have anyone dying. So the only thing we can take from this is that capitalism does not cause murder.

Ireland has historically been a colony within a larger capitalist empire and suffered the consequences, mass murder being one. The contemporary period of growth was due to Ireland's position as a tax haven. However, the capital that came to Ireland (largely US), like all capital was built via and developed under direct circumstances of global imperialism. Ireland today acts as a fueling station for US bombers - produces micro-chips for the US arms industry via intel ect. Imperialism is a core element of capitalism, that it does not occur in every nation is inconsequential considering capital transaction is a global phenomenon, localized state aggression is merely a side effect of market compulsions.

The latter point is usually a knee jerk reaction to claims that communist countries have consistently curtailed freedom of expression, liberty etc.

Socialism is advocated on the grounds that people should be entitled to equality in the management of their own life conditions. Liberalism on the other hand holds that society be managed via executive order, in that those who do not own but require use of the means of subsistence must subordinate themselves before the authority of those who by degrees control it. Liberalism using rhetoric concerning individual freedom - ensures only the freedom of the wealthy to rule the poor via property relation and conceptualizes the Marxist assault on the object of their rule as detrimental to their social power. The liberal pathology demands that the intrinsic initiative of the many be negated in service to the despotism of the few - this is what liberals mean by freedom.

"Hierarchical institutions foster alienated and exploitative relationships among those who participate in them, dis-empowering people and distancing them from their own reality. Hierarchies make some people dependent on others, blame the dependent for their dependency, and then use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority. Those in positions of relative dominance tend to define the very characteristics of those subordinate to them . Anarchists argue that to be always in a position of being acted upon and never to be allowed to act is to be doomed to a state of dependence and resignation. Those who are constantly ordered about and prevented from thinking for themselves soon come to doubt their own capacities [and have] difficulty acting on [their] sense of self in opposition to societal norms, standards and expectations." [Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain, pp. 40-1] Socialists understand that the free expression and engagement of the currently dis-empowered mass's can only be secured by the de-construction of private property and the negation of liberalism as the countervailing hegemony.

Instead, however, of giving reasons why this wouldn't happen again in their system, communist supporters point the finger at the most evil thing that comes to mind and blame that on capitalism. So instead of being reassured that 60 million would not be killed again were Russia to return to communism, I'm left with an uneasy feeling that such atrocities may, in fact, re-occur. At the end of the day, I value my life more than anything else.

60 million - an overestimation. Nonetheless, you obviously ignore the context in tune with your class ideology. Deaths due to the revolutionary re-constitution of the social order are inevitable. The ruling class of any given society and those mercenaries who uphold their ideology will invariably attempt by violent means to retain control over society in the event of revolution - they will either succeed or perish in the process. Lenin's Red Terror was in response to the preceding White Terror enforced by the aristocracy. It would also do well to take into account the 158.9 million Russians sent to die during WW1 by your beloved Tzarists.

Soldie

Great stand-up routine, synd, but I don't think anybody here is taking your absurd views seriously.

Ostrom

synd wrote: »

Ireland has historically been a colony within a larger capitalist empire and suffered the consequences, mass murder being one.

Careful now

turgon

synd wrote: »

No, socialism is advocated on the basis that it would be better able to provide for the material and social requirements of the worlds population.

Not on Boards.ie it hasn't. Most arguments by Marxist here (on the other threads that is) are basically critiques of capitalism.

synd wrote: »

This is largely in response to propagandistic Liberal accusations that negative events occurring under socialist regimes must necessarily be a consequence of ''socialism''.

Well in Russia if one didn't accept the Socialist governmental line, one was killed. Kronstadt uprising etc. If one didn't give up your land to the socialists you were killed. That is, during forced collectivization. Yet you are saying these deaths weren't caused be Socialism?

synd wrote: »

Taking famine as a much cited example - the deaths in China during the great leap forward are attributed by liberals to socialism as opposed to ill planned industrial reform resulting in the subsequent neglect of agriculture.

So you say firstly that Socialism wasn't the cause, but that ill planned industrial reform was. Even though the "Planned industrial reform" was clearly made under Socialist theories and government.

synd wrote: »

On the issue of imperialism - yes, imperialism is an essential component of capitalism.

Every now and again on Boards you get a self containing quote that needs nt context whatsoever to realize how utterly ridiculous it is. Yes synd, because Imperialism is rife in capitalist Ireland.

synd wrote: »

The industrial revolution was fueled on revenue appropriated directly via slavery, plunder and narco trafficking.

That wa then; this is now. No matter how much it displeases you, the Industrial Revolution is over.

synd wrote: »

Liberalism using rhetoric concerning individual freedom - ensures only the freedom of the wealthy to rule the poor

Because once your poor you can never become rich.


Anyway, Im just wasting my time here clearly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Anonymous1987

synd wrote: »

No, socialism is advocated on the basis that it would be better able to provide for the material and social requirements of the worlds population. Capitalism is not rational or efficient in its allocation of existing resources considering need cannot be expressed via market demand, given that those with insufficient income are unable to express their immediate requirements. Thus, production is geared towards the creation of luxury goods, skin lotion may be more profitable a commodity than generic drugs for instance, however beyond bourgeoisie discourse the subsequent priority in production can only be described as irrational given the immediate requirements of society.

I have countered this same argument before but for the benefit of this threads readers I will restate it below;

Demand is a reflection of the ability and willingness to pay. Generally people put needs before wants you will not purchase skin lotion if you need a life saving drug. As such capitalism addresses needs before wants and the prevalence of luxuries exemplifies that basic needs are satisfied.

The failure of the profit motive to encourage the development of life saving drugs in the third world is more a reflection of the poor rule of law to support the market rather the market and profit motive itself. The individual or consumer has the best information to decide what their needs and wants are and the market allows them to express this through their ability and willingness to pay.

The welfare state has attempted to resolve the ability to pay problem to some degree by providing for those unable to work. In a Marxist society who will decide "whatever course of action best meets societies needs/demands" because I would not trust a politician to make my decisions for me.

synd wrote: »

This is largely in response to propagandistic Liberal accusations that negative events occurring under socialist regimes must necessarily be a consequence of ''socialism''..''

What about the death toll from a bloody revolution and the dictatorship that follows? Take Tiananmen Sqaure for example. Marx described the path to communism involving a dictatorship of the proletariat however this has inevitably resulted in a military dictatorship in which the spirit of Marxism ultimately was given up once power is consolidated into a dictatorial leader e.g. Stalin and Mao. The only geniune "Marxist" revolution that comes the mind was the french revolution where the people freed themselves from the monarchy and set the context for Marxist thought to emerge however today democratic structures allow for progress, structures not present in a communist society.

synd wrote: »

In relation to your despicable neo-liberal attempts to label Maoist China an ''economic failure'' a wealth of historical research illustrates sizable progress in terms of overall living standards relative to the prior period. ''It was due to this revolution that the average life expectancy of the majority Chinese rose from 35 in 1949 to 63 by 1975 (Bergaglio 2006) in a space of less than 30 years.'' Gao -. And before you go looking for your copy of the highly discredited ''unknown story'' Il have you know that Jung Chang isn't a historian, shes a sensationalist dissident who had a rough time due to her fathers post as deputy head of Sichuan province propaganda dept. Chang changes his post to ''head of public relations'' - in both her main works. Repression in contemporary China is increasingly used against an emerging neo-left - the Tienanmen square massacre for instance was ordered by Deng Xiaoping (an ardent proponent of economic liberalism) - and contrary to the message espoused by the western media many of the protester's where actually unemployed urban workers, dissatisfied with the privatization of public assets and the wholesale removal of social security (iron ricebowl).

Mao's reforms were successful because he was industrialising an undeveloped agricultural society and commanding all resources. However greater gains may have been achieved by private enterprise. Thats ignoring the mass famine that ensued from Mao's reforms because capitalism was not allowed to direct food to those who needed it.

You will not trust western media from democratic countries where freedom of the press is guaranteed however you will trust reports from a society that restricts all aspects of personal freedom and if enforced would be knocking at the door following this debate? That is the true form of contemporary repression in China.

synd wrote: »

On the issue of imperialism - yes, imperialism is an essential component of capitalism. The industrial revolution was fueled on revenue appropriated directly via slavery, plunder and narco trafficking. The only reason north America industrialized was due to cheap textiles (slavery), and only after the subsequent development of industrial technology when wage labor became a more profitable means of exploitation was chattel slavery abolished. Imperialism is nothing more than an expression of the market - the state apparatus utilized to facilitate the process of bourgeoisie accumulation.

Imperialism was one component of the industrial revolution, technological innovation and a vast increase in the productivity of workers was another. It was this increase in labour productivity that increased wages and ultimately lead to the empowerment of workers that Marx envisioned. The industrial revolution freed slaves because advances in technology increased productivity reducing the need for cheap slaves. Take the US civil war for example the industrial north favored the freedom of slaves however the agricultural south favored the slave trade to provide cheap labour for their inefficient farms. It was the industrial revolution that freed the working class and slaves.

synd wrote: »

Ireland has historically been a colony within a larger capitalist empire and suffered the consequences, mass murder being one. The contemporary period of growth was due to Ireland's position as a tax haven. However, the capital that came to Ireland (largely US), like all capital was built via and developed under direct circumstances of global imperialism. Ireland today acts as a fueling station for US bombers - produces micro-chips for the US arms industry via intel ect. Imperialism is a core element of capitalism, that it does not occur in every nation is inconsequential considering capital transaction is a global phenomenon, localized state aggression is merely a side effect of market compulsions.

You yet again you equate capitalism with a form of government whereas it is an economic system. Capitalist societies can be dictatorial or democratic and this effects the freedom of the people. An empire removes the freedoms of its colonies. The US is not a empire as it cannot change Irish law. The US is a hegemonic super power influencing the world both economically and politically. A capitalist society does not require a imperialist society simply because imperialism is both an economic and political structure whereas capitalism is not a political structure in the sense of government.

synd wrote: »

Socialism is advocated on the grounds that people should be entitled to equality in the management of their own life conditions. Liberalism on the other hand holds that society be managed via executive order, in that those who do not own but require use of the means of subsistence must subordinate themselves before the authority of those who by degrees control it. Liberalism using rhetoric concerning individual freedom - ensures only the freedom of the wealthy to rule the poor via property relation and conceptualizes the Marxist assault on the object of their rule as detrimental to their social power. The liberal pathology demands that the intrinsic initiative of the many be negated in service to the despotism of the few - this is what liberals mean by freedom.

"Socialists understand that the free expression and engagement of the currently dis-empowered mass's can only be secured by the de-construction of private property and the negation of liberalism as the countervailing hegemony.

Remove equality and your definition of socialism actually describes liberalism. Liberalism is about freedom of the individual where the individual be a person or business, it is the anti-thesis of executive order however in its extreme form it tends to result in a small few gaining power quite like Marxism unless individual rights are guaranteed. Marxism specifically requires a hierarchical bureaucracy to control all aspects of the economy and ultimately the individual. Neither extreme is desirable and is possibly catastrophic.

Socialism on the other hand offers a democratic provision for vulnerable members of society and is not same as Marxism or Communism. The socialist tendency to nationalise business is more related to their fears of job losses when businesses fail. Most businesses that are nationalised are therefore usually unsustainable and inefficient.

You argue that workers are enslaved by the burgeoise however workers have the freedom to chose who they work for and to an extent how long they work for (once minimum living standards are met any additional work is optional). If they opt to work hard enough they can save enough to possible start their own business and become their own employer essentially freeing themselves under your exploitation of labour logic. However the idea that anyone can be free of work in any society is ridiculous, who will produce the food, clothing and shelter and why work if someone else will do it instead? Eventually such as a system can only result in a dictatorship state forcing people to work for the state however popular revolt almost always ensures that stage is never reached. Capitalism is not perfect but it allows for a freer society that Marxism can provide.

synd wrote: »

60 million - an overestimation. Nonetheless, you obviously ignore the context in tune with your class ideology. Deaths due to the revolutionary re-constitution of the social order are inevitable. The ruling class of any given society and those mercenaries who uphold their ideology will invariably attempt by violent means to retain control over society in the event of revolution - they will either succeed or perish in the process. Lenin's Red Terror was in response to the preceding White Terror enforced by the aristocracy. It would also do well to take into account the 158.9 million Russians sent to die during WW1 by your beloved Tzarists.

This is probably the most extremist and illogical argument yet. In a democratic society as we have now if the workers revolt the democratic structures in place in developed countries offer the means to peacefully take power. A violent revolution can only suggest that an extreme minority are responsible.

I'm not sure if you are just misinformed and this is why you argue for a violent revolution to establish a Marxist and Communist society which has been shown to lead to dictatorship if achieved though undemocratic means. To be honest it just seems like you enjoy the idea of being an outsider and criticising a system which is the best the world has come up with to date. Capatilism is by no means perfect but any progress should be achieved by gradual democratic change. A revolution to tear up everything we know and start from scratch is destined to fail.

Anonymous1987

I seems to me that Marxism served its purpose and is now very much obsolete. The major failure seems to be in the dictatorship of the proletariat which never lead to the communist classless society envisioned. Nevertheless while a classless society never emerged the middle class in developed economies have grown to never before reached levels. Marxist thought helped bring this about but not through the revolutionary process Marx predicted. In fact revolutions only occurred in undeveloped un-industrialised societies that were still under feudalism e.g. Russia and China. Also it seems evident that there is an academic divide between economics and sociology departments with sociology departments tending to somewhat favour Marxist ideas while economics department favors liberalism. I put this down to the theoretical attractiveness of Marxism both sociological and politically (classless society) however it tends to ignore economic realism about the inefficiencies of allocating resources under state control. I would also note however that extreme Liberalism is similarly as attractive and lacking in realism with regard to the tendency of the most politically and economically powerful in society to abuse and exploit the rest. Any thoughts opinions on this?

Kama

quote=efla]I found little explicit reference to Marx in Sokal[/quote]

Neither did I, but but if I may repeat his statement of motivation in full:

Sokal wrote:

“Why did I do it? I must confess that I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them”

Hoaxing aside, I'm tempted to take the trickster at his word; yet as with the publication of the hoax, the issue of the credibility of the speaker cannot be guaranteed. As Wiki codifies, we must 'assume good faith', with all the vulnerabilities this entails. As with more mundane reality, if we trust, we can be conned. Seems quite the fundamental dilemma, tbh.

Lots of meat in the Sokal Affair: 'physics envy' throughout the humanities or the cultural and cognitive capital of science (or science-as-rhetoric), the Orwellian point of the effects of language on thought, leading through Sapir-Whorf and Foucauldian Truth/Power, and the epistemic tension on the status of scientific knowledge, among others. All seem to me somewhat replete with ironies: the 'deconstructors' of a oppressive science ape its style, generally without comprehension, while 'Science' comes to be deployed (since Social Darwinism, through 'Scientific Marxism', and on to date) quite rhetorically and self-certainly to prove some highly ideological (and conveniently unfalsifiable) points, in a frightfully unscientific attitude of Final Closure of the Gates of Ijtihad; and that postmodernism, born from and railing against the highly canon-prizing and orthodoxy-privileging French academy system founds its most vociferous home in American universities, where pluralism had been more entrenched and 'oppression by dominant knowledge hierarchies' far less of an issue. I'd mention finally, that with the fall of the Soviet Union the change in liberal discourse from being based on the right to choose ones own political-economic destiny to 'There Is No Alternative'.

As per usual, extremists dominate the debate, the (to me, anyway) boring Hurrah-Boo hardening of putatively-polar arguments occurs, and the 'Mangle' of complexity gets reduced to the caricature of ivory-tower scientific certainty versus a corrosive multiculti-relativist horde of Vandal-Huns destroying the possibility of knowledge. Again, it'd be way off topic to go through the relativist-empirical schools, or whether PoMo commitments are actually anathematic to doing 'real' research, but as with the libertarian/socialist debates here, I'm of the basic opinion there's a degree of (to recruit some more pseudo-science to my argument) projection of insecurity and disavowed insufficience: terror and denial of the individual for the 'Communist', and of the collective for the 'Libertarian'.

As to homogeny in the academy, I didn't find it that bad, but perhaps I was lucky. But then I'm a bit of a contrarian, and a proponent of the approach that you should all the more study the approaches you disagree with, to benefit from either the experience or rebutting and countering for the partisan, or for a more balanced view for the more holist. LitCrit I'd agree more, from my more limited xp, than the social sciences, but then you need to factor in selection bias: collectivist worldviews I'd presume as a first approximation will be more common in something like sociology, founded on study of societies, individualist more common in (generally axiomatically individualist) economics, so meeting Right sociologists or Left economists are generally the exception, with feedback effects on what the disciplinary character or culture, and consequently selection criteria tend to be self-reinforcing. Given most people want a good result, writing what the marker wants becomes > writing what you honestly think. Again, this is hardly a monopoly of the Left in academia, more of a structural issue in a hierarchical system, and the possibly-unanswerable problem of how do you adequately correct for, or mark without, bias. I know for a fact I wouldn't have made it through my undergrad without external examiners.

Balkanization of knowledge, and the propagandist self-certainty of groupthink-confirmation effects are something keeps me up at night, and something the internet seems prone to enabling, for all ideological varieties. I was horrified when I first heard about StumbleUpon, I thought it seemed like, or enabled, utter ideological incest, a cocooned net that only told you what you already agreed with, but then this is just a development of a trend that starts with ignoring other people you don't want to be forced to think by.

Donegalfella wrote:

Economists no longer take Marx seriously, for instance, because -- well, bluntly, he was wrong. When it comes to theories of capital, labour, and the like, his analyses have long since been superseded.

As have the analyses of his classical-liberal frenemies; Ricardo and Smith also used labour theory, but then (to play the milder form of epistemic relativism) different theoretical maps lead you to different places, and foreground or background different landmarks. An analysis can be superceded, while still being 'good to think with'; a theory can be flawed, but remain interesting. The concept of labour being alienated resonates for many; why? The (to me) interesting aspect of the social construction of knowledge is tracing what interests or effects a system of knowledge is expressed from or by. You don't need a (hard) epistemic relativist position to see systems of thought as socially grounded in their time when we read theory from the past, and it doesn't require much more to assume the same goes for our own.

I'll fall back towards my religion comment...Marx could be 99.9% wrong (on some arbitrary scale of truth, measured with our fully-warranteed and tested social-science-o-meter ), but through the alchemical marvel of human creativity, some damn interesting thoughts can emerge from the research program of his intellectual descendants. I'd regard my intellectual life as being the poorer if all Marxist scholarship was redacted out. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and all that...And to say 'economists' as if they were some homogenous herd seems tendentious; even before the current 'crash' we had FT articles praising his analysis, before Das Kapital started flying off the shelves with the accumulation financial crisis. As efla said, you can separate the analytic and the political Marx, domesticate the Beast. 'Well he's just wrong', to my mind, means you need to account for why so many have thought him either right, or valuable. The arguments I've seen here: 'they are naive/sheeple', and 'itsa conspiracy', both fairly unconvincing arguments to me, raising more questions than they answer.

Liberalism at least has been consistent in critiquing abuses of power wherever they have occurred.

Jesus said it best with motes and beams...due to the dynamics I whines about earlier, honest critique of your own side is a rarity; Maggie didn't complain about Pinochet's 'abuses', would be the stock rejoinder here. Again, just like people, but on a macro scale, terribly prone to bitching about the 'abuses' others, highly unlikely to 'fess up to our own wrongs, and generally more than willing to either find an excuse for why they either didn't happen (denial or negationism), or if they did, why they were necessary (Realist International Relations, 'preventative war', utilitarian justifications, etc). Of course, if it's necessary, then that's ok...

Anonymous wrote:

however today democratic structures allow for progress, structures not present in a communist society.

I was quite young when my grandmother (quite the good liberal) put it to me as 'before we got the vote, violence could be legitimate, but once we got it, it can't be', which was my earliest infusion of the ideas of democratic legitimacy. Though there are tensions here again, as with DF's (democraphobic?) position, if a vote goes against your fundamentals, or if your vote is structurally undervalued (swing states, gerrymandering) or unheard as with institutional capture and authoritarian democracies like Singapore. Does this problematize legitimacy? Makes me kinda uncomfortable with my childish simplicity, anyway...

On Communism, a question (mainly for the antis, since the answer from the other side is trivially obvious)...Can Communism be democratic? Or is it necessarily, rather than contingently, antidemocratic? We have more authoritarian and more democratic forms of capitalism, why not for Communism?

Anonymous wrote:

I put this down to the theoretical attractiveness of Marxism both sociological and politically (classless society) however it tends to ignore economic realism about the inefficiencies of allocating resources under state control. I would also note however that extreme Liberalism is similarly as attractive and lacking in realism with regard to the tendency of the most politically and economically powerful in society to abuse and exploit the rest.

That's my feelings anyway. A little like DF's comment on insular universities, I think one of the worst things to ever happen to liberal-capitalism is to have 'won' the Cold War; ideological arrogance and groupthink set in, from TINA through Fukuyama, until the 'relief' of 'terrorism' gave us back that most legitimating of psychic structures: an Eternal Foe.

Problem being, as in arguments, proving someone else wrong doesn't make you right...but it does provide a satisfying illusion and sensation of rightness. But perhaps thats all most people want...

synd

Demand is a reflection of the ability and willingness to pay. Generally people put needs before wants you will not purchase skin lotion if you need a life saving drug. As such capitalism addresses needs before wants and the prevalence of luxuries exemplifies that basic needs are satisfied. The failure of the profit motive to encourage the development of life saving drugs in the third world is more a reflection of the poor rule of law to support the market rather the market and profit motive itself.

No, the nature of capitalism itself ensures that needs are not expressed, and without recourse to an external state mechanism the un-restricted market leaves people to die. My initial point stands intact, individual transactions on the market are unable to transmit adequate ''information'' considering those who are most in need are invariably unable to express their requirements. The fact that luxury commodity production is a more profitable endeavour ensures its prioritized position relative to human need - this is of course an irrational prioritization - unless we are using bourgeoisie terminology which equates rationality with '''profit maximization''.

The individual or consumer has the best information to decide what their needs and wants are and the market allows them to express this through their ability and willingness to pay.

Individuals hold essential information, however the capitalist market ''ensures'' that people cannot express it in the event of insufficient income. Likewise the ability to pay in a system where wealth becomes concentrated ensures that luxury commodities retain a high price, neither representative of social demand or labor input. For instance a painting can assume a high price due to the fact that a wealthy minority are willing to pay such costs. The given commodity may be in low demand, thus price under capitalist transaction does not reflect value in terms of social desirability or labor expended in production.

The welfare state has attempted to resolve the ability to pay problem to some degree by providing for those unable to work.

The welfare state merely re-distributes social surplus, in regions where the state apparatus does not re-allocate a portion of expropriated value in the form of social facilities, the market due to its inherent inability to transmit adequate ''information'' leaves social requirements neglected. Essentially it is the free market in which people are most susceptible to poverty - the more affluent regions of the world predominantly developed via high state regulation and have ensured that needs are met via a planned system of redistribution. Moreover, what is taken as surplus value by the capitalist class by far exceeds the amount re-invested in even the most well funded public facilities either as welfare or aid to developing regions, the latter have more expropriated in profit then they receive in aid. "The relationship of these global corporations with the poorer countries had long been an exploiting one . Whereas U.S. corporations in Europe between 1950 and 1965 invested $8.1 billion and made $5.5 billion in profits, in Latin America they invested $3.8 billion and made $11.2 billion in profits, and in Africa they invested $5.2 billion and made $14.3 bullion in profits." [Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, p. 556] Socialists argue therefore, that society should re-appropriate its capital in entirety and retain the full value of its productive capacity - this would under all circumstances result in a dramatic increase in living standards.

In a Marxist society who will decide "whatever course of action best meets societies needs/demands" because I would not trust a politician to make my decisions for me.

Under a socialist economy individuals decide what luxury commodities to avail of on the market. Centralized planning with regards production would be confined to specified areas - food staples, housing, telecommunications, airline-co-ordination, train networks, health care, education ect. What qualifies as a social requirement would be decided democratically - general consensus tends to be that housing, education ect should not be com-modified, note that this occurs under the current system to a lesser extent.

What about the death toll from a bloody revolution and the dictatorship that follows?

Death is an inevitable characteristic of revolution, those who through violence attempt to maintain their social power will either succeed or perish in the process.

Take Tienanmen Square for example.

Again, the Tiananmen square massacre was ordered by the neo-liberal reformist Deng Xiaoping - much of the general protest was in opposition to the privatization of state owned industry and the wholesale removal of social welfare.

Marx described the path to communism involving a dictatorship of the proletariat however this has inevitably resulted in a military dictatorship in which the spirit of Marxism ultimately was given up once power is consolidated into a dictatorial leader e.g. Stalin and Mao.

I would agree with you to an extent on this point. Marx considered the agrarian peasantry incapable of organizing a social revolution for numerous reasons, geographic dipesment, lack of education and susceptibility to the power of the religious institutions. He therefore reasoned that it would be the growing industrial proletariat who would ''lead'' the revolution in the interests of society at large - the ''dictatorship of the proletariat'' therefore was initially a form of minority governance considering the agrarian peasantry although in rapid demise - still constituted around 70-80% of European population. It was on this ground that the anarchists rejected the concept - arguing that transition to socialism would require the active participation of the mass's - (a position I agree with). Lenin however expanding on Marx developed the notion of the vanguard - the urban proletariat and revolutionary intelligentsia as the driving force. The dictatorship is however an entirely outdated concept, the contemporary rural populations have become increasingly proletarianized in the developed world. Considering the great majority of the workforce are proletariat - the term is today of little meaning. Ironically - Mao (being a peasant) not only rejected the idea, but argued that the agrarian peasantry would be the primary force of the revolution - which proved a successful theory given the role of land reform and abolishment of serfdom ect.

The only genuine "Marxist" revolution that comes the mind was the french revolution where the people freed themselves from the monarchy and set the context for Marxist thought to emerge

Not without its own bloodshed, although I don't cry over dead aristocrats and neither should you considering they where the primary obstacle to liberal bourgeoisie progression.

however today democratic structures allow for progress, structures not present in a communist society.

The liberal notion of constitutional representation within a capitalist system is contradictory. Democracy can only occur in the public domain, capitalism under conditions of competition invariably seeks to expand so as to open up new sites of investment. The private tyrannies of the market domain therefore are invariably compelled to privatize all public spaces save the very institutions required to legitimize the process of de-democratization - ie (the liberal electoral system). The liberal constitution in its central defence of the market ensures that democracy within wider society - insofar as it would require the (socialization and democratic arrangement of the workplace) becomes impossible within the confines of the liberal system. Constitutional governance - is in reality, a form of despotism in that those who have constructed the constitution which society is obliged to abide by are none other than the liberal minority, who devised the legal tenants of society in such a manner that the object of bourgeoisie rule and sole means of appropriation/theft (property) becomes sacrosanct. Revolutionary socialists understand - as liberals do ''in secret'', the nature of the legal system - which will be the primary target of the socialist movement. Voting every four years for one business funded organization/political party to oversee the indentured process of bourgeoisie accumulation can hardly be described as a democracy in any meaningful sense - its plutocracy, a form of despotism.

Communism/socialism - is none other than the democratization of societies institutions, socialism aims to provide every person with an equal say in the management of their own workplace, it aims to provide a form of radical democracy. Capitalism on the other hand equates freedom with property - needless to say, I can not be free to even move one foot without permission if another person owns the land under my feet, liberals in their blatant deception defend only the ''freedom'' of the property owner to command society. Given that the means of subsistence become concentrated under capitalism - those without property must subordinate themselves before those who own it in order to make a living. Freedom is by degrees determined by ones relationship with the economic means of production. The worker must obey (like a dog) the despotic command of the manager in the workplace, the personal initiative of the many is negated in service to the dictates of the few. The idiotic liberal response to this situation is that (the worker may choose another property owner to subordinate him/her self before) - socialists however want to abolish private property and democratize society in its (entirety) - a project that is disallowed by the liberal constitution on the premise that it would be ''unjust'' ect. Liberal theorists understand perfectly well and have ''always'' understood how a constitutional arrangement whereby property is protected via the state is an effective mode of class rule, in their more lucid moments they admit it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAgJs9anhw8

Mao's reforms were successful because he was industrialising an undeveloped agricultural society and commanding all resources.

Economic planning certainly had its part to play. The de-construction of feudalism and the democratization of rural society had a tremendous effect - following collectivization peasants where for the first time in Chinese history allowed active participation in their own working conditions ect.

However greater gains may have been achieved by private enterprise.

I disagree, from observation of the historical track record command economies have consistently outperformed capitalist economies when cases of relative economic similarity are compared over a given time span. Below is a previous comment I made on this point using soviet development as an example.

Did the USSR fail ? Well lets look at the facts. The liberal assertion that the USSR was a failure is predicated upon its being compared economically with the USA or Europe within a given time frame - a ridiculous comparison in that that these areas had been developed prior - you would have to go back about 800 years before both economies where alike. The rational comparison would be to look at nations that were similar to the soviet states in 1910 and compare their level of development in 1990. So we could compare Russia and Brazil or Bulgaria and Guatemala ect. Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.

For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. The economy stagnated around the mid 60s until its collapse. Now if we compare living standards from the last period of the soviet regime - to the period of economic liberalization we see something very interesting, massive reduction in living standards and an increase in poverty levels. UNICEF documented half a million additional deaths a year in Russia alone due to the implementation of capitalist reform, or more accurately the removal of social supports and price controls. In the Czech Rep poverty went from 5.7% in 1989 to 18.2% in 1992. In Poland during the same period from 20% -40%. The massive votes retained by the eastern European communist parties aren't hard to explain at all in light of the facts - with the Russian CP alone averaging with roughly a third of the vote. Some months ago Moldova voted the communist party back into power. Now its often thrown around by misinformed liberals that this is due to the ''youth vote'' - who had no experience of soviet misery. The truth is actually the opposite - the majority of communist party voters are the elderly. So did the USSR fail ? - well the USSR had internal problems - social repression, difficulty with adequate production esp in the form of consumer goods ect. However its clear that it resulted in a higher standard of living than economic liberalism would have provided within the given time span.

That's ignoring the mass famine that ensued from Mao's reforms because capitalism was not allowed to direct food to those who needed it.

Again I have already addressed this issue -

This is largely in response to propagandistic Liberal accusations that negative events occurring under socialist regimes must necessarily be a consequence of ''socialism''. Taking famine as a much cited example - the deaths in China during the great leap forward are attributed by liberals to socialism as opposed to ill planned industrial reform resulting in the subsequent neglect of agriculture. Supposing we apply this same rational to capitalism - Amartya Sen has estimated that during the Bengal famine of the 1940s the death toll compared to that of the great leap forward numbers an additional 4 million per year. Chomsky argues therefore, that India alone under a democratic capitalist system has during one famine seen excess of the total 100 million deaths attributed to global communism by liberal propagandists. - ''China in the late 1940s began to institute rural public health and educational programs, as well as other programs oriented towards the mass of the population. India played the game by our rules. It didn’t do any of this and there are consequences, for example, in mortality rates. These started to decline sharply in China from around 1950 until 1979. Then they stopped declining and started going up slightly. That was the period of the reforms. During the totalitarian period, from 1950 to about 1979, mortality rates declined. They declined in India, too, but much more slowly than in China up to 1979. Sen then says, suppose you measure the number of extra deaths in India resulting annually from not carrying out these Maoist-style programs or others for the benefit of the population, what you would call reforms if the term wasn’t so ideological. He estimates close to four million extra deaths every year in India, which means that, as he puts it, every eight years in India the number of skeletons in the closet is the same as in China’s moment of shame, the famine. If you look at the whole period, it’s about 100 million extra deaths in India alone after the democratic capitalist period enters.''

So just in case you try to ignore the point - according to the historian Amartya Sen (who lived through the famine) enough food was being produced in Bengal, however people could not afford it and starved as a consequence. This could have been averted through state re-distribution, however this clearly refutes your assertion that the capitalist market rationally allocates resources.

You will not trust western media from democratic countries where freedom of the press is guaranteed however you will trust reports from a society that restricts all aspects of personal freedom and if enforced would be knocking at the door following this debate? That is the true form of contemporary repression in China.

Actually Im not taking my information from the Chinese state media - which is just as blatent in its neo-liberal propaganda as the western media.

Imperialism was one component of the industrial revolution, technological innovation and a vast increase in the productivity of workers was another.

Technological innovation and enhanced productivity predicated entirely upon imperial revnue.

It was this increase in labour productivity that increased wages and ultimately lead to the empowerment of workers that Marx envisioned.

It was labor unions that fought for increases in wage - in conjunction with the bourgeoisie realization that a section of labor ought to be co-opted into the process of capitalist accumualtion in order to reduce class antagonisms.

The industrial revolution freed slaves because advances in technology increased productivity reducing the need for cheap slaves.

Slavery was used by the capitalist class to fuel the industrial revolution, then when wage labor become a cheaper means of exploitation slavery was abolished. It had nothing to do with liberal capitalism being a moral system - rather it became more profitable to avail of a labor source that required no maintinence costs.

It was the industrial revolution that freed the working class and slaves.

It was the industrial revolution that required and supported slavery to begin with.

You yet again you equate capitalism with a form of government whereas it is an economic system.

Capitalism is an economic system - its political manifestation is liberalism.

An empire removes the freedoms of its colonies.

It does indeed

The US is not a empire as it cannot change Irish law.

It could invade torrorow and install a puppet gov - as it has consistently done throughout its history and continues to do so (read chomsky).

A capitalist society does not require a imperialist society simply because imperialism is both an economic and political structure whereas capitalism is not a political structure in the sense of government.

Imperialism is an expression of antagonisms within the global market - it is a bi-product of capitalism. "just as capitalist production and banking speculation, which in the long run swallows up that production, must, under the threat of bankruptcy, ceaselessly expand at the expense of the small financial and productive enterprises which they absorb, must become universal, monopolistic enterprises extending all over the world - so this modern and necessarily military State is driven on by an irrepressible urge to become a universal State. Hegemony is only a modest manifestation possible under the circumstances, of this unrealisable urge inherent in every State. And the first condition of this hegemony is the relative impotence and subjection of all the neighbouring States." - Bakunin "men no longer fight for the pleasure of kings, they fight for the integrity of revenues and for the growing wealth [for the] benefit of the barons of high finance and industry . Political preponderance is quite simply a matter of economic preponderance in international markets. What Germany, France, Russia, England, and Austria are all trying to win is not military preponderance: it is economic domination. It is the right to impose their goods and their customs tariffs on their neighbours; the right to exploit industrially backward peoples; the privilege of building railroads to appropriate from a neighbour either a port which will activate commerce, or a province where surplus merchandise can be unloaded . When we fight today, it is to guarantee our great industrialists a profit of 30%, to assure the financial barons their domination at the Bourse [stock-exchange], and to provide the shareholders of mines and railways with their incomes." [Words of a Rebel, pp. 65-6] Lenin also writes extensively on the nature of imperialism - ie. state/monopoly capitalism.

Remove equality and your definition of socialism actually describes liberalism. Liberalism is about freedom of the individual where the individual be a person or business,

Liberalism is about the ''freedom'' of the individual to assertain so much property that he/she may rule half the planet.

it is the anti-thesis of executive order however in its extreme form it tends to result in a small few gaining power quite like Marxism unless individual rights are guaranteed.

Liberalism ensures that the power of the few remains intact through its defence of property rights - as explained by John Jay in the youtube link above. Marxism at heart aims to remove from society only the means of consolidating power.

Marxism specifically requires a hierarchical bureaucracy to control all aspects of the economy and ultimately the individual. Neither extreme is desirable and is possibly catastrophic.

No it doesnt - Marxism isnt a system of governence, its a socio economic philosophy that has various interpriations. I would consider myself a libertarian marxist/anarcho socialist. You quite right however that some aspects of Marxist thought (namely vanguardism) - once enacted can potentially lead to a hierarchical red burarchracy.

Socialism on the other hand offers a democratic provision for vulnerable members of society and is not same as Marxism or Communism.

Socialism is generally considered a transition towards communism - your prob refering to social democracy. The Irish socialist party for example are a marxist communist party whereas the spanish socialist party are social democrats - like labor.

Most businesses that are nationalised are therefore usually unsustainable and inefficient.

Again - the economic record of the USSR disproves this assertion.

You argue that workers are enslaved by the burgeoise however workers have the freedom to chose who they work for and to an extent how long they work for (once minimum living standards are met any additional work is optional).

They are allowed a choice between various hierarchial arrangments - we argue for democracy in the workplace.

If they opt to work hard enough they can save enough to possible start their own business and become their own employer essentially freeing themselves under your exploitation of labour logic.

In ancient rome slaves could potentially become free and proceed to purchase slaves themselves - social mobility does not justify slavery - nor does it justify exploitation. A good extract from kapital on ''exploitation'' ''The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. That which on your side appears a spontaneous expansion of capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power. You and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &c., I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal amount of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach to me constantly the gospel of “saving” and “abstinence.” Good! I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it. I will each day spend, set in motion, put into action only as much of it as is compatible with its normal duration, and healthy development. By an unlimited extension of the working-day, you may in one day use up a quantity of labour-power greater than I can restore in three. What you gain in labour I lose in substance. The use of my labour-power and the spoliation of it are quite different things. If the average time that (doing a reasonable amount of work) an average labourer can live, is 30 years, the value of my labour-power, which you pay me from day to day is 1/365 × 30 or 1/10950 of its total value. But if you consume it in 10 years, you pay me daily 1/10950 instead of 1/3650 of its total value, i.e., only 1/3 of its daily value, and you rob me, therefore, every day of 2/3 of the value of my commodity. You pay me for one day’s labour-power, whilst you use that of 3 days. That is against our contract and the law of exchanges. I demand, therefore, a working-day of normal length, and I demand it without any appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out of place. You may be a model citizen, perhaps a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and in the odour of sanctity to boot; but the thing that you represent face to face with me has no heart in its breast. That which seems to throb there is my own heart-beating. I demand the normal working-day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity.'' Capital p 343. I think this also gives an insight into how marxist economic theory is inherently idealogical - efla, and I maintain that is is ''humanly impossible'' to sepreate analysis from subjective valuation. Of course you might consider this ''an excuse not to do fieldwork'' - but I would rather be true to myself than ''pretend'' to be a scientist.

However the idea that anyone can be free of work in any society is ridiculous, who will produce the food, clothing and shelter and why work if someone else will do it instead?

Socialism seeks to re-numerate people with the value of their productive output - making an allowance for taxation, which would be decided on a democratic basis and unlike profit is re-invested into social facilites.

This is probably the most extremist and illogical argument yet. In a democratic society as we have now if the workers revolt the democratic structures in place in developed countries offer the means to peacefully take power. A violent revolution can only suggest that an extreme minority are responsible.

Extremist yes, hardly illogical. For socialism to be enacted both the liberal legal system and the electorial system would need to be de-constructed.

A revolution to tear up everything we know and start from scratch is destined to fail.

The only way to prove TINA wrong is to kill her.

Ostrom

synd wrote: »

I think this also gives an insight into how marxist economic theory is inherently idealogical - efla, and I maintain that is is ''humanly impossible'' to sepreate analysis from subjective valuation. Of course you might consider this ''an excuse not to do fieldwork'' - but I would rather be true to myself than ''pretend'' to be a scientist.

That statement was in reference to the early 1970's french sociological school of 'sociotechnical' studies, who considered it perfectly appropriate to disregard understanding of technical concepts by nature of their supposed ideological prestige bias. A wealth of work standing far beyond political motivation has been produced since the 1970's. You can choose to read it any way you wish - feel free to ignore any other approach.

Nice dig though, very fair...


For what its worth I agree with most of your above post, my main initial concern was that we could discuss something of Marx's earlier or later historical work, rather than trading slaps over our favourite modes of production

Anonymous1987

synd wrote: »

No, the nature of capitalism itself ensures that needs are not expressed, and without recourse to an external state mechanism the un-restricted market leaves people to die.

True the un-restricted market will return us to the bourgeoisie society we escaped from post industrialisation but we don't have a un-restricted market economy and nor should we. The propose of government is to deal with the market failures inherent in some aspects of capitalism i.e. minimum safety standards. State intervention can aid the functioning of a capitalist society to the benefit of everyone it is not simply a choice of one or another.

synd wrote: »

The fact that luxury commodity production is a more profitable endeavour ensures its prioritized position relative to human need - this is of course an irrational prioritization - unless we are using bourgeoisie terminology which equates rationality with '''profit maximization''.

I disagree, needs can be satisfied, wants cannot. Luxuries are prelevent in industrial societies because needs are satisfied. Luxuries are inherently more profitable because the demand for wants is essentially limitless. Why you ask then are people still suffering from starvation in some parts of the world? The un-developed world has not developed the institutions necessary to support a functioning capitalist society i.e. the rule of law and democratic structures. Therefore capital will not flow into these countries because economic transactions cannot be supported by legal guarantee, i.e. the profit motive is removed by the lack of developed property rights.

synd wrote: »

Individuals hold essential information, however the capitalist market ''ensures'' that people cannot express it in the event of insufficient income.

Hence the welfare state.

synd wrote: »

Likewise the ability to pay in a system where wealth becomes concentrated ensures that luxury commodities retain a high price, neither representative of social demand or labor input. For instance a painting can assume a high price due to the fact that a wealthy minority are willing to pay such costs. The given commodity may be in low demand, thus price under capitalist transaction does not reflect value in terms of social desirability or labor expended in production.

Luxuries retain high prices because of want or desirability, it may not represent social demand or labour input but it does represent the perceived value or the value that people place on the production of creativity and originality in the painting. A painting assumes a high price because it is one of a kind, often created by a specific individual. The perceived value lies in its exclusivity and its popularity. The more popular a painting the higher the price.

synd wrote: »

The welfare state merely re-distributes social surplus, in regions where the state apparatus does not re-allocate a portion of expropriated value in the form of social facilities, the market due to its inherent inability to transmit adequate ''information'' leaves social requirements neglected.

True the market fails to account for some social needs which is why the government provides services where the market fails.

synd wrote: »

Essentially it is the free market in which people are most susceptible to poverty - the more affluent regions of the world predominantly developed via high state regulation and have ensured that needs are met via a planned system of redistribution.

I agree to a degree however the developed world could hardly be described as high regulation in comparison to what a Marxist government calls for.

synd wrote: »

Moreover, what is taken as surplus value by the capitalist class by far exceeds the amount re-invested in even the most well funded public facilities either as welfare or aid to developing regions, the latter have more expropriated in profit then they receive in aid.

There is certainly room for improvement in striking the balance between income equity and growth.

synd wrote: »

Socialists argue therefore, that society should re-appropriate its capital in entirety and retain the full value of its productive capacity - this would under all circumstances result in a dramatic increase in living standards.

Corporate exploitation of poor countries has more to do with these countries inability to cope with capitalist corporations which must follow social legislation in the developed world, legislation that is often lacking or underdeveloped in the poorer parts of the world. Simply arguing that society will re-appropriate capital leaves the allocation of resources open to political manipulation.

synd wrote: »

Under a socialist economy individuals decide what luxury commodities to avail of on the market. Centralized planning with regards production would be confined to specified areas - food staples, housing, telecommunications, airline-co-ordination, train networks, health care, education ect. What qualifies as a social requirement would be decided democratically - general consensus tends to be that housing, education ect should not be com-modified, note that this occurs under the current system to a lesser extent.

Yes, social provision should exist but it should not eliminate market efficiencies.

synd wrote: »

Death is an inevitable characteristic of revolution, those who through violence attempt to maintain their social power will either succeed or perish in the process.

The revolution you refer to can be equated with war. I only see justification for war in self defense, this is not necessary in the developed world at least.

synd wrote: »

The dictatorship is however an entirely outdated concept, the contemporary rural populations have become increasingly proletarianized in the developed world. Considering the great majority of the workforce are proletariat - the term is today of little meaning. Ironically - Mao (being a peasant) not only rejected the idea, but argued that the agrarian peasantry would be the primary force of the revolution - which proved a successful theory given the role of land reform and abolishment of serfdom ect.

I agree Mao's achievement was the removal of the feudal system and land reform.

synd wrote: »

The liberal notion of constitutional representation within a capitalist system is contradictory. Voting every four years for one business funded organization/political party to oversee the indentured process of bourgeoisie accumulation can hardly be described as a democracy in any meaningful sense - its plutocracy, a form of despotism.

I fail to understand to this logic, how does the constitution which guarantees equity among its citizens end up enslaving them? Does it really matter who devised the constitution if it offers equal rights to every citizen? You seem to equate property rights with individual rights as a citizen. It does not matter whether a political party resembles a business. Imagine a political party as a corporation, the shareholders are the electorate. The political party is obliged to operate in the interests of the electorate to support their existence. Admittedly its not that simple the self interest of politicians interferes with the interests of the electorate in a typical principal agent conflict of interest.

synd wrote: »

Communism/socialism - is none other than the democratization of societies institutions, socialism aims to provide every person with an equal say in the management of their own workplace, it aims to provide a form of radical democracy. Capitalism on the other hand equates freedom with property - needless to say, I can not be free to even move one foot without permission if another person owns the land under my feet, liberals in their blatant deception defend only the ''freedom'' of the property owner to command society.

The radical democracy that you refer to is simply unworkable in reality. Ultimately a decisions and compromises between interested parties must be made. Some level of dictatorial executive order is necessary is society. Current democracy addresses the big issues however effective implementation of these polices requires executive decision making. The greater the state planning required the greater the dictatorial power afforded to politicians and as such a planned economy will necessitate dictatorial control.

With regard to property rights, its a tradeoff between the individual and society's freedom, I would argue slightly in favour of the individual because of the ability of society to oppress the individual.

synd wrote: »

Economic planning certainly had its part to play. The de-construction of feudalism and the democratization of rural society had a tremendous effect - following collectivization peasants where for the first time in Chinese history allowed active participation in their own working conditions ect.

As above I acknowledge Mao's land reforms as a positive progression from feudalism however I argue it would have been better served if individuals were afforded the ability to purchase their own property from the state.

synd wrote: »

I disagree, from observation of the historical track record command economies have consistently outperformed capitalist economies when cases of relative economic similarity are compared over a given time span. Below is a previous comment I made on this point using soviet development as an example.

Why then are the most developed economic nations capilist?

synd wrote: »

Again I have already addressed this issue -

This is largely in response to propagandistic Liberal accusations that negative events occurring under socialist regimes must necessarily be a consequence of ''socialism''.

So just in case you try to ignore the point - according to the historian Amartya Sen (who lived through the famine) enough food was being produced in Bengal, however people could not afford it and starved as a consequence. This could have been averted through state re-distribution, however this clearly refutes your assertion that the capitalist market rationally allocates resources.

To me this illustrates a failure of the welfare system in an under-developed country. Such a famine would not have occurred in present day Ireland or the UK because the social security system would have offered the means available to purchase the food. I agree that the famine was due to Mao’s mismanagement and is not specifically due to socialism.

synd wrote: »

Actually Im not taking my information from the Chinese state media - which is just as blatent in its neo-liberal propaganda as the western media.

Glad you acknowledge this however I would ask you where are you getting this information from.

synd wrote: »

Technological innovation and enhanced productivity predicated entirely upon imperial revnue.

Could you elaborate?

synd wrote: »

It was labor unions that fought for increases in wage - in conjunction with the bourgeoisie realization that a section of labor ought to be co-opted into the process of capitalist accumulation in order to reduce class antagonisms.

Labour unions definitely allowed the working class negotiate better pay with large business but increased productivity also had its part to play in better negotiations although looking back on what I said the unions probably had a much more significant role. The idea that the bourgeoisie consciously thought we better let some more people into the club would suggest a strong organised unit of bourgeoisie which seems a little farfetched.

synd wrote: »

Slavery was used by the capitalist class to fuel the industrial revolution, then when wage labor become a cheaper means of exploitation slavery was abolished. It had nothing to do with liberal capitalism being a moral system - rather it became more profitable to avail of a labor source that required no maintinence costs.

It seems profit did eradicate slavery. I'm not arguing that profit is moral rather I think it is mechanistic and a reflection of needs and wants not necessarily good or bad and rather mechanical if anything.

synd wrote: »

It was the industrial revolution that required and supported slavery to begin with.

If I am to follow your reasoning the decrease in general wages removed the need for slaves. I don't see how slaves were needed for the industrial revolution.

synd wrote: »

Capitalism is an economic system - its political manifestation is liberalism.

True

synd wrote: »

It could invade torrorow and install a puppet gov - as it has consistently done throughout its history and continues to do so (read chomsky).

I guess it could be described as an empire in this sense but it is not one in the traditional sense of the word as its power is very much diluted and it affords a very large level of autonomy to the newly installed government.

synd wrote: »

Imperialism is an expression of antagonisms within the global market - it is a bi-product of capitalism. Lenin also writes extensively on the nature of imperialism - ie. state/monopoly capitalism.

The existence of what you refer to as imperialism occurs because of the difference in the strength of supporting structures and institutions between the developed and un-developed world. Sadly corporations can and do exploit the weakness and corruption in some of the worlds most under-developed nations. In effect it is playing out the class struggle on a global scale.

synd wrote: »

Liberalism is about the ''freedom'' of the individual to assertain so much property that he/she may rule half the planet.

Yes if unrestrained

synd wrote: »

Liberalism ensures that the power of the few remains intact through its defence of property rights - as explained by John Jay in the youtube link above. Marxism at heart aims to remove from society only the means of consolidating power.

I agree, however Marxism fails to adequately explain the process of achieving communism or a classless society following the dictatorship of the proletariat.

synd wrote: »

No it doesnt - Marxism isnt a system of governence, its a socio economic philosophy that has various interpriations. I would consider myself a libertarian marxist/anarcho socialist. You quite right however that some aspects of Marxist thought (namely vanguardism) - once enacted can potentially lead to a hierarchical red burarchracy.

I think that Marxism as a socio economic philosophy exposes it weakness as a system. It bases itself on how the world should operate rather than how it does operate.

synd wrote: »

Socialism is generally considered a transition towards communism - your prob refering to social democracy. The Irish socialist party for example are a marxist communist party whereas the spanish socialist party are social democrats - like labor.

Yes social democracy is a better description of what I was referring to

synd wrote: »

Again - the economic record of the USSR disproves this assertion.

No it does not, I was referring to a situation such as the mining industry in the UK where a nationalised industry resulted in in-efficient allocation of resources.

synd wrote: »

They are allowed a choice between various hierarchial arrangments - we argue for democracy in the workplace

I think this also gives an insight into how marxist economic theory is inherently idealogical - efla, and I maintain that is is ''humanly impossible'' to sepreate analysis from subjective valuation. Of course you might consider this ''an excuse not to do fieldwork'' - but I would rather be true to myself than ''pretend'' to be a scientist.

Yes I do see it as highly ideological, hierarchical arrangements are how society and humans and indeed animals organize themselves and the larger the grouping the more hierarchical it will likely become.

As for pretending to be a scientist, simply because you can not state with certainty and objectivity the exact value of a good or service does not mean estimating it with subjectivity is useless. The subjectivity involved is the consumers perception of their needs, wants and their ability and willingness to meet them, only they can approximate this information. A person may not be able to tell you they like 2.3 apples for every orange however they can tell you they like apples more than oranges. A meteorologist cannot give exact predictions for the weather next week only a approximation does that mean the meteorologist is not a scientist?

synd wrote: »

Socialism seeks to re-numerate people with the value of their productive output - making an allowance for taxation, which would be decided on a democratic basis and unlike profit is re-invested into social facilites.

What if I decide I'm not going to work and I'm going to let everyone else pay for the services?

synd wrote: »

Extremist yes, hardly illogical. For socialism to be enacted both the liberal legal system and the electorial system would need to be de-constructed.

And replaced with what? we have a level of democracy already.

synd wrote: »

The only way to prove TINA wrong is to kill her.

There is always an alternative. The mixed economy.

Anonymous1987

Kama wrote: »

I was quite young when my grandmother (quite the good liberal) put it to me as 'before we got the vote, violence could be legitimate, but once we got it, it can't be', which was my earliest infusion of the ideas of democratic legitimacy. Though there are tensions here again, as with DF's (democraphobic?) position, if a vote goes against your fundamentals, or if your vote is structurally undervalued (swing states, gerrymandering) or unheard as with institutional capture and authoritarian democracies like Singapore. Does this problematize legitimacy? Makes me kinda uncomfortable with my childish simplicity, anyway...

Excellent point, the problem with democracy is there is still scope for the majority to dictate the minority and of course the system can be manipulated to a degree but I can't see a better alternative.

Kama wrote: »

On Communism, a question (mainly for the antis, since the answer from the other side is trivially obvious)...Can Communism be democratic? Or is it necessarily, rather than contingently, antidemocratic? We have more authoritarian and more democratic forms of capitalism, why not for Communism?

I would think no but a real communist society has never truly been achieved to test this anyway.

Kama wrote: »

That's my feelings anyway. A little like DF's comment on insular universities, I think one of the worst things to ever happen to liberal-capitalism is to have 'won' the Cold War; ideological arrogance and groupthink set in, from TINA through Fukuyama, until the 'relief' of 'terrorism' gave us back that most legitimating of psychic structures: an Eternal Foe.

Problem being, as in arguments, proving someone else wrong doesn't make you right...but it does provide a satisfying illusion and sensation of rightness. But perhaps thats all most people want...

Very interesting point. Ultimately though it would seem that society in general is far more free today that it has been in a long time since large groups of people organised, at least with regard to social freedoms if not the economic system.

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

As well as the poor general method of argument taken, the specific points argued by communist supporters dont appear any better. We have heard, on Boards, that there will be no laws and that jurers will decide only "on their conscience." So heres hoping that when Im hauled up for sunbathing naked on a beach that the 12 juries aren't members of Cóir.

Without actually venturing to suggest any "communist" interpretation of your actions (given that there is no such socialist dogma which has ideologues rigidly adhering to it), there is more then enough room to argue for your being hauled up in front of a jury or a private execution squad or whatever it is you have in a libertarian society. The holy grail of moral action under right libertarianism is that you can do what you want so long as you dont hurt others, right? Well if you take this as your conception then two arguments against your being allowed to injure yourself are as follows:

1. If you were to die of melanoma you may harm relatives or other loved ones through the pain which they feel at your senseless loss

2. Kids or even adults are indirectly influenced by your life, which serves as a visible example of how one may live their own life. If you happen to be famous, looked up to, admired, whatever, then you create yet another instance of someone respected who buys into the social convention of tanned = good, despite the fact that the process of becoming tanned is in fact dangerous. If any of these kids/adults who respect or compete or whatever with you actually go out and immitate your dangerous behaviour and come to harm on your count, you have indirectly help to cause them harm. If you dont see how this "causation" occurs then here you go:

they see you -> they think "wow that guy is tanned" -> "look how pale I am" -> "I want to be tanned" -> they lie in the sun -> BAM Melanoma

So you, through your careless action, have instigated a chain of events which led to a child getting melanoma. What a c*nt

Joycey

efla wrote: »

"Still there is a small following that support the ideals of Marx"

"Why should anyone believe that Marxism or Communism will ever or even should ever be adopted as a from of government"

Im not sure what "supporting the ideals of Marx" constitutes, but if it means recognising that Marx is one of the greatest political economists and philosophers we have ever had and taking what I think is valuable from he and his followers work, then yes I "support the ideals of Marx", just as any person interested in politics and capable of thinking critically (as opposed to being an all or nothing follower/antagonist of something) should be.

Ostrom

Joycey wrote: »

Im not sure what "supporting the ideals of Marx" constitutes, but if it means recognising that Marx is one of the greatest political economists and philosophers we have ever had and taking what I think is valuable from he and his followers work, then yes I "support the ideals of Marx", just as any person interested in politics and capable of thinking critically (as opposed to being an all or nothing follower/antagonist of something) should be.

Those aren't my words, where did you get that from? I seem to have gained some mis-attributed quotes from the quote button somewhere.

Kama

Anonymous1987 wrote:

State intervention can aid the functioning of a capitalist society to the benefit of everyone it is not simply a choice of one or another.

Totally concur, market-socialism or social democracy seem to me to have been the most successful historical synthesis to date, on balancing efficiency and equity, on health outcomes, on meritocratic grounds, and arguably on economic efficiency grounds too. Abolishing markets or states appears to me as suicidal; they're an obligately symbiotic relationship. The question is not whether to regulate ('deregulation' is always a regulatory environment) and intervene, but how, and who benefits.

Anonymous1987 wrote:

Luxuries are prelevent in industrial societies because needs are satisfied. Luxuries are inherently more profitable because the demand for wants is essentially limitless.

Interesting assumption. While 'want' goods can replace 'need' goods as needs are satiated, the Marxist-emphasized distributional analysis claims that this is not an homogenous development. Brutally, we have the Marie-Antoinette attitude of 'let them eat brioche'; the coexistence of an advanced concentration of wealth and its luxury-chasing need-satiated habits, with poverty and deprivation, where those in dearth and need do not possess effective demand.

If by democratic structures you do mean provision for need, on a welfare-state model, a mixed economy with partial decommodification, then I'm inclined to agree, but placing the blame purely on inadequate property rights or legal systems seems a leap to me. While democracy can be accused of being the tyranny of the majority, the economic structure of liberalism seems ideally suited to function as a tyranny of the minority, whether by design or affinity. The 'confiscatory aggression' of redistribution stemming from democratic 'Voice', or the 'buyout of class antagonism' that is the social-democratic synthesis seems to me to square the circle best...imperfectly, awkwardly, in a manner few find ideologically elegant or satisfying, but it works.

It's also worth bearing in mind that for the majority of human history, including in much of the East under quote actually existing socialism unquote, social-democratic welfare provision, waged unemployment etc, strongly resembles the utopia they were trying to achieve. Viva la revolucion?

Joycey

efla wrote: »

Those aren't my words, where did you get that from? I seem to have gained some mis-attributed quotes from the quote button somewhere.

Sorry that was you quoting someone else, the OP i think. In your post you were wondering if anyone would respond to those questions

Anonymous1987

Kama wrote: »

The question is not whether to regulate ('deregulation' is always a regulatory environment) and intervene, but how, and who benefits.

It must also be kept in mind that some regulation can be hijacked by businesses or workers with sufficient political backing to be drafted to favorably support them which may prove detrimental to other parties. That is not to say that regulation is inherently doomed to be manipulated however the potential exists.

Kama wrote: »

If by democratic structures you do mean provision for need, on a welfare-state model, a mixed economy with partial decommodification, then I'm inclined to agree, but placing the blame purely on inadequate property rights or legal systems seems a leap to me.

By democratic structures I mean the checks and balances to curtail a dictatorship and provide for equality among citizens. As far as I see it democracy is about compromise, its not ideal but it works to a degree however ironically its likely that the majority of people will be unhappy with the compromises made.

I omitted the welfare-state model however it is clearly necessary to offer a reasonable playing field. Nevertheless I'm unsure of the ability of less developed countries to provide such a system given that many of them do not have the same tax revenue as more developed countries. Such a welfare system requires a healthy functioning economy with low unemployment and an efficient tax system often lacking in less developed countries. It seems a welfare system must be developed rather than simply created. Health and Education should definitely be provided for by the state as these are prerequisites for productivity and growth however I would argue that there is room for a market in these area's also.

Kama wrote: »

While democracy can be accused of being the tyranny of the majority, the economic structure of liberalism seems ideally suited to function as a tyranny of the minority, whether by design or affinity. The 'confiscatory aggression' of redistribution stemming from democratic 'Voice', or the 'buyout of class antagonism' that is the social-democratic synthesis seems to me to square the circle best...imperfectly, awkwardly, in a manner few find ideologically elegant or satisfying, but it works.

Certainly true, I would think if you stray too far right or too far left its likely to end in tyranny. The least ideological route is often the best after all this world is far too complex for simple ideologies.

Anonymous1987

Joycey wrote: »

Im not sure what "supporting the ideals of Marx" constitutes, but if it means recognising that Marx is one of the greatest political economists and philosophers we have ever had and taking what I think is valuable from he and his followers work, then yes I "support the ideals of Marx", just as any person interested in politics and capable of thinking critically (as opposed to being an all or nothing follower/antagonist of something) should be.

I agree Marx was a brilliant thinker and progressed humanity forward a great deal. However by the ideals of Marx I am referring to the opposition of the capitalist economic system and the adaptation of Marxist/communist ideologies by government. Arguably the USSR and Communist China misinterpreted Marx however I would argue that the communist by that I mean classless society envisioned by Marx was never achievable.

synd

True the un-restricted market will return us to the bourgeoisie society we escaped from post industrialisation but we don't have a

Im not sure what you mean by this exactly - wealth and power is today more concentrated than it was during the industrial revolution. During early capitalist development - there existed a large class of petite proprietors, artisans - small landholders ect. The growth of the corporation has consolidated material wealth and political power to an extent never seen before.

The propose of government is to deal with the market failures inherent in some aspects of capitalism i.e. minimum safety standards. State intervention can aid the functioning of a capitalist society to the benefit of everyone it is not simply a choice of one or another.

This is social democratic nonsense and comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. The state does not ''manage'' the market - the market/capitalist class manages the state.

Luxuries are prelevent in industrial societies because needs are satisfied. Luxuries are inherently more profitable because the demand for wants is essentially limitless.

Luxuries are prevalent because capitalist exploitation has created a market for them - it has nothing to do with ''needs being met''. You can take a tour of any Latin American capital and find porches being sold in the vast commercial districts, the telling contradiction being the malnourished slum dwellers living within miles of these areas.

Why you ask then are people still suffering from starvation in some parts of the world? The un-developed world has not developed the institutions necessary to support a functioning capitalist society i.e. the rule of law and democratic structures.

This is grade A neo-liberal bull****. The rule of law and parliamentary democracy do not invariably lead to high levels of economic wellbeing, take Brazil as an example. There is in general absolutely no connection between economic growth, ''democracy'' and the rule of law. Seriously - don't try to fly that crap from the CATO institute past me and think I wont notice it. The most developed nations of the world grew via the revenue accumulated through extensive imperialism. Imperialism couldn't be in further breach of the liberal law you refer to. Marx destroys the myth of primitive accumulation peddled by smith and the other bourgeoisie propagandists in capital ''This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property. M. Thiers, e.g., had the assurance to repeat it with all the solemnity of a statesman to the French people, once so spirituel. But as soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and “labour” were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.'' Capital p 873

The reason that many nations in the third world are ''unable'' to develop is that they are exploited by the international bourgeoisie via debt bondage - the prescription for which is the sale of public assets and the implementation of tax reductions so as to attract FDI. Needless to say an excuse for further acquisition on the part of the fat bastards that your ideology is designed to protect. The capital that is established on the periphery - extracts more in profit than enters in aid, this when the outflow of capital in debt reparations are taken into consideration.

Therefore capital will not flow into these countries because economic transactions cannot be supported by legal guarantee, i.e. the profit motive is removed by the lack of developed property rights.

Again more unadulterated bollox from neo-liberal econ 101, capital frequently travels where the interests of business are put before ''individual rights''. Indonesia, Brazil, Philippians ect. Capital investment does not lead to development, or rising quality of life in fact it often results in ''diminishing living standards''. Nor does increase in GDP indicate any increase in general living standards. Sorry to smash your neo-liberal orthodoxies.

Hence the welfare state.

The welfare sate is to a large extent a concession made in order to reduce class antagonisms.

Luxuries retain high prices because of want or desirability,

No not necessarily, those with sufficiently high income can afford to pay what is ''from their relative position'' a low cost - price tells us nothing about individual desire. Price only conveys the fact that some people have massive incomes.

it may not represent social demand or labour input but it does represent the perceived value or the value that people place on the production of creativity and originality in the painting.

No it doesn't, your just re-regurgitating neo-classical bull. You cant measure subjective desire on a graph, unless you can read peoples minds.

A painting assumes a high price because it is one of a kind, often created by a specific individual.

No, it assumes a high price because a yuppy with to much money can afford it. BTW before you say ''theirs no such thing as too much'' - thats a matter for society to decide.

The perceived value lies in its exclusivity and its popularity. The more popular a painting the higher the price.

It has ''absolutely nothing'' to do with popularity - most people have no interest in Picasso, again price in this case merely represents the affluence of the rich, nothing more.

True the market fails to account for some social needs which is why the government provides services where the market fails.

The governments ability to provide social services is entirely dependent on the market - if investment dries up, social expenditure is eroded given the reduction in tax revenue and lack of collateral for borrowing. Again - the market is entirely blind to human needs and the welfare system being a practical subsidiary of the market is no different.

I agree to a degree however the developed world could hardly be described as high regulation in comparison to what a Marxist government calls for.

Well thats arguable - I have outlined the extent to which developed capital is predicated upon imperial/neo-imperial revenue. One of main sources of revenue in the US is the military industrial complex ect - moreover most of the technological utilities that contemporary socialists propose be used in economic planning is already in use within the market.

There is certainly room for improvement in striking the balance between income equity and growth.

More propaganda fresh from econ-101, their is ''absolutely no'' trade off required between efficiency and equity, in fact I would argue equity better serves to enhance efficiency.

Simply arguing that society will re-appropriate capital leaves the allocation of resources open to political manipulation.

Better for resources to managed democratically as opposed to being controlled by a small elite - the latter in its lack of transparency is immeasurably more susceptible to corruption.

Neo-liberals seem to think private domination of resources and social process is more ''fair'' and ''efficient'' - Im surprised how easily people swallow this tripe.

Yes, social provision should exist but it should not eliminate market efficiencies.

Using bourgeoisie terminology no doubt, your equating ''efficiency'' with profit maximization - needless to say profit maximization rests in direct opposition to social provision and is therefore inefficient.

The revolution you refer to can be equated with war. I only see justification for war in self defense, this is not necessary in the developed world at least.

Society will decide whats ''necessary'' - of course Im sure neo-liberal executives will retain their arrogant pre-supposition that they may decide what is necessary for society until their destruction as the hegemonic block.

I agree Mao's achievement was the removal of the feudal system and land reform.

Don't forget his destruction of the liberals

I fail to understand to this logic, how does the constitution which guarantees equity among its citizens end up enslaving them?

It does not ensure equity among citizens - it negates it in so far as it abolishes democracy via its protection of property.

Does it really matter who devised the constitution if it offers equal rights to every citizen?

Your trying to evade the point - it offers rights of property, and under the mechanism of the market property must expand into public space, thereby robbing individuals of the ability to determine with equality the conditions of their own lives.

It does not matter whether a political party resembles a business.

It does - the most well funded political parties hold undue advantage in terms of media coverage ect. Additionally they invariably act in the interests of their sponsors as opposed to the interests of the electorate.

The radical democracy that you refer to is simply unworkable in reality. Ultimately a decisions and compromises between interested parties must be made.

Self serving bourgeoisie tripe thinly veiled under a veneer of pragmatism. Direct democracy has historically functioned and continues to function

Current democracy addresses the big issues however effective implementation of these polices requires executive decision making.

What your referring to isn't democracy - its plutocracy and its primary concern is how to best facilitate the process of upper class accumulation.

The greater the state planning required the greater the dictatorial power afforded to politicians and as such a planned economy will necessitate dictatorial control.

You commented in this very thread that ''Some level of dictatorial executive order is necessary is society''. . I disagree, we can implement a democratic system of participatory planning - again this is far more inclusive than the despotic mode of organization your defending.

With regard to property rights, its a tradeoff between the individual and society's freedom, I would argue slightly in favour of the individual because of the ability of society to oppress the individual.

The freedom of the individual is inseparable from the freedom of society. Your arguing that it is more admirable for the individual to oppress the majority than allow the majority to oppress the individual. This is general component of the liberal pathology, in that liberals are aware on some level that they would be targeted as oppressors in the event of popular democracy de-constructing the liberal mechanisms of executive order ie. constitution - judiciary ect.

it would have been better served if individuals were afforded the ability to purchase their own property from the state.

You would

Why then are the most developed economic nations capilist?

Again - prolonged imperial exploits facilitating the advancement of monopolistic capital.

The idea that the bourgeoisie consciously thought we better let some more people into the club would suggest a strong organised unit of bourgeoisie which seems a little farfetched.

Not far-fetched at all, its on record. ''The workman does not understand the position of the capitalist . The remedy is to put him in the way by practical experience .. working men, once enabled to act together as owners of join capital, will soon find their whole view of relations between capital and labor undergo radical alteration. They will learn with anxiety and toil it costs to ven hold a small concern together in tlerable order .. the middle and operative class's would derive great material and social good by the example of the joint stock principle.'' Edinburgh journal 1853

It seems profit did eradicate slavery. I'm not arguing that profit is moral rather I think it is mechanistic and a reflection of needs and wants not necessarily good or bad and rather mechanical if anything.

It reflects absolutely nothing other than the constant drive to accumulate. Capitalist accumulation holds no bias - it can eradicate need or enhance it.

If I am to follow your reasoning the decrease in general wages removed the need for slaves.

The decrease was facilitated by slavery to begin with - in that revenue extracted from the colonial slave trade was used to invest in mechanical advancement.

I don't see how slaves were needed for the industrial revolution.

You wouldn't, your a liberal and as such must ignore history when it undermines the ideological justification for upper class rule.

I guess it could be described as an empire in this sense but it is not one in the traditional sense of the word as its power is very much diluted and it affords a very large level of autonomy to the newly installed government.

Well define empire in the traditional sense then. If your referring to constant military invasions, instillation of puppet governments, trade embargoes and international economic blackmail - then yes the US qualifies.

The existence of what you refer to as imperialism occurs because of the difference in the strength of supporting structures and institutions between the developed and un-developed world.

Waffle, the existence of imperialism has to do with the expansion of capital accumulation, the social resistance it faces and opposition from countervailing bourgeoisie interests.

Sadly corporations can and do exploit the weakness and corruption in some of the worlds most under-developed nations.

Its not some mistake, exploitation is a systemic property of capital expansion, an invariable necessity, a structural characteristic of the system you advocate.

In effect it is playing out the class struggle on a global scale.

The first thing you've said that's made any sense

I agree, however Marxism fails to adequately explain the process of achieving communism or a classless society following the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marxism doesn't explain it - its for people to understand and realize through their own struggle.

I think that Marxism as a socio economic philosophy exposes it weakness as a system.

Again its not a system

It bases itself on how the world should operate rather than how it does operate.

By that reasoning - we should have never abolished slavery, given ethnic minorities rights or given woman the vote. After all - visionary nonsense, explained how society ''could'' be organized - as opposed to how it ''was'' organized.

No it does not, I was referring to a situation such as the mining industry in the UK where a nationalised industry resulted in in-efficient allocation of resources.

To re-iterate, soviet Russia was nationalized to far greater extent than great Britain and it outperformed correlating capitalist economies in terms of industrial output ect. This negates the notion that nationalized industry is somehow less efficient than private.

Yes I do see it as highly ideological, hierarchical arrangements are how society and humans and indeed animals organize themselves and the larger the grouping the more hierarchical it will likely become.

More neo-liberal tripe, there exists a greater degree of democracy now in the highly populated regions than existed under feudal arrangements when a lower population inhabited the earth.

As for pretending to be a scientist, simply because you can not state with certainty and objectivity the exact value of a good or service does not mean estimating it with subjectivity is useless.

Soft science is viable - however theoretical padagrams don't qualify as factual, given their subjective nature. Still that doesn't stop economists from passing subjective theories off as scientific ''facts'' does it ?

The subjectivity involved is the consumers perception of their needs, wants and their ability and willingness to meet them, only they can approximate this information. A person may not be able to tell you they like 2.3 apples for every orange however they can tell you they like apples more than oranges.

True but approximation is worthless without the ability to express it.

What if I decide I'm not going to work and I'm going to let everyone else pay for the services?

This a problem that exists under capitalism. Socialism would entail welfare.

And replaced with what? we have a level of democracy already.

We have plutocracy - we propose a participatory system where every individual is ensured an equal say in how their own life operates.

There is always an alternative. The mixed economy.

Capitalism with a human face, no thanks - Il take socialism.

Kama

Anonymous wrote:

ironically its likely that the majority of people will be unhappy with the compromises made.

As long as everyones complaining, its probably as close to fair as makes no difference

The problem, and it's touched on by your precondition of (political?) equality, is that 'voice' can, and often is, distributed unequally: in support of synd's more Marxist argument, in a liberal-capitalist environment where 'freedom of speech' is a commodity like any other (advertising, PR, academic funding etc) the advantage is to those who have it to begin with. Homer Simpson said 'Facts? You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!', and I've more than a suspicion this goes as much in the social sciences, inc. economics, and in ideology. I'm reminded of the newspaper magnate who, when asked if he owned a paper so he could influence peoples views, answered 'why else would you have a newspaper?'. It wasn't Murdoch, but the same applies.

The least ideological route is often the best after all this world is far too complex for simple ideologies.

Mmm, I don't think ideology is a slur-word, or that ideology means 'false', more that it's an internally-coherent frame used to order and define a perceived world, a perspective or a map to a territory (Korzybski), highlighting or editing out different features. Yes, it's less complex than the terrain itself (a 1-1 map is an awkward and impractical guide), but equally any scientific theory reduces massively to an elegant and simplistic remainder. Indeed, success in convincing others tends to require a highly simplified view and (mis)representation of the world (as in neoclassical economics )

Similarly, I personally don't 'get' how one can truly be post-ideological, while retaining any values that you consider core and non-compromisable. I'd venture to say that pragmatism could also, perhaps, be an ideological position? To say that 'what works, is good' bypasses an initial step, deciding what we want to achieve. Which is, I'd argue, an intensely political-ideological question. My key difference from synd's position is I don't think killing TINA is either an efficient or advantageous 'path to communism greater socialism'; coercion or violence being a fairly cack-handed way to convince anyone, imho.