Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sell Marxism/Communism to me

  • 27-07-2009 09:04PM
    #1
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭


    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?


«134

Comments

  • #2
    Ostrom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭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.


  • #3
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭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.


  • #4
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #5
    Ostrom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭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?


  • #6
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #8
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭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.


  • #9
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭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 ;).


  • #10
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭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.


  • #11
    Ostrom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭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.


  • #13
    synd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭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 ?


  • #14
    Ostrom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭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


  • #15
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭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.


  • #16
    Ostrom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭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.


  • #17
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭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


  • #18
    Ostrom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭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.


  • #19
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭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.


  • #20
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭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.


  • #21
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭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! ;)


  • #23
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Are there any communists/Marxists on Boards.ie?

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


  • #24
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #25
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭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.


  • #26
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #27
    Ostrom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭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.


  • #28
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭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.


  • #29
    Ostrom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭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!


  • #30
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    synd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭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.


Advertisement