I understand that Marx draws a distinction between the two categories, but that doesn’t mean that I have to. I see no reason that I should be less able to own a mine than a vacation home. Hell, I work as an independent contractor, using my own personal property as a means of production as well.
I think that is far from clear. Please support this assertion with some sort of factual evidence.
Cite?
Except that there is no evidence that I’ve seen that the working class has in general tended to become more impoverished over the past, let’s say, fifty years or so. Obviously, when the economy does badly, the working class suffers, but this cyclic behavior seems to occur within a general trend towards less impoverishment, not more.
Sailor- Hegel is not a language. Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel was a philosopher that Marx based many of his ideas on. Understanding Marx makes more sense when one understands Hegel’s philosophies.
About the quickest and best response to this line that I’ve ever heard. I’ll have to remember it.
Hehe. Go tell the Russians that. If anything, this is the most dangerous assumption that people make about economics, not the silly “stalinism=communism” gambit or the “people can’t handle communism because of human nature” cliche (go look up “historical materialism” and read some Rousseau… then get back to me when you’re qualified to talk). As Locke (the big defender of private property) implied, as Smith explained, and as many current economists have rediscovered, capitalism requires an assload of cultural norms, state institutions and accepted rights before it’s even remotely workable.
Well, hell, you can support anything you want if you don’t actually deal with what the other guy actually said. When did you stop beating your wife?
It would be ungenerous, I suppose, to infer a positive correlation between having pro-communism sentiments and the inability to form a coherent argument.
Go tell the Germans that. Capitalism and totalitarian government can exist hand-in-hand (look at Chile and Singapore) and while liberal democracy provides the foundation for responsible government, it sure doesn’t guarantee it. Governments can and do seize “emergency powers” and can become totalitarian fairly quickly. What do you think the division of powers in the U.S. constitution is for?
It’s true that they can’t become totalitarian and still be legitimately liberal democratic governments, but the same remains true for the type of governments that Marxists advocate, which are directly democratic. (Which, by the way, is what the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” refers to)
An appropriate response to a nonsensical POV that I see all too often. Academe wouldn’t be (or have been) so riddled with Marxists, nor would the movement gotten off the ground in the first place, if only those “sweetly naive kids” were advocates of the system. Whether you believe in the system or not, whether it has problems or not, engage it as you would any other argument. These sorts of ad hominem dismissals only really prove the stupidity of those making them.
Actually, it’s somewhat messier than that, because Marxists deny the whole politics/economics split. What we call politics comes from economics; the state exists to support the ruling class. This doesn’t necessarily argue that a communist state wouldn’t be democratic; the usual (and best) argument that Marxists make when they say that neither China nor Russia were socialist was that neither was democratic in the slightest. That’s not Marx’s fault, it’s Lenin’s (and Plekhanov’s) fault. Study of the development of the U.S.S.R. and it’s “communist” ideology shows it doesn’t really have much to do with Marxism, Socialism, Communism, or any of the rest.
DPWhite: well, one should also understand Rousseau, as Rousseau laid the foundations that Marx built on. The whole concept of “human nature” gets a thorough pounding by Rousseau; Rousseau’s savage criticism of “innate” human nature and alternate hypothesis of constructed human nature leads pretty naturally into Marx’s concept of Historical Materialism.
BTW, how many critics of Marxism here know what Historical Materialism is? Show of hands?
Why don’t you do us all a favour, professor, and define “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Let us know what it means, where it’s found in Marx’s writings, and what the surrounding context is. I’m sure that knowing these three things would help us greatly to believe your second statement.
If you can’t or won’t do this, I motion that we award you with a medal commemorating you as a shining example of the OP’s original complaint about ignoramuses spouting drivel about things of which they have absolutely no comprehension. Yes, by all means, let’s refute all of Marx based on three mere words plucked at random and out of context from one of his lesser-known works… :rolleyes:
Doesn’t work. Nowadays Mr Mill would be considerd a staunch Conservative. Or at least a Libertarian. He was among the first to expound the “as long as you do not use physical force on other folks, you can do what you want” philosophies. He would have found modern “Liberal” politics abhorent.
I am dealing with what Marx said (to the best of my understanding, at least, as I’ve never gotten past the labor theory of value without hurling the book across the room). According to Marx, the means of production are not private property. I like the concept of property belonging to individuals or at least entities composed of individuals such as corporations. I define property to include both what Marx considers property and what he considers capital. To my mind, there is no difference in terms of the morality of them being owned.
Perhaps a better way of stating my original comment would be that I like the idea of non-communal ownership of capital. However, that may be more accurate with respect to Marxism, but rather more limited than my true feelings which are that I simply like the idea of personal property, including what Marx considers “capital” as simply a type of said property.
Thus, I don’t think a world in which capital cannot be owned by individuals “looks good on paper,” even if one could demonstrate that it was a feasible idea. Which no one has, in my estimation.
Why?
Why should I engage a throughly discredited political philosophy that has been refuted by much better wranglers than I? Must I engage astrology or creationism in every single thread in which they are advocated? EvenSven’s idealism is not a refutation of her beliefs, but neither should it be disregarded. A poster’s underlying assumptions should be examined: why someone is arguing a POV is as important to comprehension as the argument itself.
Thi s is the Pit, not GD, and I will be as critical as I damn well please. If you don’t like my opinions, go bite yourself.
I’m not goint to play chapter and verse with you. I’m sure that your knowledge of Marx and his works is far superior to mine. What I do know of Marx: his belief that class struggle is the sole agent of history, that the state is more important than the individual, that capitalism inevitably leads to increased misery for the proletariat, his dismissal of the law of supply and demand, tell me that Marxism is unworkable.
Muad’Dib, there are a ton of ideas being thrown around this thread, and the best you can do is critique me on an exchange of aphorisms? Christ, that’s fucking weak.
That is the shittiest excuse for weaselling out of an argument I’ve ever heard. Saying “I can insult you all I want because other people have already proved you wrong” comes across as petty and boorish, and simply paints you as someone who’s unwilling to take disagreements with your perspective seriously. So Marxism has been discredited by “better wranglers” than you? Use their arguments, then, Pit or no. Here, let’s take your own words and use them as a starting point.
Here’s what tells you Marxism is unworkable:
Are there other agents of history, or is the sole agent of history something other than the class struggle?
You obviously must have read that in Marx’ works somewhere. Please provide cites. My understanding of Marx’ theory of the state is that a state is a form of social organization that comes about out of the need to defuse class antagonisms, and since communism is based on the eventual elimination of classes, the state therefore disappears (or “withers away” in proportion to the progress of the disappearance of social classes. I am willing to entertain arguments that my understanding of Marx is flawed, however.
Please demonstrate how the economic crisis in Argentina is completely disconnected from capitalism. Please also demonstrate how the former imperial colonies in Asia and Africa fell away from the capitalist system as the European colonial powers withdrew. If capitalism does not inevitably lead to poverty, then it must be that the poverty of the Third World is not the result of capitalism. Or do I misunderstand the content of your statement here?
Freestyle section! Please elaborate on this more fully as you see fit.
How have I insulted you? Marx took it on the chin, but I have great respect for you and Even Sven. I don’t care much for Marxism, but you are swell.
Your post deserves a thoughtful and informed response. I’m going to give you the short one right now, and then the longer one after I’ve had a refresher look at the Communist Manifesto.
Religion (ex. Islam’s rise in the 7th century CE)
The great man (Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin)
Technology (the automobile, television)
Natural resources (oil, water)
On Marx’s theory of the state, I need to look at the CM to give you a thorough answer.
I don’t understand your meaning here. Sure, the Argentinean crisis is connected to capitalism and former colonies in Asia and Africa did not fall away from capitalism. Well, not all did. The ones that embraced cpaitalism like Korea and Singapore, are thriving; the socialist states (I know-- not truly Marxist) like India and Burma are not.
Shoot, I feel like December here, but I’m swamped at work right now, and I really need to give this a great deal of thought–more than I can do right now. Your post deserves more than a facile witticism.
Expect a long post tonight.
BTW, when did the Pit turn into Bride of GD?
Sorry if I wasn’t clear; I wasn’t referring to myself specifically but the indefinite “you”. You haven’t insulted me, but the whole tone of the paragraph I responded to sounded like you were justifying criticism for criticism’s sake, which rankles. Nothing more than that.
Same here. But I’ll wait for your reply tonight before coming back on what you’ve said already.
The history of all previously existing fora is the history of the exchange between posters. Posters make history within the fora, but not under conditions of their own choosing.
These arguments are mine, poor as they are, I’m sure.
**Gobear Contra Marx
Part 1: Class Struggle
**
Marx wrote
Marx was extending an analogy of noble/commoner social relations to the bourgeoisie/proletariat. Feudal society was hierarchical based on birth and rank; capitalist society is ordered only through talent and merit. A peasant in feudal Europe could never advance his rank by his own work; however, a worker can, by dint of hard work and thrift, become a member of the bourgeoisie. Marx completely ignored the fluidity of movement in a capitalist society.
Marx and Engels here contrast the freedom of the artisan to the regimentation of the worker in the new factories of the Industrial Revolution. They view the relation of employer and worker as one of inherent exploitation. But this is folly. Workers in a capitalist society do possess property,–their labor, their time, their intellect. Human capital is a resource that can be used as a bargaining chip with employers. Moreover, employers compete with each other to get the best workers. If Employer A pays less than Employer B for the same work, the worker can vote with his feet and get the most return for his human capital.
Marx and Engels are saying that in a capitalist society, the acquisition of wealth is a zero-sum proposition; that is, the bourgeois become wealthy to the detriment of the workers. This is nonsense. Bourgeois production requires consumers. Creating a consuming class requires workers to be paid well enough in order to buy goods. In America, the working class has grown progressively wealthier, each generation having more purchasing power than the last. A blue collar worker in the US today lives and eats better than even the wealthiest bourgeois did 200 years ago.
The problem, Olentzero and gobear, is succinctly summarized in that last cite from Marx, the one where he says that the workers sink into pauperism.
There are places where this happens; Jane Jacobs, in “Cities and the Wealth of Nations”, identifies them as “supply regions”.
These are places that supply a single commodity to the world at large. Think the Middle East and oil, West Virginia and coal, Manchester and textiles.
All of these places had one thing in common: a single, dominating industry concentrated in a single location, in which therefore the owners of the commodity in question are the big boys on the block, and everyone has to either work for that big boy or go unemployed.
In such a place, what Marx described does actually happen, unless the rulers, as in Saudi Arabia in the present day, feel a mitigating social and religious pressure to provide social services to the degree that pauperism is limited.
But it in no way describes a modern big city. Such a place has ridiculous differences in wealth amongst its populace, and a large and complex economy that provides virtually an infinite number of ways for the people to make a living. In such a place, the downright rude differences in wealth mean not “oppression”, but that other “o” word, “opportunity”.
Come quick everyone! 
