Marxism: what's in it for me?

Great Debates
81

From errata

Well, who do YOU suppose benifits from ‘capitalism’? Again, we aren’t talking 19th century capitalism here, but its modern incarnation that we see in the US, Europe, the pacific rim, etc. Do you think that only the richest folks benifit from ‘capitalism’??

Um…Pre-soviet Russia wasn’t a capitalist country btw. It was a monarchy with a landed aristocracy. Pre-communist Vietnam wasn’t a capitalist country either…it was a colonial posession, and before that it was a monarchy also. As for France, it was a colonial POWER, or an OLD school capitalist country, when it was getting that wealth from Vietnam.

I would disagree with your premise…the ‘good life’ in the western powers isn’t bought at the EXPENSE of the third world. Its a deal that goes both ways today, with relatively cheap products imported from these nations, and jobs FOR these nations. Just the influx of capital TOO them (in the form of wages, increased infrastructure, etc) is a huge boost. Those workers will eventually want to spend their earnings on more than just subsistance, and so they become consumers…NEW markets for either local or foriegn companies. Eventually, their wages will rise. No? Show me where this HASN’T happened then (i.e. for a third world country that has been capitalist for any length of time).

Those third world powers that are supplying the the first world of today are DEVELOPING industrial nations…they will be tomorrows economic peers. Countries such as India and even China where a lot of that cheap labor you are talking about come from are building up their industrial infrastructure with the influx of capital (I know…I helped build it in India).

You have to understand something…ALL of our countries were at the ‘sweat shop’/cheap labor level at one time or another, including the US (just ask Sandino). However, as a country progresses it doesn’t STAY at that level for ever…if you think they do, show me a full blown capitalist country that has. Look at South Korea and Japan. Limited resources, poor infrastructure to start…world economic powers today. Why?

From errata

We saw communism in response to the bad old days of the 19th century when a more pure form of capitalism was the norm…not to how it is today. If communism was still palatable, why are all the big ones gone or going? The only hold overs are countries like Cuba and North Korea.

Those ways and days of pure capitalism are long gone. Unlike communism, capitalism took (or more truthfully had beaten into them, by blood and iron…the capitalists iron, our blood) many of the socialist aspects that tend to soften it…and make it infinitely more palatable to people who AREN’T at the top of the food chain. Today, what you see now, is SOCIAL-capitalism…heavily modified.

From errata

If this is a veiled reference to Iraq, all I can say is, if THIS was the reason, someone didn’t do very well for their economic plan. So far this thing has cost us $80 billion plus with no end in sight. There is no way, if we steal oil from now till doomsday (which we aren’t…we arent taking ANY of the oil afaik) we will NEVER pay off that debt. Personally, I feel Iraq was a stupid thing to do…but I dont make the mistake of thinking it was done for capitalist reasons, because it wasn’t. It was done for political and idealogical reasons, not economic.

-XT

82

Sandino says that after a communist revolution, we would live under a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Therefore, he argues, the interests of the working class will be protected because they will be the ones in power.

But even under this system, there will be those individuals tasked with formulating and implementing the plans for how resources will be distributed. These people will not be laborers; they will not be spending any time performing manuel labor. They will be bureaucrats, spending their time shuffling paperwork and giving orders.

Therefore, those in power will not actually be members of the “working class” in the sense of being those who live by selling their labor. So why should these people, who hold the power, have the best interests of the working class at heart?

83

I’ll save him the effort. Unions in capitalist countries, good. Unions in Communist countries, unnecessary. Check out China. They are a nice blend of capitalism and communism. One might call it national Communapitalism, or something like that. I’d be nice to hear what the Chinese really think about Communapitalism.

[sarcasm was used in post, but not the last sentence]

84

You know, I look at Nazism and Fascism, and I see ‘Fraternity’ run amuck. Laudable love for one’s land, language and culture turn into chauvinism, xenophobia, and murderous oppression. That’s the Right’s Original Sin. Rightists are universalists within their culture, particularists between cultures.

I look at Socialism and Communism, and I see ‘Equality’ run amuck. Laudable compassion for the needy and outrage at the arrogance of the rich turn into envy, class-hatred, and murderous oppression. That’s the Left’s Orginal Sin. Leftists are particularists within their cultures, universalists across cultures.

I see little difference, either in theory or in application.

85

On the issue of workers gradually buying out the capitalists:

It’s a startling empirical regularity of industrial economies across the decades that labor gets paid about 70% and capital gets paid about 30%.

Assuming a rate of return on capital of 10%, we would then have the capital stock being 300% of GDP. If labor saved 10% of their wages, thus 7% of GDP, it would take them approximately 300/7=43 years to buy out the capitalists. (Less if they reinvested their dividends.)

Thus you don’t actually have to be that patient of a socialist. If every 20 year worker started saving today, by the time she retired at age 65, socialism would be acheived.

Since at least WWII, even the poorer sections of the US working classes have been substantially above subsistence level. Yet they’ve passed up this chance.

86

Not me - he is basing his support for his alleged utopia on easily disprovable fictions, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Take this, for instance:

This is simple nonsense.

Take the first Five Year Plan. Collectivization of agriculture was going to cause the huge increases in productivity that Sandino has predicted repeatedly for a planned economy over free markets. It didn’t. By 1932, 60% of the USSR had been collectivized, but farm output dropped by 23%.

After WWII, much of the economic growth of the USSR consisted of rebuilding their industry. This was achieved, not by the centralized planning so naively endorsed by our latest Marxist, but by the estimated five billion rubles worth of reparations paid by the Germans between 1945 and 1956. Cite.

Do you really think 10% growth in 22 years compares favorably with the West and free-market capitalism?

The idea that Marxist economies can even approach the levels achieved by capitalism is absurd. To suggest that they could or have surpassed them is even more so.

Regards,
Shodan

87

No it was not full fledged capitalism, but I think it was closer to that than anything else. Monarchy is a form of governance after all, not an economic system. Serfdom had been abolished and a constitutional monarchy had been established by the time of the revolution.

This is an artful dodge that gains you nothing. Being the colonial possession of a capitalist country still meant they were an integral part of a capitalist economy - much to their disadvantage.

Oh yes, I’m sure many of them would, if indeed they could afford it.

It goes both ways. A rise to prominence can be followed by decline. The rights of workers that have been gained can also be lost again. I’m not holding my breath waiting for universal labor reform. It’s charming you have so much faith in it though.

88

So do you think all Sandino’s rants are just a cover? That s/he’s simply trying to agitate so that s/he grab power and start a Lenin-like cult of personality? What exactly is the counter-theory on Sandino’s intentions?

89

I think Sandino is a Marxist fundamentalist. A True Believer. I think he has accepted the Gospel and any evidence that might disprove it can be discounted as Lies, Conspiracies, and Slanders.

In fact, his ramblings do kinda remind me of Speaking in Tongues.

90

And how does this work in a capitalist society? It doesn’t need to be different in a communist one. People can be picked for a given task by whoever is in charge (the company’s manager, be it a privately owned or state-owned company) or freely elected (of course, in the case of a communist society, the elected members of the executive/legislative bodies couldn’t change back the system to a capitalist system considered as “bad former system”, but it wouldn’t be different from the president and congress of the US not being allowed to pass a law replacing the democratic system by an hereditary monarchy with a priviledged nobility, a system similarily considered as “bad former system”).

And what hapens when they seize power over the army in a capitalist society, as it happened many times all over the world? How do we stop them? Once again, no difference.
IOW, the two issues you raised actually aren’t specific to a communist society and are issues also in a capitalist one.

91

HayekHeyst is correct. Sandino doesn’t debate - he unloads the Party line, and deals with counter-examples by ignoring them.

Which is why jayjay’s proposal -

is clever, but unnecessary. Sandino is never going to give a real answer. Anything that contradicts his position is deal with by a simple ‘nyet’.

Regards,
Shodan

92

I think that’s what disappoints me most about ardent proponents of communism…the unoriginality. They all spout revolutionist cliches like the script’s been uploaded into their brains. “Running-dog lackeys” and “capitalist overlords” from sea to shining sea.

If the idea is so damn wonderful, why can’t you people argue it without sounding like a political pamphlet circa 1899? Those of us on the reality side of the political fence manage to sound like human beings instead of old recordings of Karl Marx at the International…why can’t you?

93

Allow me to remind you of a small book on Marxism called “Das Kapital”, inwhich the author, whose name I seem to forget, repeatedly condemns the capitalists for their repeated moral indescretions and vile, beastl acts of sexual misconduct. And thow their wicked, evil ways would bring them to a final Gotterdammergung.

True, but not true. It was not very close to capitalism. It was probably still more feudal than anything else. The fact is that everyone still lived more or less as peasants or lords, and even if serfdom enforcement of law was no longer literal (and I’ve heard more than a few mentions in history of lords who ignored all the new laws) most of the available labor was still in the hands of lords who owned it in the form of land. It was not a rich nation of merchants, clerks, and laborers, because there had been no capitalist transformaiton yet. The whole point was that people were still serf peasants in fact, if not in theory. Heck, some people were still living much like that in 1942.

But colonialism is not in keeping with the tenets of capitalism. That belongs, in fact, to the tradition called mercantilism, which is much older than the creation of true modern capitalism. Vietnam was being exploited in a mercantilist manner, regardless of whether or not the exploiting agency was capitalist. Ergo, it does not prove that capitalism is exploitative and destructive. In fact, it tends to prove the oppositte: capitlist countries were becoming rich and powerful, to the point where they could control large sections of the earth, while feudal and mercantilist areas were unable to compete. The use of military force to compel labor is by definition uncapitalist; it eliminates free labor.

[quote]
But how would you feel about a Catholic who was advocating a new inquisition? After all, Sandino thinks that South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan need to be ‘liberated’ from Capitalism by force in order to keep the revolution going. I wonder how many carcasses swinging from lampposts would result from THAT?

[quote]

In all fairness, the actual number of deaths in the Inquisition was really very low. The British exaggertaed them all out of proportion, perhaps out of some guilt over their own brutal repression of Catholics. A vengeful justification, if you will.

94

Personally, errata, I think that your definition of capitalism is fairly loose if you consider the pre-revolution Russia a capitalist country, but as they did have an a fairly well developed industry (though no stock market I’m aware of) I might be splitting hairs. Personally, if they were capitalist at all, they were in the VERY early stages of it, and weren’t exactly a capitalist powerhouse, which was my point.

From errata

So, you are saying that Vietnam was a capitalist state because they were CONTROLLED by an old school colonial capitalist country (France)…and you talk to ME about artful dodges? lol.
From errata

Are you claiming that in these cheap labor countries (like India, Mexico or China) that the worker are NOT making above subsistance levels?? If so, you are gona have to back that up with a cite, please. From everything I’ve seen actually GOING to such places (granted I haven’t been to China) the workers, while making low wages compared to the US or Europe, make a LOT more than subsistance levels compared to their own economy. And when workers make over subsistance level, they become CONSUMERS also…which means new markets, etc. Its not blind faith…its how it works. I gave you some examples already. Why did this work for them if it won’t work for other countries as well? What made Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, etc, different? What made them special? Its not a zero sum game you know.

From errata

Well, as I never said anything about universal labor reform (that sounds like a communist position, not mine) I’ll ignore that part unless you want to fill in a bit more on that theme and why it would be my position. All I said was that MARKET forces cause wages and standards of living to rise (eventually), as an industrial nation becomes a consumer and opens up to other countries new markets within itself…and expands its OWN markets to other countries. And I gave some empirical examples.

As to the downturns…sure it can. Happens all the time in the US, in fact. Look at Japan. They had their own downturn in the 90’s. However, they are STILL considered one of the economic powers, with an excellent standard of living. The UK also has suffered such a down turn for much of the 20th century…are you saying that they have reverted to 3rd world status?

Again, talk about artful dodges…give me a break. Or better yet, give me some examples of new style social-democracies on the new style capitalist countrys that have imploded to such an extent that they went from a 1st or 2nd world status back to 3rd world status. If you are going to call me charming in my blind faith, show me the errors of my ways, brothah (or sistah) errata. :slight_smile:

-XT

95

xtisme,

Sorry to jump in here, but I wanted to address a comment you made on a point brought up by errata:

Originally posted by errata

Originally posted by xtisme

Errata wasn’t saying that Vietnam was capitalist state. He was saying that Vietnam, as part of France’s colonial possessions, was part of a wider French polity and capitalistic economy. Vietnam acted as a resource base (France extracted raw materials such as agricultural products, mineral resources, timber, etc. from Vietnam). Who do you think actually owned the resources? Or, better, for what purpose were these raw materials used? Who, for the most part, benefited the greatest from Vietnam being a colonial possession?

Likewise, Vietnam acted as a market for French manufactured goods. Some of those goods were manufactured in France (and since Vietnam was, in a sense, part of France - being that it was a colonial possession - it was relatively easy for manufactured goods to be shipped and sold in Vietnam). Sure, some goods were manufactured in Vietnam, but if they were, then who owned the factories that made these goods?

Other questions to ask - who established the institutions in Vietnam that allowed capitalistic activity to take place within it (as part of France)? Who owned and operated the major banks? Who was in charge of the police, the courts, the administrative duties in managing Vietnam as a colony?

Sure, some Vietnamese were involved in owning factories, running businesses, and involved in other various institutions. But I guarentee you that when Vietnam was a colonial possession of France, there were very few, if any, Vietnamese that played a major role in how the economy was maintained (other than providing laborers/workers) and how the various administrative duties played out.

Again, I apologize for jumping in, but I just wanted to elaborate on a point that errata was trying to make.

96

I am not anti-Marxist.

Schumpeter said Marx was “a very learned man.”

I just think Marxism is a nice but unworkable, theoretical ideal.

I also think the capitalism is the state of nature is a bunch of crap too. Both are nothing but intellectual abstractions ususlly used to rationalize current advantages. I have never heard anyone say the Indians were supposed to be annihilated for capitalism.

Adam Smith is used to justify capitalism but he disapproved of joint-stock companies. What we now call corporations. In 1886 the Supreme Court said corporations were persons. Neither Marx nor Smith knew anything about that.

Society and technology keep evolving. The strategies and tactics in the economic power game keep changing. Using that frozen word capitalism to describe what is going on is nonsense. In the 70’s I saw an essay that had two lists. What American economists said was wrong with Russia and what Russina economists said was wrong with America. The Russians talked about planned obsolescence. Marxists are useful for criticizing the opposition even when they are not fully correct themselves.

I still don’t hear capitalists, socialists or communists saying accounting should be mandatory for everybody. That might affect the workings of the game.

Maybe we should call it “von Neumanism.”

We’ve got von Neumann machines to execute our game theory.

Dal Timgar

97

From eponymous

Um…thats what I said eponymous. Errata disagreed with me bro. Here is what I said originally…

From me

Here’s what he replied…

From Errata

All this was originally in response to this…

From Errata

I read this as “They were capitalist countries and capitalism was failing them both”…if thats wrong, I took it wrong. They WEREN’T capitalist countries, so capitalism wasn’t failing them per se…it was EXPLOITING them, the way old school colonial capitalism exploited everyone it could. I suppose a case MIGHT be made that Russia was quasi-capitalist, or maybe it was on the road to becoming an old style capitalist country, but to me thats a stretch. Certainly in no way, shape or for was Vietnam a capitalist country…it was a colonial possession. Maybe I’m misunderstanding errata’s point, but I’m certainly no ‘artfully dodging’ as he says…I was fairly clear what I meant.

So, who do I think the resources belonged too? Well France, through force of arms…that was kind of my point. Who benifited from them? Same answer. If I misunderstood errata, again, I appologize, but you are basically just saying what I originally said…which is that Vietnam was NOT a capitalist country, but was a colonial possession. kk?

I dinna think that this was the point ERRATA was trying to make…it was kind of, like, the point I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to make.

Again, MY point was that that old school colonial capitalism (pure capitalism without taint of socialism to soften it) is dead and gone today. NONE of the major ‘capitalist’ countries of today still have such practices, all have been heavily modified by socialism (things like unions, limited hour work weeks, benifits, paid vacations, etc). Capitalism CHANGED, it adapted to become more palatable…THAT was my point.

-XT

98

xtisme,

OK, I’ll try to lay this out in terms that hopefully will help clear up matters. Sometimes it difficult in this kind of medium (a message board) to convey precisely what people are trying to say. I apologize in advance if I’m still not making myself clear.

First off, regarding Russia (which I wasn’t try to address, although errata did bring up both Russia and Vietnam as examples of capitalism failing them): I tend to agree with you that Russia was, at most, in the beginning stages of establishing a capitalistic economy. So with regards to Russia, I will concede that capitalism was not failing them (because Russia wasn’t really capitalistic).

Second, regarding Vietnam. The reasoning of Errata’s postion that capitalism WAS failing the Vietnamese can be outlined as follows:

  1. France + Vietnam + other colonial possessions = France (as a political entity)

  2. France + Vietnam + other colonial possessions = France (as an economic entity)

  3. France had/still has a capitalistic economy.

  4. Vietnam (as part of France, both a political entity and as an economic entity) had a capitalistic economy. In other words, if Vietnam is part of France, and France has a capitalistic economy it stands to reason that Vietnam had a capitalistic economy (by virtue of being part of France and the French capitalistic economy). Vietnam is part of the larger French economic system.

Calling Vietnam a possession doesn’t absolve that fact that (at least as I am interpreting errata) for the Vietnamese, capitalism WAS failing them (or, at least, that is the argument that could be made for the Vietnamese workers; after all, they weren’t deriving the benefits of France’s capitalistic economic system of which they were a part.

Now, had France instituted various economic/political reforms that benefited the Vietnamese in some fashion (such as higher wages or more political control that directly affected the Vietnamese in Vietnam, for example), which, in turn, helped them achieve a measurable increase in their wealth/quality of life (and in this instance, Vietnam is still part of the larger French polity/economic system), then capitalism, in this sense, could be argued to have not failed.

99

eponymous, you are right…its tough in this medium to really understand subtle degrees of thought. My feeling is, Vietnam was an exploited colony…basically just a materials, cheap/slave labors and resources area. It was never developed to do or be anything but to provide a very vertical range of goods or services…FOR France, not for Vietnam. That was the problem with ALL the colonial posessions (and the entire fucked up colonial period)…once they (the colonies) were ‘freed’, for the most part they fell apart, because they didn’t have a broad base to stand on their own…they were part of someone ELSES system. I’m not explaining this well…let me try to walk you though what my thoughts are, and if you still disagree, you do…no harm in that. We DO live in a democracy. :slight_smile:

Ok. Say you are a colonial power. Through force of arms you take over an existing country…say India (just an example…I’m keeping this general enough that it could apply to nearly all the colonial countries). Now, in India, PRIOR to your taking them over, you produce a wide range of goods and crops, both to feed your people (which you do fairly well generally) and maybe even some for export and trade with other nations. However, your new masters only want, say, tea and maybe a few other goods or services. So, the vast majority of your crop land that WAS used for food, other trade goods, etc, and the former production capability to make them and process them is put over to a very vertical market (which isn’t YOUR market, but your masters market). Well and good…you are turning a good profit for your masters.

However, there are some serious downsides which make conditions such that when you gain independance, you are basically fucked. Your masters have improved your infrastructure…but only to make tea (or whatever). They’ve basically let the rest of your infrastructure fall appart, as it does nothing for them in exploiting you for your tea. You are a one crop shop basically (or maybe a limited number of crops if you are lucky). You DON’T have an industrial base, as you are basically agrarian slave labor, with perhaps some processing capability (to make packages for the tea, say). If you DO have some industry, its totally specialized and narrowly focused. You are definitely NOT capitalist, or even part of a capitalist system…except for the exploitation part.

So…did capitalism fail Vietnam? Yes, in a sense it did I suppose, as it certainly exploited the shit out of them. Hell, THATS where Marx and Engels were coming from…THATS the horror that they saw in capitalism. That old style colonial capitalism was VERY unpalatable all around (both at home, because of how the workers there were treated, and especially abroad in the colonies)…unless you were at the top of the food chain. THATS why in the various democracies and major capitalist countries over the last century or so we’ve had the major changes we’ve seen…the softening of capitalism, the merging with socialist thought.

Sandino doesn’t like it, because it takes away from his arguements that capitalism is all evil, then, as well as now. But capitalism has changed and CONTINIUES to change, to adapt. THATS what makes it such a good system. Its not a PERFECT system, by any means…just like Democracy isn’t a perfect system. But its the best system we fucked up humans have put forth so far. Maybe something better will come down the pike some day…or maybe, like humans themselves, Democracy/Capitalism will CONTINUE to change and adapt with us. Who knows.

Reguards,
XT

100

xtisme,

Thanks for the reply - I think we understand each other now. But to continue with respect to capitalism, I think what Marxists are tyring to convey is that there is something inherent within capitalism (as an economic system) that results in the concentration of wealth for a small number of people, that it is a system, by its very nature, is exploitative (or evil, depending on one’s moral stance vis-a-vis concentration of wealth in the hands of the few/explotation of workers).

Mind you, I don’t entirely agree with that assessment, but it follows from Marx’s analysis of capitalism. In other words, if you follow the logic of Marx’s analysis, then one can’t but help to reach the same conclusion he did.

I think one of the biggest flaws in Marx’s analysis of capitalism is what you’ve stated above. Marx failed to anticipate how adaptive and resilliant capitalism would and has become (by incorporating elements of socialism). However, Marxian’s are still around trying to salvage some of Marx’s insights into the nature of capitalism. They might argue that just because capitalism has become adaptive and resilliant over time, doesn’t necessarily imply that it will continue to be so in the future. So Marx’s critique of capitalism hasn’t necesarily become invalid.