Two Questions for Marxists

I'm starting this thread with the in all likelyhood misplaced hope that it won't degenerate into the same drivle (which both sides are guilty of) that all the other threads on Marxism have. This means that I don't want to hear any weak arguments concerning human nature, inalienable rights, ad hominems, appeals to authority, etc. This thread is directed at orthodox Marxists, not all stripes of socialists. So, let's try to keep things civil and please try to refrain from posting unless you have something substantial to contribute. This thread is more akin to political philosophy than politics in general. The two questions are as follows:

(1) Why haven't socialist revolutions broken out in the way in which Marx described? This means in industrialized nations such as Britain or the States. It's been over 150 years since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and Capital, and he seemed to think that revolution was imminent.

(2) On grounds do you believe that human society as a whole can be drastically re-organized in such a way that, so to speak, everything will go off without a hitch? Sociology isn't exactly a natural science. What I mean is, how do you justify a belief in a nationalised economy, controlled by fallible human beings, will ever reach a state in which all things are accounted for? This seems to be the greatest virtue laizer-faire capitalism and Burkean conservativism (which I will argue in favour of) have over Marxist socialism. I would have liked to have worded this question better, but I'm at a loss for words. You should be able to get the idea, though.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to some well-thought-out replies. Take your time and have fun with it.

 

In asnwer to 1 marx nsaid that it could be a long long time until the revolution. An anwer to 2 is via deep democracy, if things are controlled more directly by the people basically. Im not sure if i count as orfodox, im influenced by tortksy and quite like rosa luxemburg as well.

 

I have never read Marx or any cornerstone communist works so I do not qualify as a Marxist so far as I know.

I personally however have been promoting the terms "Ideal Communism" or "New Communism" in conjunction with my own ideology which I'm about to foist upon the world in the form of an original document...

By True Communism, New Communism, True Morality I simply mean: THE BEST FOR EVERYONE.

When I was a kid in the late fifties (at an age too young to really think for myself) we were all Republicans. In the sixties I was a sympathetic observer/supporter of the counterculture. But somehow it wasn't until I was in my forties that I saw my attitudes had really been selfish and how unfair a world it is. That's when the idea of communism started to interest me because it conceptually commits to equality.

Equality.

That, Common Sense, is the inherent problem with capitalism, conservatism, libertarianism etc. and no one needs to read Marx to understand this : there is no intrinsic committment to equality. These are not fundamentally moral entities. They are political or economic or organizational entities. Their goal is a certain system, not a certain status of mankind. Historic communism has had the same flaw.

Equality. You can't leave anyone out. Otherwise anything goes.

Of course equality is not enough. Everybody living in the same drab public housing projects is not the goal we're trying to reach. What we want is equality in conjunction with the highest quality of life.

There has to be a committment to quality of life and there has to be a committment to equality.

But this raises a fundamental question. Common Sense -- and everybody else out there -- do you really want this to be a serious thread? Then there's ONE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION that has to be answered before all others.

The fundamental question is:

Does everyone [that's the equality component] deserve the very best [that's the quality of life component]?

You can divide people into 2 groups. Those who say all deserve the very best and those who say they don't.

I am convinced everyone deserves the very best. With time and space I make a convincing case. Obviously this is where my book comes in. Are there any qualifications here? Well yes. Everyone deserves the very best within the context of the possible and the tolerable. For example it is not tolerable to let psychopathic murderers indulge in their proclivities. However it is entirely tolerable to have such individuals living in humane protective custody

Anyone not operating on the principle that all deserve the very best falls hopelessly short in their vision and efforts to take human society to where we need to go.

Unfortunately I'll be away and won't in all probability be able to contribute more to this thread. Briefly, however, why does everyone deserve the very best? Because discriminatory merit is based on misconception and falsehood. Discriminatory merit is immoral.

***

I also wanted to comment Common Sense with all due respect that the problem with your first question's implication is that it is of the type "because something has not happened/been achieved in the past it will not happen/be achieved in the future" which is of course not necessarily the case. I do trust some day we will get to Mars -- and a top quality society on Earth.

Also I want to say that I do not really care by what means we reach paradise on earth as long as the means respect the end. Obviously elements of different political philosophies may play contributing roles. But don't lose sight of the ideals. Don't leave people out and don't shoot for anything but the very best. There has to be committment to these.

 

I have a problem with "everyone deserves the very best."

"The very best" is by definition a small portion of what is avaliable. "Best" means that almost everything else is inferior.

It may be that everyone deserves the best, but not everyone can receive the best.

I'm sure that you have considered this and have a responce, but as stated, it sounds like you want everyone to have an above average ____ .

Could you please expand on this question?

 

Where did he say this? As I understand Marx, he believed that there would be revolution in the near future.

That really just begs the question. On what grounds do you believe that a ruling body, democratically organised or otherwise, is capable of managing a planned economy?

Now SDS, you really didn't answer either of the questions. This thread is not about ethics. Marx did not concern himself with whether Communism was ethical or not. Rather, he believed it was inevitable. However, one of your criticisms was of some relevance to the topic at hand.

Although we probably will land a man on Mars, there are still some things that will never happen. I'm sure you'll agree with me there. I certainly agree with you, however, in that it is often times difficult to distinguish between the two. But you're argument, which essentially boils down to, "Well, just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't necessarily mean that it won't ever happen" is very poor. There are many good reasons for believing that revolution in the way Marx anticipated will never happen, such as the fact that socialist revolutions have only broken out in poor, agrarian countries, rather than wealthy, industrialized countries. Marx said that Communism is only possible after a stage of industrial capitalism, after all. There's the fact that niether China nor the USSR have ever moved beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat stage of socialism. Marx would have never approved of the argument blaming that on Stalin and Mao either, since he thought that historical forces were shaped by material, economic conditions, not people. There's the fact that the USSR has collapsed. And the fact that many countries in the first world are quickly moving away from industrialized economies and towards economies based on the service industry and information technology.

So, the argument that Communism could still happen sometime in the future kind of gets crushed under the weight of the evidence that suggests that it will not. Unless of course, you can provide evidence that suggests othewise. Believing in something just because it could happen is not a very good justification for that belief.

 

Are there any answers to these questions. there are so many conspiracies and accusations surrounding marx and early communism. so many people accuse it of being the product of rich european bankers. i don't necessarily support that.

i don't think marx thought about a couple of subjects when he along with engels introduced communism to the world. i don't think he thought "are people responsible enough to allow communism to work?" so many people worry about themselves and their money. it would be hard to all of a sudden switch to another economic system, especially when the american dream was still alive in the late 1800's/ early 1900's. i don't think he was also counting on the reputation that communism has recieved since the turn of the last century. it picked up a bad name with all of the conflicts, wars, countless number of deaths, and so on. this may set its revolution, if there will be one, back several years. it might come if china grows to become a more solid competition with the United States in the markets.

 

Where did he say this? As I understand Marx, he believed that there would be revolution in the near future.

He said he believed it would inevitably come, but not in the near future, he thought that it could take a long time, as the change from captialism to feudalims did.

That really just begs the question. On what grounds do you believe that a ruling body, democratically organised or otherwise, is capable of managing a planned economy?

Via workers councils, (soviets).

 

"Everyone deserves the very best" in practical terms means the best that can be provided equally to all people under the circumstances. In another thread I used the example of a Mercedes. If a neurosurgeon deserves a Mercedes then so does a janitor. But nobody deserves one unless and until everone can have one and there are no other presing needs. Among people working at equal degrees of their individual capacities nobody deserves any more than anyone else. A person with an IQ of 80 deserves as much as a person with an IQ of 150. A star athlete deserves no more or no less than anyone else. Under optimal circumstances we want them all (us all) to " have a Mercedes". Until that time we all may have to settle for Chevies. But it's not ok for one to have a Mercedes and the other a Chevy. Even less ok is it for one person to have a Mercedes when others don't have health care or enough to eat. A person does not deserve more if he inherits more, or if he was endowed with greater gifts, or if he was just lucky, or if he was born beatiful or talented, and does not deserve less under less fortunate circumstances.

 

Taxrefund:

I'm sure Marx thought things out very well. Philosophers tend to do that.

Ewan:

Okay, but where did he say this? As in where in a book, with pages? The first line of the Communist Manifesto goes something like, "The spectre of Communism is haunting Europe." That kind of imagery makes it sound like revolution is on brink.

Dude, you're not getting me. You're still begging the question. I don't want to know how or by what means you believe the controlled economy should be run. I want to why you believe that a controlled economy is possible in the first place.

SDS:

This thread is really not concerned with ethics in any way. I have asked two questions that I believe to be the two most difficult questions Marxists have to overcome. I also expect that the questions should be answered in a way which Marx would have approved of. Since you are not a Marxist and, it seems, have no real interest in the questions at hand, I think that this probably isn't the best thread for you to voice your opinion. But I appreciate your input anyway.

 

Marx didn't take consumerism into account since consumerism didn't really take off till the 1920's, consumerism was the Capitalist answer to their continued existance, it put people on a never ending treadmil of consumption, it also made people focus on the trivial and insignificant, this expanded into people political consciousness, Republican or Democrat their difference is trivial yet these slight differences gets center stage so real issues doesn't get into the mainstream consciousness.

 

I think you're talking about the work of Adorno and Marcuse and the rest of that crowd. I can't say that I'm very familiar with their work, but I can't say that I'm initially impressed by it either. Maybe you could help me understand it a little better. In what ways does Marcuse differ from Marx in terms of method, for example? Can Marcuse still be considered a dialectic materialist? I think an important criticism that needs to be addressed is, "Why do you believe that work of Marcuse isn't merely an ad hoc hypothesis?"

I'd also like to hear what you have to say about the second question.

 

Well the spectre mean that they would have a voice at least didnt it. I mean socialists have certainly had a huge influence in europe since hte pulication of the communist manifesto.

 

but was he counting on stalin, mao, castro, and mccarthy?

he probably thought things out to unimaginable lengths, but did he think of these scenarios. i believe these names and others stalled the communists from being even larger by making it carry around a bloody and corrupt past.

 

Thanks Common Sense for appreciating my input and I cannot participate for long in any event because we eminently are going away for a week or so. This is stolen time.

Nevertheless one obviously cannot let stand the statement that this thread is not concerned with ethics. Of course it is. You're talking political theory. If there's no ethical or moral framework the stew you or anyone concocts will be fundamentally flawed. It's like talking politics and saying it has nothing to do with people.

All concerned: please be attentive to this in my absence. If it ain't for the common good or those in real need it ain't good. If it's only to advance the interests of a few self servers then dump it.

 

Isn't capitalism all about the intereest of a few self servers?

 

Well this self-interest is part of what causes capitalist to put out quality products and services. It's in Toyota's best interest to make the best cars so that they can make more money than their competition.

This is how Capitalism can direct self-interest in a more productive way.

 

1. Marx was obviously wrong about revolution being imminent. To cover this up, people will try to twist his words into Nostradamus type predictions which become so vague and open ended that they can never be proven wrong, but it has become quite clear that capitalism was hardly about to collapse due to its own contradictions. Furthermore the knowledge/service economy we know today barely resembles the factory based, industrial production economy he knew. Sure people could imagine workers taking over simple manufacturing businesses in an economy with slow technological progress (although as it turns out this didn't work either), but a modern economy? The idea is ridiculous.

As for the idea that communism (please don't bother telling me that communism has never existed, I mean attempts to create or move towards a communist society) has never been attempted in an advanced economy, well the Czech Republic was one of the wealthiest nations in Europe before WW2. After WW2, despite minimal damage from the war, it went to being one of the poorest countries in Europe, poorer than any non-communist country by a long margin. Why? If not "communism", then communists.

2. I have no idea why people think this will work. Because primitive hunter-gatherer societies work this way, therefore Nokia should be controlled by worker collectives or anarchist committees?

 

Very good. And because I think this thread is started on a good basis, I posted your questions in two different forums, so you could see the answers from real marxists. I think a truly curious person should receive the best answers, so I posted it for you. There are a lot of "strange answers" one can get, even from self-proclaimed "communists", so this is just to make sure you will get the proper answers!


We usually have two different Marxist trends: Marxists, and Marxist-Leninists. Here are the two threads:


Marxists:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=38594&st=0#entry1291911744



Traditional Marxist-Leninists (these I believe, are the most "orthodox"):

http://www.comradeche.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=5751

 

Yes here I am again but with the assurance I will be disappearing shortly. More stolen time.


Common Sense as you know I had not payed much attention to your original 2 questions because I am not Marxist. But I decided to look back at them and having done so am absolutely obliged to respond. I assert with all false modesty that my analysis will be useful for Marxists and nonMarxists -- and that includes capitalists and conservatives.

Question 1. "Why haven't socialist revolutions broken out?"

Answer:

--Revolutions don't occur unless there's sufficient dissatisfaction. Capitalism may have provided a quality of life in some places at some times suffcient to buffer revolutionary potential. This does not mean we should not strive for a better quality of life. And things do seem to be getting pretty nasty out there.

-- Ignorance is bliss. Revolutions don't occur when one is ignorant of how one is being exploited. Can ignorance exist in an age of mass communication? Absolutely.

--If the threat of retaliation by the powers that be outweighs the underlying level of discontent revolution won't occur. If there's a lid on the pressure cooker the water won't boil.

Question 2 (paraphrased) "Can society be reorganized so everything will go off without a hitch? Can a nationalized economy controled by fallible human beings reach a state in which all things are accounted for? This seems to be the greatest virtue of laissez faire capitalism and Burkean conservatism."

Answer:

Of your second question Common Sense you say you wish it were worded better. That's right, and I'm trying to be helpful in saying this, there are problems with this second question. There are several issues going on here and they're not well defined.

Here are three important issues/ perspectives relative to your second question:

i. I keep saying this OVER and OVER and OVER. You have to define WHAT your GOAL or IDEAL is. You CANNOT determine what kind of vehicle to take or what route to take unless you first know where you want to go. Common Sense you say " 'This'[my quotations] is the virtue of laissez-faire capitalism and Burkean conservatism. What is "this"? You talk about a "society without a hitch" and a "state where everything is accounted for". What specifically do you mean by those? Just what kind of society do you want to achieve? What is good enough? A classless society? A 2 class society? A 20 class society? About 6 weeks ago there was a front page article in the Wall Street Journal saying in the 1970s the economic disparity between the 10% richest and 10% poorest Americans was 6 fold and now it's 15 fold. So what is good enough? No difference? A 2 fold difference? A 20 fold difference? What is the society you are striving for?

ii. This question of what kind of society you're striving for and what's good enough inevitably raises a correlative MORAL issue which also I have emphasized obviously over and over. Because it defines what kind of ideal society you envision. Do all people deserve the very best possible under the circumstances or not? I say they do because if you say they don't then anything goes. If you say they don't then it's always a matter of power and greed and where you draw the line and anything goes. Either you look after everybody once they've done all they reasonably can to help themselves (and that's where the excuses come in on both sides admittedly) or you say "Well we can let those fall by the wayside" (and make up fictions why they "deserve" less) and if you do that it's reprehensible.

iii.Pointbreak asks how workers or anarchists can control an economy. Common Sense you go even further and ask how anyone --"fallible human beings" -- can control a "nationalized economy".Well the fundamental problems here are as follows. This is the third thing I emphasize over and over. For human beings to accomplish ANYTHING besides individual foraging there has to be cooperation and organization. This creates power to do things not otherwise possible. But as soon as there's power there's danger and corruption. Is laissez-faire ("let do" that is "let be" in other words leave it alone don't interfere and like BoPeep's sheep the problems will take care of themselves) the answer? No because even in anarchy or laissez faire circumstances organizations and power structures develop naturally with concomitant danger and corruption. It's survival of the fittest. Recent corporate scandals and the above mentioned worsening economic disparity obviously can be interpreted as products of a comparatively laissez faire capitalist environment. No matter whether you have communism or capitalism or government or corporations or whatever organization there is always potential danger. There has to be organization but you've got fallible human beings no matter what system you're dealing with and control mechanisms are incumbent.

My idealist solution to all this is emphasis on the fundamental moral principle that everyone deserves the very best under the circumstances and an impeccable check and balance system. Of course that leaves the question of the details of the latter.