Two Questions for Marxists

yeh but isn't it also in toyotas interest to eliminate competition? If they can get a huge share of the market they will be able to crank prices up becuase they wont have any opposition.

 

Ewan:

That is certainly a possible interpretation. But the conditions Marx described for the collapse of capitalism are certainly far more akin to the conditions present in 1848 than today. It also appears that the rise of service and information technology based economies in the first world will make it very unlikely for those conditions to ever happen again. One question I'd like to ask you personally is whether it troubles you or not that Marx never gave even a rough time frame of when his predictions were to be fulfilled.

Also, this really isn't a discussion about elementary economic principles. You obviously already know how a capitalist would respond to your monopoly question and how it will degenerate into the same old spiel we've seen in the last 500 Communism threads to pop up in the last month.

Taxrefund:

Probably not since Marx thought that history was shaped by material and economic forces and not individual people. This is why I dislike the argument that Stalin prevented true Communism from ever coming about. The argument completely contradicts Marxist philosophy. Now, if you think that Marxist theory needs some fine-tuning, you're certainly not the first, but I really wanted to hear the ideas of orthodox Marxists. Since PsyFox brought up the Frankfurt School, however, I'm willing to let this rule slide in that one particular case, just because I'm very interested to see where it will go.

SDS:

I'm very sorry that you must be leaving our discussion. I certainly do agree with you that all political questions and statements are in some way ethical. Let's say, then, that we are discussing Marxism on a meta-ethical level. A good principle to begin with is that if a moral action (or in this case, political system) cannot be done, then it cannot be ethical, which is basically what we're trying to get at here. You may, of course, disagree with my premise, but that would have to be the subject of another thread entirely.

What concerns me more is the second half of your later post since it offers suggestions on how to make my second question more clear. These comments are deeply appreciated.

"This" refers to the absence of a planned economy in laizer-faire capitalism. The reason this is advantageous, in my opinion, is that it does not presuppose that economics and sociology can deliver the same results (being slightly vague here too, but we'll deal with that when we have to) as the natural sciences. Sociology and economics deal with variables that just aren't constants. People's needs and desires change over time, which brings us to you second criticism.

I also find your analogy between economic capitalism and political anarchism to be very interesting, although I'm not entirely sure if it is valid. I'll definitely be thinking about it though.

This is the main problem I had with my wording to begin with, but it seems that a certain degree of vague-ness is necessary. "Without a hitch" and "everything accounted for" could range from anything from a factory not receiving the equiptment necessary for operation to a mass famine. Since, as I have said, economics and sociology are not natural sciences, on what grounds do Marxists believe that a government can ever know exactly what needs to be produced for those who consume it? That is about the sum of the second question, but the social order is also meant to be included.

As to the kind of society I am trying to advocate, to over-simplify, it's the kind in which the least number of people die, which is why I could never advocate revolution or drastic changes in government or economy.

 

The great depression is what Marx was predicting, Marx thought that would be the end game for Capitalism as market forces rips would what is left of the economy, thus in order for the survival of mankind capitalism would have to abandoned. Yet World War II happend and because of disarmament after WWI, it ment the militaries of the world needed alot of production fast, this lead to the temporary nationalization of the US economy where the US goverment controled wartime production and consumption, thus capitalism was saved by the major players taking control of their markets for the duration of WWII.

After WWII the markets are healthy again, then you have the cold war and the arms race followed by the introduction of consumer debt as consumerism takes hold, thus the capitalist market didn't fail again because it was and still is being held up consumer and goverment debts.

Marx never though they would use debt to save the capitalist system, the economy runs because consumers run up consumer debt, while goverments run up larger debts on defence and large projects.

The world powers did this during WWII, with moderen communications and computers it should be even easier.

 

These are all ridiculous excuses. Capitalism was saved because we "invented" consumerism? This supposes that capitalism was supposed to remain as it was in 1850. Well, capitalism is dynamic. It doesn't take a secret plot to create "consumerism", it takes rising wealth, which is something created by capitalism. Consumerism does not require debt, and some debt, such as mortgages, can hardly be criticised. Can people pay for houses with cash? Obviously not. As people become wealthy, they have more disposable income, and start to purchase goods. That's called rising prosperity, not a plot to save capitalism which Marx could never have foreseen. Also, this is very America-centric. The war economy didn't save Germany from the depression, it destroyed it, yet Germany was rebuilt under a capitalist system. Every excuse you throw in there applies to the US yet there are many other countries in the world which prospered under capitalism under very different circumstances. Post war Japan was not a war economy, for example. Many war based economies, e.g. the USSR and North Korea, were disasters.

Also, to claim that Marx never imagined debt is the worst form of naive apologist, make it up as you go along rationalisation.

Face it, Marx was wrong, these excuses are pathetic.

 

Without consumer and goverment debt then like in the 1930 wealth would gravitate into too few hands causing the economy to stall. Without consumer debt then workers would eventually not be able to buy the stuff they manufacture as Capitalism is a pyramid scheme yet debt allows it to keep going.

The usurpation of Jewish wealth, the creation of slave labour and the military given more money then it could spend is what rebuilt the Nazi Germany economy.

Capitalism is GLOBAL, this is why the great depression was a global depression, economies are tied thus Japan did well because the USA was getting heavily in debt in its arm race and its citizens were getting in debt buying junk.

They were locked out of the global market by the USA, the USSR was growing faster then the US economy during the great depression when the USSR was part of the global economy, if the USSR had access to global markets it would still exist.

 

This a useless diversion by time wasting make-it-up-as-you-go-along amateur communist apologists.

Marx said capitalism would collapse on its own contradictions and more than a century later capitalism is healthier than ever. Like I said before, unless you settle for Nostradamus type bullshit, Marx was wrong.

 

It did during the Great Depression thus Marx was right, the current capitalist system is a unforseen modification to the rules of capitalism, Capitalism will still collaspe on it own contradictions but these modification on the rules of capitalism have bought Capitalism alot of time.

 

No, capitalism adapts and evolves. If Marx couldn't foresee that, then he didn't understand capitalism. Which is the whole point.

If you are saying "the only reason Marx's forecast was wrong was that it was based on his analysis which was also wrong but other than that he was right", you're only going to make yourself look like a fool.

 

Capitalism didn't adapt and evolve to the point where it can fix the problems that would eventually lead to its self-destruction, capitalism only adapted to delay its self-destruction.

 

This is such a bullshit excuse I cannot believe you think there is anyone here dumb enough to take it seriously.

You are essentially saying that since history didn't go the way Marx said it would, history has somehow gone wrong because Marx's theories must be correct.

I think if Marx shot an arrow and missed the target you'd say someone put the target in the wrong place.

Behold the depths of foolishness you need to sink to in order to defend Marxism.

 

What I'm saying is that there is no way Marx could have taken all variables into account, while this does not change the outcome it does change when capitalism will crash. Kinda like a 200 year old saying he will live forever since science said he'd be dead at about 100 years old, when in reality the 200 year old will still eventually die just a matter of time, the 200 year old can only effect when he dies not if, same with capitalism it can only effect the when not the if.

 

Yeh i agree, capitalism is only a transition pahse, not the end.

 

PsyFox:


I replied to your first post earlier, and I think you may have missed it. It's post #12. Please respond when you have the time.

 

I already explained the effect of consumerism on capitalism.

As for the second question "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?", well democracy, allowing the people to hold the goverment accountable.

 

Yes, but I also asked a host of questions concerning the Frankfurt School, whom you are no doubt familiar with. I find it hard to believe you came up with that yourself, and if you did, you should move to Germany and and attend some lectures by Habermas.

I already explained to another poster that this doesn't answer my question. I'm not worried about how you think this can be acheived; I'm asking why you think it is possible to begin with.

 

Oh come on, anyone can easily come to simular conclusions with critical questioning of all assumptions and institutions which have become idols under the name of common sense, logic, and what is supposed to be "natural".

Why do you think it is not possible?

 

Not really, it was more of a bullshit top of your head answer which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Your theories are incoherent and inconsistent since you obviously make them up as you go along.

Consumerism means nothing. Why shouldn't people spend money as their prosperity increases. Calling it consumerism is meaningless.

Your problem is that virtually everything you say is contradicted by reality. You say the communist countries didn't develop because they couldn't trade with the west, yet many of them could, and they could certainly trade with each other too. And although African nations can trade with the west, they are still poor. No coherence.

You say capitalist economies survived because of war and debt yet communist countries had war and debt. In fact they even had "consumerism" in the form of consumer goods, cars, televisions, etc. No coherence.

You say Marx was a great forecaster because he "couldn't have foreseen" debt. I can assure you Marx knew what debt was and saying that forecasters can't be expected to foresee things is pathetic.

You said Germany got rich by stealing Jewish wealth but stealing wealth does not create wealth, it merely reallocates it, and in fact in most cases destroys it (as in Zimbabwe, where confiscation of land lead to economic disaster).

Every single one of these arguments is made up bullshit which you just pile more bullshit on top of. Why are you so lazy?

 

Yes they could trade with each other, but the world market they were mostly locked out of.

I never said that trade with the west ment you won't be poor, I said being locked out of the western market limmits the ecomony.

No signifigant consumer debt and because of the limmited size of their economies their national debt caught up with them sooner then the rest of the world, eventually the USA will crash like the USSR and capitalist Argentina, as debts catches up and kills the economy.

???? What the fuck are you talking about???? All of them had ration systems for consumption thus far from consumerism.

Learn to fucking read, I said he couldn't have foreseen the USE of debt to hold up capitalism, it doesn't fix anything, just delays the crash while making a bigger thud when capitalism fails.

Capitalism is nothing but stealing of wealth, taking wealth from its creators to give to the owning class.

 

You had to have at least been influenced by the Frankfurt School, maybe even without even knowing it. What Communist theorists have you been heavily influenced by? I also asked why you believe that your consumerism hypothesis isn't an ad hoc hypothesis.

I explained it a little in the question itself. Sociology and economics are not natural sciences, so we can never have an understanding of sociology or economics to the extent necessary for socialism to work. But it's poor form to try to shift the burden of proof by asking the same question back. So, why do you think it is possible?

 

Is it realistic, or should we say, is it common sense to even seek a Marxist analysis of Marx's failed analysis of world-revolution.

I say Marx's 'failed' analysis, because Marxist world revolution depends upon a complete revolution in humanity's 'class-consciousness' that never fully materialized.

Even though socialist revolutions have broken-out across most of the world during the 20th century, they were all overwhelmed by the Capitalist forces of Global-Private-Property, because they lacked an overwhelming 'class-consciousness' necessary to succeed against such brutal forces.

Marxist analysis of 'class-consciousness' fails, because neither Marx nor Engels were aware that 'class-identity', like racial and religious identities grow from our primal 'Sexual Identity'.

Marx and Engels were un-aware that the 'class-consciousness' of Capitalist Private Property is the natural grasping anal-retentive Homo-Eroticism of Civilized Man's latent Homo-Sexuality.

If Marx and Engels were alive today, they would understand that a revolution in 'class-consciousness' is not possible without first healing Civilized Man's repressed perverted Sexuality.

Until then, Civilized Man will naturally continue to express our repressed Homo-Eroticism through the anal-retentive pleasures of aquiring, owning and controlling Private-Property.

In short, only men who are Sexually Secure in their Man-Hood, are healthy enough and strong enough to identify with their Sisters and Brothers as a wholistic part of One's Self.
****
In regards to a 'belief in a nationalized economy', one must ask , how can one not believe in a 'nationalized economy', when all around us every nation's economy is and always has been at the very center of its national existence?

Civilization itself implies a 'nationalized economy'.

Remember, government was created for the sole purpose of protecting and promoting the interests of 'Private-Property'.

Where 'Private-Property does not exist, Government does not exist.

For example, what we call the 'United States', like all the nations of the Americas, exist solely to protect and promote the Private-Property impulses of we Alien-Invaders.

From Florida to Alaska, the natural impulse of every institution and practically every individual is mobilized to contribute to the protection and promotion of Homo-Erotic Private-Property.

The only reason government agencies don't have to regulate every detail is because the entire population is already pre-programmed by our collective Sexual Inadequacy and anxiety.

Our entire sexually repressed nation has 'nationalized' from the Leaders down to the children our 'Private-Property' impulse to the very last penny.