A Set of Weird Propositions

[Thirsty Crow]

So, in a debate in another forum, I encountered a (check the title of the thread :D) about Marx, the meaning of Communism and te current historical situation... some clarification and/or trefutation from you guys would be great, 'cause I found myself pretty much at an impasse.

So, according to that guy...:

1) Communism is not a socioeconomic formation but a political economy which is being created by means of the evolution of capitalism (Marx was delighted with human progress arising from capitalist relations; accordingly, Communism will replace capitalism because capitalism will not be an economically optimal system with the development of technology and science)

2) Histor4y advances and one historical epoch replaces another because older economic systems are no longer optimal
(the most "paying out", the most economically productive/whatever) in relation to emergent ones); Communism will arise from the maximal expansion and potency of capitalism

3) Industrial capitalism of the 19th century has regressed, and that slowed down the processes which could be called the communist evolutions in the most advanced capitalist countries; what we have nowadays is a step back "towards" feudalism in which international financial and military oligarchy realizes huge profits by means of debt and interest (at the expense of state budgets and production).

I made my reply, but this confused bunch of statements made me wonder...how would you guys react? What would you highlight and criticize?
Discuss.

P.S. This person also provided a link to an article by Michael Hudson...
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/07/from-marx-to-goldman-sachs-the-fictions-of-fictitious-capital1/

Did you read it? What do you think of it?

[28350]

Sounds like analytical marxism.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think so, in light of the more recent posts...

The person in question accuses, communists, socialists and anarchists of being objectively reactionary (not his phrase) on grounds of the alleged orientation of Marx's towards this full expansion of capitalism (i.e. the maximization of profit).
Apparently, nowadays capitalist productive relations are still not a "fetter to the development of the means of production". Capitalism is till profitable, and therefore, socialists should shut the hell up and wait until capitalism beco0mes non-profitable (and i nthe meantime it will develop the means of production).

This is a really weird kind of anti-communism.

[Kléber]

The three points in the original post are basically correct, although they could imply a mechanical conception of history, that take revolution to be a purely economic affair where the ruling class chooses a new social system that will be more productive, leaving out the political revolution whereby the revolutionary class must forcefully remove the old class, tied to obsolete production relations, from positions of power.

Arguing that capitalism is still revolutionary is ridiculous, and it's contradicted by his point #3, since he seems to be admitting that the 20th-century isolated autarkic projects attempted by nation-state militaries and bureaucracies have been total failures, and international finance capitalists are now absolute parasites who are dragging humanity into a new dark age; this confirms what Trotsky said, the conditions for a proletarian revolution are no longer ripe, they are getting rotten.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm still a newbie with actual thoery, but I see nothing wrong with the initial statements. The problems is when you say people should just shut up and take it. That is the ultimate reactionary stance.
Revolutionaries should implelement socialism now, if for nothing else but to keep the fear of the people in the capitlist's minds.
Reformists should be working on expanding and democratizing ownership, getting capital into the many's hands (and since most people are workers...); stock options, pension plans, high inheritance taxes, etc.

[Amphictyonis]

So, in a debate in another forum, I encountered a (check the title of the thread :D) about Marx, the meaning of Communism and te current historical situation... some clarification and/or trefutation from you guys would be great, 'cause I found myself pretty much at an impasse.

So, according to that guy...:

1) Communism is being created by means of the evolution of capitalism (Marx was delighted with human progress arising from capitalist relations; accordingly, Communism will replace capitalism because capitalism will not be an economically optimal system with the development of technology and science)

2) History advances and one historical epoch replaces another because older economic systems are no longer optimal
(the most "paying out", the most economically productive/whatever) in relation to emergent ones); Communism will arise from the maximal expansion and potency of capitalism

3) Industrial capitalism of the 19th century has regressed, and that slowed down the processes which could be called the communist evolutions in the most advanced capitalist countries; what we have nowadays is a step back "towards" feudalism in which international financial and military oligarchy realizes huge profits by means of debt and interest (at the expense of state budgets and production).

I made my reply, but this confused bunch of statements made me wonder...how would you guys react? What would you highlight and criticize?
Discuss.

P.S. This person also provided a link to an article by Michael Hudson...
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/07/from-marx-to-goldman-sachs-the-fictions-of-fictitious-capital1/

Did you read it? What do you think of it?

1 correct
2 correct
3 debatable but capitalism in advanced western nations has indeed changed from industry to usury.

[Amphictyonis]

I don't think so, in light of the more recent posts...



This is a really weird kind of anti-communism.

No. I'd be interested to talk with him/her seeing I've been saying much of the same things to * crickets chirping* in the learning section of this site (below)-

http://www.revleft.com/vb/globalization-good-thingi-t143983/index.html


He/she is basically taking a Marxian view or a orthodox Marxist view. Orthodox Marxists don't see any workers movements as reactionary, we only see certain past attempts at communism as pre mature. Pre mature because capitalism had yet to exhaust it's productive forces and remained a 'progressive' system but as Marx thought a progressive and exploitative/disgusting system. Marx would often praise capitalism for it's progressive nature and in the next sentence condemn it to the dust bin of history (in time).

[penguinfoot]

The first two points are basically a summary of some of the main ideas of Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense, which is a key text in the analytical Marxist tradition. The material that you said comes out of his later posts is nothing original either, check out Marx's Revenge by Desai.