12. The Marxian Failure and Legacy

[Valdemar]

I have just watched the YaleCourse, a Course of Prof. Ian Shapiro about Marxism or how he puts it Marxian Economy.

At the end of Marxian relevant Course, he gives Critique of labor theory which is, as far i know, the center of Marxism. He also says how we can see that Marx is\was wrong, and that history has shown us etc. In short he shreds marxism and makes it look as failure. Whats you think about it, and do you guys have any Crituque of his Critique?

P_0r5M_C5VE

[#FF0000]

I'm sort of curious as to where these predictions of Marx came from? (He is right about the whole teleological arc of history being bullshit, though)

[Kronsteen]

IIRC, this lecture made an interesting critique of the relation of labour to ownership: that mixing your labour with some raw materials to make a product doesn't entitle you to that product, for the same reason that changing the course of a river doesn't make you own the river.

It also made the useless argument that it's 'utopian' for workers not to have fixed jobs. But leaving that aside, does anyone have an answer to the labour/ownership question?

[Revolution starts with U]

IIRC, this lecture made an interesting critique of the relation of labour to ownership: that mixing your labour with some raw materials to make a product doesn't entitle you to that product, for the same reason that changing the course of a river doesn't make you own the river.

It also made the useless argument that it's 'utopian' for workers not to have fixed jobs. But leaving that aside, does anyone have an answer to the labour/ownership question?

We're going to make it so.

Of course labor doesn't create ownership. Nor could private property as an institution function if it did. There would be no means of exchange, since as soon as it leaves the producers hands, it ceases to be owned by said producer. Socialist "property" rejects the entitlement principle as inherently antagonistic, contrary to the needs of society, and therefore exploitive of the "class" with no entitlements, at least by de facto.

[Genghis]

Ian Shapiro makes sense. If you change the course of the river, it does not mean the river belongs to you.

[Revolution starts with U]

I meant to add; the rejection of the entitlement principle to property automatically dissolves the notion of "property" altogether. At this point nobody "owns" anything, but is allowed to exercise reasonable control.

The funniest part is that this is merely respecting reality for what it is, rather than trying to impose ethics upon it. In the real world nobody "owns" anything. If you cause too much of a nuissance, you will have to answer for it to the community; murder, armed robbery, even noise complaints. These are all examples of people using their "property" as they saw fit, and being reprimanded for it unvoluntarily. At this point the capitalist apologetic must resort to some kind of "right" to non-aggression.
But again, this is just imposing ethics onto the world. Not all people have a right to non-aggression. You can't sit on your porch in an urban area and masturbate, nor will you likely ever be allowed to, even in an ancap society. It will be deemed aggressive, because ethics are relative, and those with power make the rules and their justifications, and you will be fined. People yelling fire in a crowded theater do not have a right to non-aggression.

I often tell the parable of the hermit; John the Hermit is unaware of civlized life, and wanders the woods in total seclusion. One day he happens upon a beautiful pond, and sits down to strum his lute and take in the beauty. Jeremy runs out with a deed and a gun yelling "get off my property" and threating to shoot John. Who here is the aggressor? Only an Olympic display of mental gymnastics can make the case that John is the aggressor, not Jeremy. But this is how the property system works. It is by nature aggressive and contrary to the desires of macro society.

[Ocean Seal]

Too long didn't watch.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I meant to add; the rejection of the entitlement principle to property automatically dissolves the notion of "property" altogether. At this point nobody "owns" anything, but is allowed to exercise reasonable control.

The funniest part is that this is merely respecting reality for what it is, rather than trying to impose ethics upon it. In the real world nobody "owns" anything. If you cause too much of a nuissance, you will have to answer for it to the community; murder, armed robbery, even noise complaints. These are all examples of people using their "property" as they saw fit, and being reprimanded for it unvoluntarily. At this point the capitalist apologetic must resort to some kind of "right" to non-aggression.
But again, this is just imposing ethics onto the world. Not all people have a right to non-aggression. You can't sit on your porch in an urban area and masturbate, nor will you likely ever be allowed to, even in an ancap society. It will be deemed aggressive, because ethics are relative, and those with power make the rules and their justifications, and you will be fined. People yelling fire in a crowded theater do not have a right to non-aggression.

I often tell the parable of the hermit; John the Hermit is unaware of civlized life, and wanders the woods in total seclusion. One day he happens upon a beautiful pond, and sits down to strum his lute and take in the beauty. Jeremy runs out with a deed and a gun yelling "get off my property" and threating to shoot John. Who here is the aggressor? Only an Olympic display of mental gymnastics can make the case that John is the aggressor, not Jeremy. But this is how the property system works. It is by nature aggressive and contrary to the desires of macro society.
I'm going to steal your little parable.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm going to steal your little parable.

You can only steal it if I own it. What you are in reality going to do is exercise a reasonable amount of control over it ;)

[RGacky3]

Ok this guy is a clown, these are not sophisticated critiques, and they arn't even economic critiques, but I'll oblige and break down all of his "arguments."

Marx's macro theory:

1. His critique of Marx's theory of liquidity crisis: He says "states can take care of it," No shit, Marx's Kapital was based on a closed system model, if your thowing keynsianism in there you have a different issue, then you have to deal with all other variables, Marx was dealing with Capitalism Internally, Marx would have been the first to recognize that you need a state for Capitalism, but his critique is just missunderstanding Marx's methodology.

2. His critique of the Tendancy for the rate of profit to fall: He admits that it is empirically true, but he points to the fact that new industries can pop up, AGAIN NO SHIT, that is exactly why Marxism predicted financialization, the TRPF was per industry, specifically productive industry. Of coarse markets can grow, but Marx was dealing with a CLOSED CAPITALIST SYSTEM, and tendancies in it. Again, methodological missunderstanding, Also to grow new industries you need new Markets, and markets are limited to people's ability to buy.

and it also proves the point that Marx discovered (something that mainstream economists now all agree, although they never credit Marx), that capitalism requires purpetual and compound growth to not fail.

He also says "If the increase of productivity increases faster than capital displaces labor then the TRPF doesn't happen," not true at all, and there was no argument there, because increase of productivity is built into the theory, its an integral part of it, Even if the productivity increases you still have the competing down of prices and excess capacity.

Again he admits its empirically true, but somehow Marx was still wrong :rolleyes:.

3. Competition eliminates Competitors i.e. consolidation of capital: The only argument he makes is that it does'nt apply to all industries, yeah, all marxists would agree, ice cream trucks arn't gonna be consolidated anytime soon, but major production, merchant capital and finance capital follow the rule, and again, this is empirically true.

His example is the IT industry, which I would actually use as an exmaple of why his theory IS True, those industries ARE being consolidated, as a new industry yeah, but it still has the same tendancy, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

4. Underconsumption/Overproduction: Again he appeals to the government, Again, NO SHIT, methodological missunderstanding, Marx was dealing with a closed capitalist system.

5. Class consciousness: (this is NOT part of Marx's positive economics, and so I don't feel compelled to defend it, its part of his historical determanism, which I disagree with), He says workers compare themselves to each other, not to the rich. That IS true, but Marx argued that over time they'll see the systemic problems and exploitation and gain class consciousness, this guy simply does'nt understand Marx's concept of class, since he's talking about the poor/rich, its not about that, its about capitalist/worker (which is happening now, people talk about those who work for a living and those who make money from money, i.e. capitalists).

Also he talks about rate of exploitation raising WITH rate of wages, yes, this can happen, only when the economic growth is extremely high and you have a cronic shortage of labor and high demand, which is something that does'nt happen all the time.

I won't even addresss his argument about the state, again, missing the point.

Conclusion: He appeals to the state, which is not part of Marx' economic analysis, his job was to deal with Capitalism at its "purest" form, if your gonna add the state as a variable its about as disingenous as using "god of the gaps" arguments. He appeals to exeptions to the rule, i.e. "the rule is true, but not ALL the time," which is basically an admission. So I don't see any strong arguments here. If this is the best they have, then us Marxists should pat ourselves on the back.

Marx's Micro Economics:

1. LTOV:
1a: Labor is the only thing that creates value, But it ignores the value of dead workers (i.e. every labor in the past that contributed), NO IT DOES'NT, its total value of labor.

he says it also ignores the labor that the capitalist includes: NO IT DOES'NT, Marx uses capitalist/labor as relations NOT people, so sure a capitalist can also be manager or a worker, or an entreprenour, and thats him playing the role as a worker of some sorts, but in his role as a capitalist i.e. making money from money, he contribues NO value.

Also about the spouse and so on: its considered exploitation, thats a whole different argument, but at that point your getting out of capitalism and thus marxism, work at home is NOT part of the market/capitalist system, so we can't use Marx's theory of capitalism for that (although some people try).

So basically his whole argument against the LTOV is based on a missunderstanding of it.

1b: Making creates entitlements ... that is NOT Marx's theory, entitlement is a judgement value, something which Marx was'nt interested in in his Kapital.

But he says "If I have money and a buy a meal, I eat it and its gone, if I spend it on my house i have a more valuble house, so the consumption of a meal does'nt lead to more labor power, whereas the consumption of labor power leads to more labor," (This is NOT Marx's arugment, its a strawman), and then a woman says "the value of the meal is that it keeps you alive," NO SHIT, but you being alive is not a marketable commodity, sure your labor can be sold when your alive, but that is an indirect response, you CANNOT sell being full, you CANNOT sell being alive, plain and simple, if your going to reduce every single thing to every single externality, then I guess peeing creates value becuase you can work better without having to pee.

Marx was talking about direct labor to markitable product value creation.

He's doing a reduction to absurdity, its like using quantum physics to show we should ignore neutonian physics, NO, neutonian physics still applies to its area.

If your applying Marx's critique of capitalism to things that are not capitalism, that is'nt an argument against marxism.

This guy is NOT making any arguments against the actual ECONOMIC LTOV, he's just making absurd philisophical arguments by building up strawmen and red herrings, and using arbitrary ethical arguments which is basically saying "there are other ethical systems of ownership," Marx was dealing with the liberal/classical theories, i.e. CAPITALISM!!!

(then the guy quotes Robert Nozick, which make me chuckle a bit, since no one respects that guy).

Anyway, if we are going to throw away all of capitalism in your critique, then you can throw away Marxist econoimcs, because thats what marxist economics was about.

In Conclusion: His arguments against the LTOV, depend on using the LTOV outside its purpuse, i.e. outside of market exchange value, and thus is a pointless critique.

His conclusion is typical bullshit, i.e. "markets favor the people that are better," which he basically backs up with nothing.

So it Total conclusion.

This guy does'nt refute anything, he does'nt even critique Marxism in itself, he only appeals to things outside capitalism, which is essencially an admission that he can't critique it, this guy's critique is so weak, its barely better than your average revleft capitalist-apologist. He makes no economic arguments, he makes no real refutations of economic analysis, all he does is just say "yeah .. but, what about something else."

So yeah, I'm not impressed at all, but him up against, Richard Wolff, David Harvey, or hell, even me, and this guy falls flat on his face.

*I edited it, because my terrible spelling and grammer makes my posts probably hard to read, so I fixed some of it.

[RGacky3]

Heres the sad thing, this guy is a professor in YALE, yet his understanding of Marx is infintile and his critique is a joke, leave it to a Neo-Classicalist to give the most absurd non-arguments against Marx, I guarantee you these guys have never actually learned Marxism from an actual Marxist.

[Dean]

IIRC, this lecture made an interesting critique of the relation of labour to ownership: that mixing your labour with some raw materials to make a product doesn't entitle you to that product, for the same reason that changing the course of a river doesn't make you own the river.

It also made the useless argument that it's 'utopian' for workers not to have fixed jobs. But leaving that aside, does anyone have an answer to the labour/ownership question?


Well this applies to every form of constant capital (which encompasses all non-labor capital), really. After a worker has added his labor to a bit of material, and it goes off to be further modified by another worker in the production process, who owns it? What of the "shared claim"? To put it simply, they both own it and have a right to collectively determine what is done with it, or benefit from its sale. In the case of land, a common good, it is self evident that adding a dam doesn't make you sole owner, nor does previous labor get "washed away" as soon as someone else tweaks a product.

It sounds like this guy is simply trying to apply a model of private, exclusive property rights to the Marxist doctrine - something specifically rejected as a hindrance to the worker's ownership of the means of production. Working class hegemony specifically relies on collective ownership.

[Revolutionair]

Watching Friedman videos on youtube constitutes reading Marx!

[Luís Henrique]

It also made the useless argument that it's 'utopian' for workers not to have fixed jobs. But leaving that aside, does anyone have an answer to the labour/ownership question?

He confuses ownership with property, methinks.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

IIRC, this lecture made an interesting critique of the relation of labour to ownership: that mixing your labour with some raw materials to make a product doesn't entitle you to that product, for the same reason that changing the course of a river doesn't make you own the river.

Property is regulated by the State; it is not a natural or otherwise metaphysical relation between proprietor and property.

Property over rivers may vary between jurisdictions; it could be the case that rivers are always considered "commons" and as such are subjected to no property; or they could be State property, with only utere privileges being granted to those who own the margins. Or they can, of course, be considered integral part of landed property. If so, and I change the course of a river so that it crosses my property, I become its proprietor - unless the act itself is deemed illegal, which probably is the case. But evidently, if I change the course of a river because in doing so I can more appropriately use the river, then I have established some kind of possession over it. It may be that the State concedes me property of the river in consequence of that; it may be that such possession does not imply any property at all; and it may well be even that such possession is illegal and that I can be forced to restore the river to its original course, or be fined, or serve time in jail for it.

However a river is not man made, so it is not comparable to actual products of labour. Changing the course of a river is not the equivalent of making a hammer; it is indeed more similar to taking a hammer from someone else's pocket and tucking it into mine's.

Now, evidently, the property of hammers is no more a direct relation between hammer and hammer proprietors than the property of rivers or land: it is enforced by law, and as such, is a State-mediated relation. The prevalent state of things in all jurisdictions that I know is that the property of hammers, as the immediate result of the process of producing hammers, is bestowed into the proprietor of the factory in which the hammers are produced. And there is nothing in Marx to deny that, or to attribute such state of things to a supposed violation of a natural, a-historical, law (this being one of the reasons Marx ridicules Proudhon's idea that "property is theft").

To put it in a very simplistic way, so that Prof. doesn't miss the explanation, what Marxists propose is not that we revert to some state of nature, in which individual, or collective, hammer makers are "entitled" to ownership of the hammers they make, but a change in legislation, so that the State, instead of protecting the property of factory proprietors over the hammers, protects the property of the collective hammer makers over them (of course, we do propose that because in our opinion the present state of things causes a series of interrelated problems, some of which have to do with our egotistical interests - we would like to be the owners of the hammers we make, for it is better for us to be their proprietors than not - while others have to do with the general organisation of production and society, as the present private arrangement of the property of hammers, and the commodification of both hammers and labour power it entails, is the cause of cyclic economic crises and acts as a restraining force against the development of human capabilities, putting the hammer makers in a situation of antagonism towards the production of hammers).

So, prof. Shapiro, in this particular aspect at least (for I haven't seen the whole video), has stuffed somebody else (Rousseau, quite probably) with straw and burnt them down instead of Marx.

Which is more or less the standard practice among the bourgeois critiques of Marx. Misconstrue somebody else's ideas as Marx's, and then debunk the miscontruction, and then finally claim victory.

And also a reason that we should be able to distinguish Marx's contributions from those of his predecessors, so that refutations of Rousseau, or Hume, or Hegel, or Ricardo, or Babeuf, etc., can be seen for what they are, and so that we don't get confused by those bourgeois "refutations".

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Wow. I went back and watched the whole thing and I gotta say that these arguments are incredibly weak. I figured "well, this guy's a professor at Yale teaching, I assume, economics, so there must be some hard-hitting criticisms here" but hooo boy.

I can't really add to what Gacky and Luis said here but something that bothers me, still, is his criticism of Marx for his incorrect predictions when all of Economics as a field of study is notorious for being almost completely worthless when it comes to describing and predicting real-world shit.

[RGacky3]

Its not even that his predictions failed, its just that they are not all encompasing and their may be exceptions ... Its rediculous.

Its like me saying brain cancer has a tendancy to kill, and you cite one or 2 cases where it did'nt and claim victory.

This guy CAN'T be this dumb, he's obviously just propegandising.

[l'Enfermé]

Whenever RGacky posts in a thread around here, he nails the point so much that there's hardly anything at all to add. I for one think that there's something quite wrong in the fact that he's restricted, while Stalinists can run around claiming that the people Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge "supposedly" killed were actually killed by American bombing campaigns(that ended in like '73, the Stalinists in Cambodia didn't take over until '75 or '76) and not even get warned for it. It's ridiculous.

Does anyone really object to you being unrestricted? You don't hold a single reactionary position. You're more progressive and Marxist then 90% of this forum...what the fuck, seriously. Honestly, who objects to un-restricting RGacky? Denying/justifying genocides, ethnic cleansings, mass-murders, forced deportations of entire nations...that is acceptable, but whatever the hell RGacky did isn't?

[Revolution starts with U]

Gack is pro life and fully aware that warrents his restriction here. Unfortunate, yes. But well...

[l'Enfermé]

Gack is pro life and fully aware that warrents his restriction here. Unfortunate, yes. But well...
Pro-life? Are you pro-death or something? I'm also pro-life, everyone here except for genocidal Stalinists and the restricted people that want all poor people to starve to death are "pro-life". I'm pretty fond of my life and of the life of my family and friends.

I'm pretty sure what you mean is that RGacky thinks that abortion is a pretty bad thing, but he also thinks that it shouldn't be criminalized. That's not a restriction-worthy stance.

[Omsk]

Nationalism is.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

IIRC, this lecture made an interesting critique of the relation of labour to ownership: that mixing your labour with some raw materials to make a product doesn't entitle you to that product, for the same reason that changing the course of a river doesn't make you own the river.

It also made the useless argument that it's 'utopian' for workers not to have fixed jobs. But leaving that aside, does anyone have an answer to the labour/ownership question?

That's a really abstract near-Hegelian view on product. I mean i think most of us here still are for a proletarian self-rule. Given that this class is suppressed by the state through its education system, its laws and culture, i can see how reactionary opinions could find hold even in the revolutionary left, but if you have ever made something, you have a desire to control, a sense of indignity when controlled, "exploited" or what Marx called alienation. Labor is the only tangible thing man/woman has, and material conditions form thoughts, societies, history. I think this guy is a well paid* persuasive speaker with no material philosophy to back it up.

[ColonelCossack]

Stalinists can run around claiming that the people Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge "supposedly" killed were actually killed by American bombing campaigns

I've never seen any M-L support Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge on Revleft, and I certainly never would.


While I agree that Gacky is a compelling poster, I seem to remember he was restricted because of his views on abortion, but I'm not really sure. :confused:

[Luís Henrique]

I've never seen any M-L support Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge on Revleft, and I certainly never would.

People support the most unbelievable things on revleft. A guy once supported the murder of Benazir Bhutto because she was "subversive". And there were those who opposed his restriction, on the grounds that supporting one bourgeois tendency over others is a common place "Marxist Leninist" position... :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

[Genghis]

RGacky should not be restricted. Neither should anyone else. Debate is healthy. It helps us find the truth. Restrictions smack of fear that his opinions are correct and no one can rebut them.

Those countries who fear freedom of debate and speech have something to hide.

[Revolutionair]

Too bad that the restriction policy of Revleft is braindead.

[Franz Fanonipants]

restriction is a good idea and being against it is suspicious

[Rafiq]

IIRC, this lecture made an interesting critique of the relation of labour to ownership: that mixing your labour with some raw materials to make a product doesn't entitle you to that product, for the same reason that changing the course of a river doesn't make you own the river.

It also made the useless argument that it's 'utopian' for workers not to have fixed jobs. But leaving that aside, does anyone have an answer to the labour/ownership question?

If you were to build a dam upon that river, does it belong to the person who has guns and said "Hey guys, it's my land"? It is not just as if it entitles them to the product. The product's existence is completely determined by their labor input. It doesn't entitle them to the product in this strict universalist sense (Because, after all, in post Capitalism, most of the things workers are producing, they aren't taking for themselves) the point is, is that the profit made upon that product by the Bourgeosie solely depends on the labor value, and the fact that labor value is in existence signifies not a moral argument, but that capitalism systematically had it's first contradiction discovered.

The LTV isn't a moral argument about "Workers should have X", it was an argument about the contradictions in Capitalist production.

Changing the flow of the River may not make the river belong to you, but it certainly can't naturally belong to some asshole who wants to charge people five bucks for crossing it, no? The existence of that river flow solely depends on someone's labor, and in doing so, their labor value is attached to it.

[Rafiq]

Whenever RGacky posts in a thread around here, he nails the point so much that there's hardly anything at all to add. I for one think that there's something quite wrong in the fact that he's restricted, while Stalinists can run around claiming that the people Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge "supposedly" killed were actually killed by American bombing campaigns(that ended in like '73, the Stalinists in Cambodia didn't take over until '75 or '76) and not even get warned for it. It's ridiculous.

Does anyone really object to you being unrestricted? You don't hold a single reactionary position. You're more progressive and Marxist then 90% of this forum...what the fuck, seriously. Honestly, who objects to un-restricting RGacky? Denying/justifying genocides, ethnic cleansings, mass-murders, forced deportations of entire nations...that is acceptable, but whatever the hell RGacky did isn't?

He's restricted for his views in regards to Abortion.

[Revolutionair]

restriction is a good idea and being against it is suspicious
You're so full of shit. :laugh:

[Genghis]

Marxism has never worked. It failed everywhere it was attempted.

[ColonelCossack]

Marxism has never worked. It failed everywhere it was attempted.

You're so right. In fact you're argument is so compelling I've become a strong advocate of Laizzez-Faire, all because of you. Thank you for showing me "the Light", as it were.

A mod might as well restrict me now, because of my radical change my political beliefs to the most logical option after Genghis' hugely persuasive argument.


btw I'm joking so don't restrict me.

[l'Enfermé]

He's restricted for his views in regards to Abortion.
What is restriction-worthy when it comes to his views on abortion, and how is it worse than ML's crying about how genocide, ethnic cleansings, mass-murders, slave-labour camps and all that is completely justified and we should kiss Stalin's feet for it?

[Valdemar]

Gacky thanks for Great reply! I knew i can count on you!
& Sorry for late reply :)
edit*
Sorry Gacky, but i really dislike your avatar...my personal opinion...

[#FF0000]

Marxism has never worked. It failed everywhere it was attempted.

oh well lets not try and figure out why and just leave it at that i guess

[Rafiq]

What is restriction-worthy when it comes to his views on abortion, and how is it worse than ML's crying about how genocide, ethnic cleansings, mass-murders, slave-labour camps and all that is completely justified and we should kiss Stalin's feet for it?

Certainly some ML's get away with worse reactionary offenses in contrast to rgacky...

[Rafiq]

RGacky should not be restricted. Neither should anyone else. Debate is healthy. It helps us find the truth. Restrictions smack of fear that his opinions are correct and no one can rebut them.

Those countries who fear freedom of debate and speech have something to hide.

Shut up. You idiots are lucky you aren't just banned all together (I'm NOT being sarcastic).

There's a few exceptions, but that's all.

[ColonelCossack]

Those countries who fear freedom of debate and speech have something to hide.

Revleft isn't a country, though.

[RGacky3]

Sorry Gacky, but i really dislike your avatar...my personal opinion...

I really dislike your opinion...my personal opinion...;)

[l'Enfermé]

Certainly some ML's get away with worse reactionary offenses in contrast to rgacky...
What's reactionary about RGacky's views? Can someone explain it to me? Maybe I'm stupid, treat me like a baby.

[ColonelCossack]

What's reactionary about RGacky's views? Can someone explain it to me? Maybe I'm stupid, treat me like a baby.

Being opposed to abortion is sexist- It's a woman's right to choose if she want's to keep a baby or not, it's her body, after all. No-one else gets a say because it isn't their body.

That's the line of thinking used for restricting anti-abortion peeps, anyway.

[ColonelCossack]

ML's crying about how genocide, ethnic cleansings, mass-murders, slave-labour camps and all that is completely justified

Most M-Ls don't have those opinions... As I just said... seriously...

A very small minority might have some sympathies for Pol Pot, but most don't, because communists don't agree with ethnic cleansing etc... unless I missed something...

We're not restricted because we don't hold sexist/racist/agesist/homophobic/otherwise reactionary views, and we aim to achieve a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

[Genghis]

Then how come the worst mass murderers are all from the left? Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.

[RGacky3]

Then how come the worst mass murderers are all from the left? Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.


I don't consider them to be left, they wern't pro democracy, they wen't pro emancipation, they were essnecially the CEOs of national corporations.

[Genghis]

So they were capitalists?

[Genghis]

Shut up. You idiots are lucky you aren't just banned all together (I'm NOT being sarcastic).

There's a few exceptions, but that's all.

??? What did I say that was wrong?

[RGacky3]

They were dictators ...

Anyway, I take it you can't contribute anything to the discussion, which was about Marx's economics, so your trying to derail it, stop. If you can't contribute to a discussion about Marxian economics don't post.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hitler, Nixon, Jackson. I think the so-called left and right both have their fair share of murderous dictators. The left just tends not to drink the kool aid and believe the western narrative of history. The right does.

[Rafiq]

What's reactionary about RGacky's views? Can someone explain it to me? Maybe I'm stupid, treat me like a baby.

Well, the abortion issue (I don't want to start a topic on this).

[RGacky3]

I'd much rather discuss actual Issues having to do with Marxian economic analysis and the neo-liberal criticisms of it (and why they are bullshit).

[Rafiq]

I don't think this particular view Gacky holds qualifies him as a reactionary, by the way, I just believe it's held by the Board Administration and myself that this is a reactionary view.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Most M-Ls don't have those opinions... As I just said... seriously...

A very small minority might have some sympathies for Pol Pot, but most don't, because communists don't agree with ethnic cleansing etc... unless I missed something...

We're not restricted because we don't hold sexist/racist/agesist/homophobic/otherwise reactionary views, and we aim to achieve a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Marxist-Lenninist party dictatorships have had to resort to formalized institutional racism in the past to maintain the hierarchy they belong to. Notable examples being North Korea and Cambodia.

[Genghis]

You're so right. In fact you're argument is so compelling I've become a strong advocate of Laizzez-Faire, all because of you. Thank you for showing me "the Light", as it were.

A mod might as well restrict me now, because of my radical change my political beliefs to the most logical option after Genghis' hugely persuasive argument.


btw I'm joking so don't restrict me.

Well, Marxism has been tried in the Soviet Union. It failed. The SU eventually collapsed. It was tried in N Korea and failed. People there are living badly compared to the capitalist south korea. It was tried in cambodia and millions were killed.

I can't think of a place where it succeeded. can you?

[RGacky3]

Marxism is a specific analysis of capitalism, NOT an economic system NOT a political system.

So before you run your mouth about Marxism make sure you know what it is, Marxism is basically Kapital 1, 2 and 3, which are economic textbooks written entirely on how capitalism works.

[Genghis]

Marxism is not an analysis but a set of principles and policies advocated by marx. See dictionary defination (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism):


the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

Certainly, countries such as those I mentioned tried to put these ideas into practice but they all failed.

[Grenzer]

Marxism is not an analysis but a set of principles and policies advocated by marx. See dictionary defination (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism):



Certainly, countries such as those I mentioned tried to put these ideas into practice but they all failed.

Pretty sure Marx knew what Marxism is better than the dictionary. Communism is a movement, not a set of ideals and principles. Don't conflate Marxist analysis with the communist movement.

[Conscript]

Well, Marxism has been tried in the Soviet Union. It failed. The SU eventually collapsed. It was tried in N Korea and failed. People there are living badly compared to the capitalist south korea. It was tried in cambodia and millions were killed.

I can't think of a place where it succeeded. can you?

You just mentioned some backwards nations that were forced to accumulate capital and develop the country, not establish socialism. That said, the USSR yielded some of the biggest growth numbers in history, north korea outpaced south korea until the latter started using state planning more and the USSR collapsed, and cambodia was supported by the US and could hardly be pinned as marxist (plus it was overthrown by a socialist neighbor to the dismay of the west).

But as Rgacky said, marxism is a tool of analysis, not a button you press and it 'applies'. It's like saying the french revolution 'applied' enlightenment ideals and because of that failed invariably.

[RGacky3]

Not even that, the enlightenment was a series of ideals and concepts about the nature of man and philosophy of government, Marxism was purely an economic analysis of capitalism, its not even really normative economics, its descriptive.

[Revolution starts with U]

Marxism is not an analysis but a set of principles and policies advocated by marx. See dictionary defination (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism):



Certainly, countries such as those I mentioned tried to put these ideas into practice but they all failed.

The only one of those you can "put into practice" is the Dotp... and I'm not even sure about that. All of these things are observations; not political stances.

[Genghis]

Pretty sure Marx knew what Marxism is better than the dictionary. Communism is a movement, not a set of ideals and principles. Don't conflate Marxist analysis with the communist movement.

Well, since u don't follow dictionary definations, I will need to know how you define the following:

1)Socialism
2)Communism
3)Capitalism

This is so that we can have a discussion. Otherwise we will not understand each other.

[Genghis]

The only one of those you can "put into practice" is the Dotp... and I'm not even sure about that. All of these things are observations; not political stances.

What is dotp?

[Genghis]

Not even that, the enlightenment was a series of ideals and concepts about the nature of man and philosophy of government, Marxism was purely an economic analysis of capitalism, its not even really normative economics, its descriptive.

OK. It looks like you too do not accept the dictionary defination which is accepted by 99% of the population.

I will play along with your defination. Marxism is an economic analysis of capitalism. What does this analysis say? Is it as follows:

1)workers are oppressed
2)the surplus value of labor is wrongly taken by the capitalist class
3)capitalism is doomed. The rich will get richer and the poor poorer leading to a revolution.

What else?

[RGacky3]

OK. It looks like you too do not accept the dictionary defination which is accepted by 99% of the population.

I will play along with your defination. Marxism is an economic analysis of capitalism. What does this analysis say? Is it as follows:

1)workers are oppressed
2)the surplus value of labor is wrongly taken by the capitalist class
3)capitalism is doomed. The rich will get richer and the poor poorer leading to a revolution.

What else?

My definition of Marxism is economic Marxism which is what people who are Marxists actually define as Marxism, which is the marxism that matters.

What does this analysis say??? Read Kapital 1, 2 or 3, or read some book about Kapital written by a Marxism (richard wolff, David harvey), and figure it out yourself.

I can't give you a 1, 2 and 3 (all though your attempt is totally wrong, all you do is make value judgements which is not something Marx does) because its 3 volumes of economics, having to do with the nature of commodities and capital to theories of decreasing profit rates and consolidation of industry through increase of productivity.

Its a pretty big subject which describes the way capitalism and profit and competition works.

So if I were you I would have a little modesty about something you obviously know nothing about.

[Genghis]

Hi Gacky.

Since you say that my 1, 2, 3 points are all wrong then the opposite must be true:

1workers are not oppressed by the bourgeoisie.
2there is no surplus value of labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.
3capitalism will continue to flourish as profits will continue to rise and the workers remain happy.

Is this what marx was saying?

if you want to have a serious discussion don't use the "you don't know anything and so I am not talking to you argument."

if i am wrong tell me where i am wrong. that's what i am here for. convince me why i am wrong and i will become a socialist.

[Revolution starts with U]

What is dotp?

Dictatorship of the proles

[RGacky3]

Hi Gacky.

Since you say that my 1, 2, 3 points are all wrong then the opposite must be true:

1workers are not oppressed by the bourgeoisie.
2there is no surplus value of labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.
3capitalism will continue to flourish as profits will continue to rise and the workers remain happy.

Is this what marx was saying?

if you want to have a serious discussion don't use the "you don't know anything and so I am not talking to you argument."

I did'nt sya those are wrong, I said that was'nt Marx's analysis.

Heres why I said "You don't know anything," it was because you came to this websight going on about how Marx is wrong, and Marxism is wrong, and then we all realize you don't know the first thing about Marxism.

What you did is akin to me, knowing nothing about distilling, going to a distillers website saying they are all doing it wrong.

Here's what Marx is saying.

Capitalism, defined as a system of economics being market driven on all fronts (labor, commodity and capital), and having the capitalist mode of production in capitalist firms (labor producing with capital which is controlled by capitalists, who in turn control the production and output), and being profit driven (i.e. labor+capital costs < revenue, and that extra is profit which is controlled and distributed by the capitalist), is a system which has various internal contradictions (including but not limited to, the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, purpetual excess capacity, demand shortages as productivity rises, purpetuation of externalities, consolidation of industry, the paradox of competition and monopoly and so on), which cause it to eventually fail.

Marx built on the theories developed by classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and he basically used the same presumtions, models and language.

Now if your gonna understand exactly how capitalism works and what these internal contradictions actually are your gonna have to look more into Marx's analysis, and your gonna have to read works on his analysis WRITTEN BY A CONTEMPORARY MARXIST (I recommend David Harvey or Richard wolff, especially wolff since he is very accessable for people not familiar with economics).

Heres a little intro I wrote to Marx's use of class analysis. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/intro-marxian-class-t162100/index.html)
Heres a little intro I wrote to Marx's and the Classical economists Labor theory of value. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-marxian-labor-t164551/index.html)
Here is a VERY dumbed down little intro I wrote to Marx's (and the classical economists) Theory of the Tendancy for the rate of profit to fall. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rate-profit-fall-t160824/index.html)

Please do not let me have wrote this out for not reason, if you are interested in Marxism, even if just to prove that Marxism is wrong, please take the time to look into it and read about it, I'm not interested in convincing you to be a socialist, but if you want to understand Marxism, or debate it, please take the time to read.

[Genghis]

I have seen your links and given my comments.

[Luís Henrique]

Marxism is an economic analysis of capitalism.

It isn't; it is an anti-economic analysis of capitalism. Meaning it rejects the concepts of political economy. This is the reason the full title of Das Kapital is A Critique of Political Economy.


What does this analysis say? Is it as follows:

1)workers are oppressedWorkers are oppressed, of course. But they are only especially oppressed when compared to other classes of society. The rule of capital is oppressive to everyone, and, yes, this includes the bourgeois.


2)the surplus value of labor is wrongly taken by the capitalist class
No.

It is true that the capitalist class appropriates the surplus work of workers. It is not true that this is "wrong" against some a-historical "natural law". Within the rules of capitalist production - within the rules of commodity production and exchange - all exchanges are, at least in the average, exchanges of equivalent values.

The problem is deeper: it is that capitalist production can only produce surplus value because it produces value, which is an alienated expression of abstract labour. Production of value becomes a tautological process, in which human abilities and strength are consumed by an abstract, uncontrolable force.


3)capitalism is doomed. The rich will get richer and the poor poorer leading to a revolution.No.

Capitalism is "doomed", but not because of such simplistic reasoning. Capitalism is doomed because the accumulation of capital itself replaces living labour with dead labour, and since only living labour creates value, accumulation of capital destroys the conditions of capitalist production.


Since you say that my 1, 2, 3 points are all wrong then the opposite must be true:This would be a fallacy of excluded middle.

Your three points could be all true, and yet the precise connection that you attempt between them could be false - as argued above.


1workers are not oppressed by the bourgeoisie.They are oppressed by capital, which is a social relation that materially benefits the bourgeoisie, but is reified into a kind of social automaton that in fact constrains all actions of the individual bourgeois.


2there is no surplus value of labor stolen by the bourgeoisie.There is of course surplus value appropriated by the bourgeois. It is not "stolen", because the concept of "theft" itself presuposes the concept of "property": both are legal concepts, and of course the law is not neutral or god given, but reflects the reality of capitalist relations of production.


3capitalism will continue to flourish as profits will continue to rise and the workers remain happy.This is not even an actual negation of your 3rd point in the previous post. Profits could evidently continue to rise while wages remained stagnated or even fell.

Luís Henrique

[Thug Lessons]

I've actually been watching a lot of these Yale open courses myself and it's surprising how often Marx comes up in almost every course, often multiple times, but it's almost always to say how wrong he was. They're constantly bringing him up then smacking him down. I swear to God, it's like the daily Aztec sacrifice. If Yale doesn't murder Marx every day who knows if the sun will come up tomorrow.

[roy]

Genghis reminds me a lot of that guy, "capitalism is good"

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, since u don't follow dictionary definations, I will need to know how you define the following:

1)Socialism
2)Communism
3)Capitalism
For most revolutionaries in the bolshevik tradition, Socialism is a society run by workers (the dictatorship of the working class over society) but in conditions where there is still a conscious effort by workers to transition society from capitalism to communism. So there may still be classes (peasants in some regions, professional occupations, small shop owners) but rather than being under the dictatorship of capital, they would exist under a dictatorship of the workers.

Communism is seen by this tradition as well as almost across all radical Marxist and anarchist traditions as a classless and stateless society. The traditions who believe that there needs to be period of working class rule before classlessness is possible argue that states exist only because class differences exist - a state is the way a society made up of different class interests is organized so that one set of interests is favored. You can't have feudalism and a robust capitalist economy and so revolutions were waged over which set of interests should dominate society: rule of law and wage-work or aristocratic rule and a ridged caste-system.

So many Marxists believe that a period of workers running society would re-organize society and eliminate class differences since the working class is the productive class and doesn't need a subordinate class of laborers to exploit - workers can run things collaboratively and democratically and this undermines the whole reason classes exist. So obviously without production run for profit, the bourgoise as a class become redundant, small shop-keepers become dependent on socialist modes of production to obtain and sell their goods - and they can't expand in a capitalistic manner, so they would merely remain as one shop and would no longer exist as people grew old, retired or passed away. Any pedantry can be brought into the working class and in most countries capitalism has done this already by turning peasant populations into migrant urban workers or rural agricultural workers on capitalist farms. Professional positions can loose their elite positions as education becomes more widely available and more democratic socialist production methods are implemented.

Many anarchists and Left-coms and other kinds of Marxists don't believe that the dictatorship of the working class is necissary and believe that the state and classes can become abolished at the time of the revolution itself. This question is one of the major political divides in revolutionary working class traditions since the early 20th century.

Capitalism is an economic system driven by production for exchange. In systems like feudalism, production of commodities was done for use: if you had pots to sell, you created wealth through making the pots and then sold it at the market for things of the same value that maybe you couldn't produce yourself. Exploitation in Feudalism was direct, you work on common land under an aristocrat who required a portion of what you grew or produced or just a certain amount of unpaid labor for the nobles.

In capitalism, the point of the market is not exchange of commodities on a usefulness basis, but on a profit-making basis. Exploitation is done "invisibly" through the wage system where commodities are valued based on the average cost of materials and labor, but workers are paid a wage which means that that average value of labor is added to the value of each commodity produced, but the worker is paid by time, not based on how much they actually produce.

[Genghis]

Thanks for the reply Jimmie. I will study what you said.

[Genghis]

For most revolutionaries in the bolshevik tradition, Socialism is a society run by workers (the dictatorship of the working class over society) but in conditions where there is still a conscious effort by workers to transition society from capitalism to communism. So there may still be classes (peasants in some regions, professional occupations, small shop owners) but rather than being under the dictatorship of capital, they would exist under a dictatorship of the workers.



Let's start with your first defination. Are you sure classes mean peasants, professionals, shop owners etc? I thought class means bourgeoisie (capitalist) and proleteriat (workers)?

How can it be possible to be without peasants, professionals, factory workers etc? You still need these jobs to be done.

What do the others here think? Do you agree with Jimmie's defination?

I agree that Socialism means dictatorship of the proletariat. This means that workers have taken over the assets of production - your farms and factories and other business. The capitalist class is abolished.

All assets belong to the workers. But how does that work in practice? Suppose you have driven away all the landlords who used to own the farms. Are you going to divide the land to each peasant family? Or are they going to communally farm the land?

If the former, can the peasant family sell his land if he no longer wants it? If he does won't another peasant family own a bigger piece of land that he cannot farm by himself? Can he then hire workers to help him? Also some land is fertile while others are not. Some land is closer to water but others are not. How are you going to divde the land fairly?

If the latter, who is going to be in charge of thousands of peasant farmers? You need somebody to give orders to farm a large piece of land communally.

You got to work all these things out.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let's start with your first defination. Are you sure classes mean peasants, professionals, shop owners etc? I thought class means bourgeoisie (capitalist) and proleteriat (workers)? These are all classes as in classifications of types of relationships to production. Pesants have one kind of relationship, workers another, bosses another, and so on. In capitalism, worker/capitalist are the main and opposing forces in society. Professionals and small shop owners are subordinate classes because they can not exist without hitching their boat to some kind of organized production (either socialist or capitalist). Shop owners can't create anything on their own other than some kind of capitalism.


How can it be possible to be without peasants, professionals, factory workers etc? You still need these jobs to be done. Yes we need these jobs done, but a peasant or a capitalist farm laborer get the same job done but have different relations to production. Workers would have an incentive to change these productive relations that result in bureaucratic or elite positions (i.e. through rotating jobs, different divisions of labor, democratic decision-making and planning etc).

Agriculture could be similarly changed, though it might look different than it does in industrial and office workplaces. The use of migrant labor in agricultural production would mean it could be harder for agricultural workers to organize.

I generally think this is a moot point except for some specific regions of the globe. Peasants have mainly been incorporated into the capitalist system and have become tenant farmers or just hired farm-labor or independent capitalist farmers.


All assets belong to the workers. But how does that work in practice? Suppose you have driven away all the landlords who used to own the farms. Are you going to divide the land to each peasant family? Or are they going to communally farm the land? When there have been nationalist or worker revolutions in countries with large peasant populations or remaining feudal relations, land reform has generally been one of the big questions in regards to winning peasant support. But like I said, this will more likely be much less of an issue now that capitalism has more or less transformed relations the world over.


You got to work all these things out.I don't. I'm not a pesant and am in a country where no real pesantry has ever existed. How would I know what the demands of peasants are, what the needs of a worker's revolutionary movement of sometime in the future would be, and what the best balance of these concerns would be.

The main thing for revolutionary workers to figure out is how to gain hegemony over these dependent classes. Revolutionary workers will not only have to convince their fellow workers that they should all run things, but they will also have to convince large swaths of professionals, bureaucrats, shop owners, and peasants (where they still exist to a real degree) that a society run by the working class is a much better option for everyone than a continued society under the rule of capitalism.

In general terms I think this means not alienating other classes unnecessarily in the lead-up to a revolution, propaganda and showing in practice how worker's rule and socialism would ultimately be better for all humanity (and how capitalism crushes not just workers but all of the masses), building alliances and having worker's movements that take on all capitalist oppression even if it's not directly aimed at workers such as police harassment of black professors or gay shop-owners. We have to at least first build a strong independent worker's moment for any of this to even be seriously discussed though.

I don't know the specifics of how that can be achieved in a near-revolution type situation, much of how this is attempted will have to depend on the facts on the ground at the time.

[Luís Henrique]

Let's start with your first defination. Are you sure classes mean peasants, professionals, shop owners etc? I thought class means bourgeoisie (capitalist) and proleteriat (workers)?

There are other classes, namely the petty bourgeoisie (which, in spite of the similar name, is not a fraction of the bourgeoisie, but a different class), the landed oligarchy (which may or may not, depending of historic factors, be a part of the bourgeoisie, but usually has a political behaviour that is peculiar enough to demand a separate analysis), the peasantry (which is similar to the petty bourgeoisie, but again, like the landed oligarchy, politically behaves in a different way), and maybe the lumpenproletariat.

Evidently shop owners or professionals don't constitute separate classes, but the former are members of the petty bourgeoisie, which I am sure is what Jimmy Higgins means, and the latter are either petty bourgeois too, or members of a quite distinctive layer of the working class.


How can it be possible to be without peasants, professionals, factory workers etc? You still need these jobs to be done.

Those are not objective tasks, but merely social relations. Somebody must till the land, certainly; but they do not need to be peasants (ie, small proprietors of land and/or dependent tenants who directly labour in agriculture): they could be wage workers, ie, proletarians, as it is increasingly common in capitalist societies, or they could be collective owners of land, as they will probably be in a socialist society. Both developments mean an abolition of the peasantry as a class.


I agree that Socialism means dictatorship of the proletariat. This means that workers have taken over the assets of production - your farms and factories and other business. The capitalist class is abolished.

The goal however is to abolish all classes, working class included.


All assets belong to the workers. But how does that work in practice? Suppose you have driven away all the landlords who used to own the farms. Are you going to divide the land to each peasant family? Or are they going to communally farm the land?

That's a question that can only be answered in practice. Peasant movements usually demand division of land among families, and that is what they will get initially, if their numbers are huge enough that they must be taken into account in a revolution (as they were in Russia in 1917 or Brazil nowadays - and as they are not in nowadays US or France). But small landed property is inviable in the long term; some way must be found to dissolve it into collective ownership.


If the former, can the peasant family sell his land if he no longer wants it?

Provisionally, maybe. It depends on the actual reality of the social formation being revolutionised. In the long term, certainly not - nothing would be sellable, at all. Evidently, people may leave the land if they don't want it any more, and go work in something else; they won't have to buy anything for that end either.


If he does won't another peasant family own a bigger piece of land that he cannot farm by himself?

No, not in principle. You would not be able to own land that you cannot till.


Can he then hire workers to help him?

Not in principle, though evidently this depends on how things are organised at the moment they are revolutioned, what the peasants demand, etc. In the long term, hiring people will be impossible; everybody will collectively own the means of production, they will have no use for "jobs".


Also some land is fertile while others are not. Some land is closer to water but others are not. How are you going to divde the land fairly?

A good thumb rule is, let the peasants' organisations figure it out and deal with it; intervene only if they are evidently making shit. Peasants know these things better than anyone else.


If the latter, who is going to be in charge of thousands of peasant farmers?

I don't think they need anyone to be in charge of them; they are grown ups and can take charge of themselves.


You need somebody to give orders to farm a large piece of land communally.

No; you need to take decisions; decisions only translate into "orders" in the context of social stratification (a few people take decisions and communicate such decisions to the unwashed masses, deemed unable to make decisions for themselves; the communication process is what we call "giving orders"). In a free society, people take their own decisions collectively (it is called "democracy" and she is glad to meet you too) and delegate the organisation of their execution into temporary and recallable deputies.

Luís Henrique

[AmericanCommie421]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/009/217/1912-so-much-win.jpg
My response to Gacky's post.

[Genghis]

Those are not objective tasks, but merely social relations. Somebody must till the land, certainly; but they do not need to be peasants (ie, small proprietors of land and/or dependent tenants who directly labour in agriculture): they could be wage workers, ie, proletarians, as it is increasingly common in capitalist societies, or they could be collective owners of land, as they will probably be in a socialist society. Both developments mean an abolition of the peasantry as a class.



The goal however is to abolish all classes, working class included.



That's a question that can only be answered in practice. Peasant movements usually demand division of land among families, and that is what they will get initially, if their numbers are huge enough that they must be taken into account in a revolution (as they were in Russia in 1917 or Brazil nowadays - and as they are not in nowadays US or France). But small landed property is inviable in the long term; some way must be found to dissolve it into collective ownership.



Provisionally, maybe. It depends on the actual reality of the social formation being revolutionised. In the long term, certainly not - nothing would be sellable, at all. Evidently, people may leave the land if they don't want it any more, and go work in something else; they won't have to buy anything for that end either.



No, not in principle. You would not be able to own land that you cannot till.



Not in principle, though evidently this depends on how things are organised at the moment they are revolutioned, what the peasants demand, etc. In the long term, hiring people will be impossible; everybody will collectively own the means of production, they will have no use for "jobs".



A good thumb rule is, let the peasants' organisations figure it out and deal with it; intervene only if they are evidently making shit. Peasants know these things better than anyone else.



I don't think they need anyone to be in charge of them; they are grown ups and can take charge of themselves.



No; you need to take decisions; decisions only translate into "orders" in the context of social stratification (a few people take decisions and communicate such decisions to the unwashed masses, deemed unable to make decisions for themselves; the communication process is what we call "giving orders"). In a free society, people take their own decisions collectively (it is called "democracy" and she is glad to meet you too) and delegate the organisation of their execution into temporary and recallable deputies.

Luís Henrique

To sum up, you think that initially the land will be divided amongst families. But since small plots are not efficient, you want the land to be farmed collectively.

That was tried before and it led to famine in SU and Maoist China.

See the Great Leap Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward).

Excerpt:



Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_collectivization), which was introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in it were labeled as counter revolutionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Suppress_Counterrevolutionaries) and persecuted.


Collective farming never works and it usually leads to hunger and famine. Put yourself in the shoes of a farmer. No matter how hard you work, you get the same as the guy who goofs off. Why bother to work?

The result was millions of deaths by hunger.



The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#cite_note-1) Estimates of the death toll range from 18 million[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#cite_note-grada9-2) to at least 45 million,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#cite_note-dikotterxii-3) with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 million to 32.5 million.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#cite_note-grada9-2) Historian Frank Dikötter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Dik%C3%B6tter) asserts that "coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward" and it "motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history."[5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#cite_note-4)

[Luís Henrique]

To sum up, you think that initially the land will be divided amongst families. But since small plots are not efficient, you want the land to be farmed collectively.

The problem is not what I want, but that modern agricultural production demands scale.


That was tried before and it led to famine in SU and Maoist China.

Evidently, because it was forcibly imposed unto the peasantry by governments that share your radical mistrust on the social and intellectual capabilities of peasants; governments, that exactly like you, think peasants need to be given orders.


Collective farming never works and it usually leads to hunger and famine. Put yourself in the shoes of a farmer. No matter how hard you work, you get the same as the guy who goofs off. Why bother to work?

Don't be ridiculous. In a capitalist economy, you get the same, never mind how much you work; it is the discipline within the company that compels people to work, not the fantasy that they can earn more money if they overwork themselves.

Luís Henrique

[Genghis]

The problem is not what I want, but that modern agricultural production demands scale.

Right. And you believe that a collective farm will beat a corporate farm.





Evidently, because it was forcibly imposed unto the peasantry by governments that share your radical mistrust on the social and intellectual capabilities of peasants; governments, that exactly like you, think peasants need to be given orders.


Suppose you have a hundred million peasants. How do you propose that they co-ordinate themselves and make collective decisions? Someone must be chosen to be the leader. The best way is to choose democratically. Or someone with guns make himself the leader. Either way, you end up with a government.




Don't be ridiculous. In a capitalist economy, you get the same, never mind how much you work; it is the discipline within the company that compels people to work, not the fantasy that they can earn more money if they overwork themselves.

Luís Henrique


In a capitalist company both emloyer have choices. The employer can choose to hire you or someone else. You can choose to work for this company or for someone else. If both are mutually happy, there can be an exchange. So no one is compelled to work or to hire.

So if you are not happy to work, you will soon be out of a job. In a collective entreprise, you can't quit. Since all means of production are owned by the people which in effect means the state. The state is the only employer. That's what happened in the SU and Maoist China.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Suppose you have a hundred million peasants. How do you propose that they co-ordinate themselves and make collective decisions? Someone must be chosen to be the leader. The best way is to choose democratically. Or someone with guns make himself the leader. Either way, you end up with a government.




In a capitalist company both emloyer have choices. The employer can choose to hire you or someone else. You can choose to work for this company or for someone else. If both are mutually happy, there can be an exchange. So no one is compelled to work or to hire.

So if you are not happy to work, you will soon be out of a job. In a collective entreprise, you can't quit. Since all means of production are owned by the people which in effect means the state. The state is the only employer. That's what happened in the SU and Maoist China.

For your first point, most leftists argue that the workers can organize on direct democratic grounds to make the decisions involving industry, production, etc. As for the form this would take, different leftists support different ways. I argue for a council system in which the workers could come together and vote on decisions. Power could be delegated out to someone who would be re-callable at all times and have a term limit. This delegation of power make the "we have too many people for direct democracy" argument a non-issue. Whether this would be considered a state or not doesn't matter, for us it is preferable.

As for your argument that "if you aren't happy working for someone, get another job and work for someone else" this argument completely misses the point. The fact is that the worker still has to work FOR SOMEONE. That is where the problem for us lies. The worker doesn't own property and the means of production so has to sell his/her labor (and since your labor cannot be alienated from you, your selling yourself as well) on the market to survive. That is where the problem lies, and this argument completely misses this.

Next, in a socialist society, the worker can quit, get fired, etc. The only thing that changes here is that instead of a capitalist deciding your fate, your fellow workers do. No one would argue that a lazy person shouldn't get fired. The workers could come together, in their councils, and tell the lazy worker their complaints. If he still doesn't change, the workers could tell him to leave. This is not unjust and would be balanced out by community councils having a say in the matter as well and setting this worker up with a different job.

The means of production being owned by the people doesn't necessarily mean they are owned by the state. You brought up the Soviet Union to prove your point. I am sure you heard the argument as to why most socialists do not consider these societies socialist, so I won't bother with that. Let's look at the material conditions of these societies. As soon as it was born, the Soviet Union faced attack. For the first 6 months of Lenin's rule, the workers did control the means of production, not the government. Then, the Soviet Union faced counter-revolutionary attack, imperialist attack, and civil war. After this, it faced more intervention in it's affairs, the horrible legacy of Stalin and his gulags, show trials, etc., World War II and the Nazi invasion, and Cold War hostility until it's final collapse. The Soviet Union had close to not one day of peaceful development. If there was a revolutionary baby, it was strangled and mulled in the crib and deformed ever since. Whether the theory that Lenin carried would have given way to authoritarian tendencies is unimportant, in the material situation that Russia faced it is certain to have come about. You claim that this society, this deformed and distorted society, is a good example to critique our position? Oh please :rolleyes:

There are examples of the workers controlling the means of production in history. You have already been given examples of them in this thread and other threads. Please, do not be ignorant. In all honesty, you seem like a smart person, so do not blow off our claims.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Bumpity bump bump.

I want to see Genghis's response.

[Luís Henrique]

Suppose you have a hundred million peasants. How do you propose that they co-ordinate themselves and make collective decisions? Someone must be chosen to be the leader. The best way is to choose democratically. Or someone with guns make himself the leader. Either way, you end up with a government.

Let's make a more modest proposition. You have one thousand workers at a factory. How do they coordinate themselves and make collective decisions? Someone must be chosen to be the leader. The best way is to chose democratically. Or someone with guns makes himself the leader.

How are things organised in our present society? Democracy is effectively banned from within companies; someone "with guns" makes himself the leader, isn't it?


Either way, you end up with a government.

So a private company is a government? Why, or why not?


In a capitalist company both emloyer have choices. The employer can choose to hire you or someone else. You can choose to work for this company or for someone else.

The negotiation position is quite asymmetrical, though. If I choose not to work for this company, I might go unemployed for a few months - and each month I am unemployed increases the risk of permanent unemployment, for I miss the technological changes that are undergoing in the trade. If my employer choses not to hire me, he at worst will have to make the remaining employess work a little bit more.


If both are mutually happy, there can be an exchange. So no one is compelled to work or to hire.

Of course people are compelled to work, unless they can find a way to earn money without working.


So if you are not happy to work, you will soon be out of a job. In a collective entreprise, you can't quit.

Of course you can. You don't like printing books? Go bake breads. Still unsatisfyed? Experiment tilling the soil. Not your trade? Go on waiting in a restaurant.


Since all means of production are owned by the people which in effect means the state. The state is the only employer. That's what happened in the SU and Maoist China.

In a communist society there are no jobs, no employment, no employers, and no State. So you are talking about something else, perhaps some kind of centralised capitalism, in which people are still producing commodities for sale.

Luís Henrique

[arilando]

I meant to add; the rejection of the entitlement principle to property automatically dissolves the notion of "property" altogether. At this point nobody "owns" anything, but is allowed to exercise reasonable control.

The funniest part is that this is merely respecting reality for what it is, rather than trying to impose ethics upon it. In the real world nobody "owns" anything. If you cause too much of a nuissance, you will have to answer for it to the community; murder, armed robbery, even noise complaints. These are all examples of people using their "property" as they saw fit, and being reprimanded for it unvoluntarily. At this point the capitalist apologetic must resort to some kind of "right" to non-aggression.
But again, this is just imposing ethics onto the world. Not all people have a right to non-aggression. You can't sit on your porch in an urban area and masturbate, nor will you likely ever be allowed to, even in an ancap society

Why not?

People yelling fire in a crowded theater do not have a right to non-aggression.
[/QUOTE]
This is a really poor argument, it could just be argued that those who owned the theater would be allowed to make any rules they wanted to, including rules against yelling fire.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why not?

People yelling fire in a crowded theater do not have a right to non-aggression.

This is a really poor argument, it could just be argued that those who owned the theater would be allowed to make any rules they wanted to, including rules against yelling fire.[/QUOTE]

But now you're presupposing property as a right. Without that presupposition, the theater "owner's" demands are merely another form of aggression.

Plain and simply I have no right to stop a mugger from robbing me. But I am going to, and society will agree with my decision. It's not a "right" rather than a practice of reasonable control.

[RGacky3]

I take it that since Ghenghis has'nt responded to my post, i suppose he read the resources I posted and agrees with them.

[Genghis]

I take it that since Ghenghis has'nt responded to my post, i suppose he read the resources I posted and agrees with them.

What post? Sorry I just got back. So I am out of touch.

[RGacky3]

The last one I made.