Liberal defense against Marxism?

[anticapitalista]

I am looking for the best attempts by liberals to defend liberalism against Marxist critiques. Triumphalism like Fukuyama is laughably bad, and of course there is the "classical liberal"/libertarian stuff like Von Mises/Popper.

But what is out there in which a leftish liberal actually attempts to give a good explanation of why they have stopped short of Marxism/socialism?

I ask, of course, because I am trying to convert liberals to Marxism and need to know their best arguments.

[thriller]

I feel most liberals use the conditions of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc as their evidence for Marxism 'not working.' Most of my professors argue either a) Stalin killed X people, Mao killed X more/less or b) 'It's a good idea in theory, but doesn't work in practice.' While I usually laugh at these arguments, they often seem too terrorized from the Cold War to open up, so to speak. Many liberals I know and have heard speak are extremely patriotic as well. It seems hard for them to wrap their head around internationalism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I am looking for the best attempts by liberals to defend liberalism against Marxist critiques. Triumphalism like Fukuyama is laughably bad, and of course there is the "classical liberal"/libertarian stuff like Von Mises/Popper.

But what is out there in which a leftish liberal actually attempts to give a good explanation of why they have stopped short of Marxism/socialism?

I ask, of course, because I am trying to convert liberals to Marxism and need to know their best arguments.

It depends what there specific argument is.

HOW DARE YOU TRY TO COPY MY NAME!:cursing:

joking

[ВАЛТЕР]

Well, most of them have no idea about what Marxism even is, as their understanding of Marx is comparable to my understanding of Helicopter mechanics (none). Their "best" arguments consist of "Capitalism sucks, but it is the lesser evil.", "The USSR was horrible.", "Communism killed a (insert number here) people, "Do you want the government to own everything?" and the classic "It is good in theory, but not in practice."

It seriously rarely ever gets more complicated than that...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I wouldn't say there is a formula, just a long string of lies, disinformation and propaganda that revolutionaries have to debunk. Remember that you aren't going to convert someone with a single conversation and it depends if they will read some on their end.

[Drosophila]

They'll often talk about death tolls and the lack of "civil liberties" in Communist states throughout history. Of course, a modern socialist state would be nothing like the USSR, China, etc.

Or they'll point to North Korea and modern China as examples of "communism."

[Brosa Luxemburg]

You can try to extend their hatred of corporations to a hatred of capitalism maybe?

[Red Rabbit]

You can try to extend their hatred of corporations to a hatred of capitalism maybe?

Won't work. They believe corporations are the sole problem with Capitalism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Won't work. They believe corporations are the sole problem with Capitalism.

True, but if they believe that corporations exploit their workers (which they tend to) then we can try to extend that logic to capitalism exploiting it's workers.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Won't work. They believe corporations are the sole problem with Capitalism.


Try explaining to the that corporations are a result of capitalism. If we got rid of all corporations today but kept what they view as "capitalism", in a hundred years or so they'd be back.

[Red Rabbit]

True, but if they believe that corporations exploit their workers (which they tend to) then we can try to extend that logic to capitalism exploiting it's workers.

Most Liberals I've talked to believe that non-corporate businesses don't exploit their workers, so they still think that corporations are the only problem.

Don't ask me why they believe this shit, I haven't been able to get a straight answer.

EDIT:
Try explaining to the that corporations are a result of capitalism. If we got rid of all corporations today but kept what they view as "capitalism", in a hundred years or so they'd be back.

I'll try this next time for sure, but I don't have my hopes up.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Don't take this route with libertarians as they will fight you to the death that so as long as you "willingly" enter into a contact you are not being exploited. You can even explain Marx to them in baby terms but they will still remain pigheaded and refuses to see reality.

[anticapitalista]

Won't work. They believe corporations are the sole problem with Capitalism.

I disagree. That is how I became a Marxist - furious about corporate malfeasance, yet realizing that it was entirely defined into the system for such behavior to exist. I think many of the people currently angry about "corporate greed" could similarly become Marxist.

So far I haven't heard any reason why they wouldn't, other than "uh, that's extreme", and "isn't that totalitarianism?"

Again, i'd appreciate if anyone had a rec on a thoughtful liberal critique of Marxism, but I am beginning to suspect such a thing doesn't really exist.

[ckaihatsu]

It may actually be better to go on the *offensive* here and dare non-Marxists to defend where the labor went. Why would anyone think it sane to retain a system that merely accumulates and stashes wealth -- necessarily from labor efforts -- with no promise of productivity or growth -- ?!!

We have reality on our side right now, with massive government underwritings and hand-outs ("bailouts"), using *public* funds, just to *give* to corporations and the military, with no considerations of return returned, and for what -- ?! Obviously if there's no equivalency of material exchanges then the only thing left is *ideological* -- public funds are being used to prop up the *idea* of capitalism, and the extent to which people apologize for this imbalance of public outlays is the extent to which they're going along with this *politically* / ideologically.

If the person you're talking to can't justify what public funds are being used for then ask them why we should retain this system.

[Positivist]

Make sure you explain that men like Stalin were able to seize national control due to the hostile imperial environments surrounding revolutionary nations. Whatever your views on Stalin may be, when converting liberals he MUST be discarded as not truly being a communist, there is too much negative propaganda circulating around about him. And for the argument that wage or salary labor are voluntarily agreed to by the workers you'll need to point out that the capitalist socioeconomic environment forces workers to enter into these contracts if they wish to continue eating. Make it clear to them that amongst communism's goals is creating an environment were people are not forced to enter into wage enslavement. And as for corporatism feed on their hatred of corporations to show them that corporations are capitalism. Explain to them that as corporations are the realization of capitalism and as long as there is capitalism there will be corporatism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Rawls provides a defense of liberalism through deploying the 'public reason' and the 'comprehensive doctrine' arguments.

public reason is like, being able to interact politically with others, and justify what you support on grounds that is acceptable to people who don't share your comprehensive doctrine.

Comprehensive doctrine is like a religion or ideology.

While we don't like in Rawlsian societies there are elements of it.

If you accept Rawls' premise, its a good defense of liberalism.

I'm going to look for a Marxist critique of it now though.

[gorillafuck]

liberals aren't usually vehemently anti-communist cold warriors pointing to all these death tolls etc. the usual argument by a left liberal against communism is that it wouldn't work and is not a viable alternative to capitalist society.

[ckaihatsu]

Rawls provides a defense of liberalism through deploying the 'public reason' and the 'comprehensive doctrine' arguments.

public reason is like, being able to interact politically with others, and justify what you support on grounds that is acceptable to people who don't share your comprehensive doctrine.

Comprehensive doctrine is like a religion or ideology.


These aren't arguments as much as they're terms and definitions asserted as part of the liberalist ideology.

Note that these are classic bourgeois "rights" that were progressive at the time they were developed -- by merchants against the rule of the aristocracy, nobility, and clergy.

These days they seem obvious and old-hat -- of course people have political opinions and they interact with others based on their political leanings, or ideology.





While we don't like in Rawlsian societies there are elements of it.

If you accept Rawls' premise, its a good defense of liberalism.




I'm going to look for a Marxist critique of it now though.


*My* Marxist critique is that, like all liberalism, it sidesteps the economic question of production and goes along with the capitalist status quo of commodity production and wage-labor:





Arguments of the [social welfare] function included the quantities of different commodities produced and consumed and of resources used in producing different commodities, including labor.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_function

[ckaihatsu]

liberals aren't usually vehemently anti-communist cold warriors pointing to all these death tolls etc. the usual argument by a left liberal against communism is that it wouldn't work and is not a viable alternative to capitalist society.


Besides reminding them of the worsening Euro crisis, here's a more positivist, localist framework that may have some traction with these types....


Rotation system of work roles

http://postimage.org/image/1d53k7nd0/

[Renegade Saint]

liberals aren't usually vehemently anti-communist cold warriors pointing to all these death tolls etc. the usual argument by a left liberal against communism is that it wouldn't work and is not a viable alternative to capitalist society.
The ones with somewhat developed politics often are. Hell, I've meant many 'socialists' who fit this description perfectly.

[Ocean Seal]

liberals aren't usually vehemently anti-communist cold warriors pointing to all these death tolls etc. the usual argument by a left liberal against communism is that it wouldn't work and is not a viable alternative to capitalist society.
I don't think that you and I have met the same kind of liberals.
Sure, they might not parade out the numbers as much as conservatives, but that's simply because conservatives have nothing to talk about, but communism.

[anticapitalista]

I don't really see why Marxists should necessarily oppose Rawls, nor have I seen anything where Rawls opposed Marxism. One comrade who I trust told me that Rawls was "essentially a socialist."

With the caveat that I haven't read Rawls' primary work, it appears to be mainly about justice in the abstract - i.e. these are principles that would theoretically make a just society. One could agree with him in theory, while also pointing out that in practice these principles aren't even close to being satisfied and won't be satisfied without some form of socialism/communism.

[Rafiq]

I don't care if they bullshit about communism. Just don't fucking bring Marxism into this.

Because honestly, that argument can be re voked by saying "we need a new kind of communism" or some BS.

[marl]

Show them the South Park Walmart episode.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't really see why Marxists should necessarily oppose Rawls, nor have I seen anything where Rawls opposed Marxism. One comrade who I trust told me that Rawls was "essentially a socialist."

With the caveat that I haven't read Rawls' primary work, it appears to be mainly about justice in the abstract - i.e. these are principles that would theoretically make a just society.

So here you have, in your own words, the reason why Marx and Rawls are incompatible. Marxism is about the concrete examination of concrete cases; Rawls is about outworldish abstractions with no visible nexus to reality.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Here (http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html) is a decent "liberal" argument against "libertarianism". In some points, Rosenfelder himself extends his analysis to communism; in others, you can easily do it yourself.

Luís Henrique

[Anarpest]

Rawls provides a defense of liberalism through deploying the 'public reason' and the 'comprehensive doctrine' arguments.

public reason is like, being able to interact politically with others, and justify what you support on grounds that is acceptable to people who don't share your comprehensive doctrine.

Comprehensive doctrine is like a religion or ideology.

While we don't like in Rawlsian societies there are elements of it.

If you accept Rawls' premise, its a good defense of liberalism.

I'm going to look for a Marxist critique of it now though.

I would imagine that a Marxist critique of it, or a socialist critique in general, would probably be similar to Sandel's criticism that Rawls' theory of 'rational' people making decisions from behind a 'veil of ignorance' in an 'original position' presupposes a pre-social, atomistic, rational agent, who exists prior to and independently of social relationships. A Marxist who I know had stated that reason only exists for people immersed in a society, and hence having a class and so on, rather than for fictional classless, asocial people. While I'm not sure that I'd put the case as strongly from an anarchist viewpoint, given that we probably have more affinities with Rawls' theory than do Marxists, the presupposition of a pre-social, unreal being who is supposed to govern society still seems to be a problem. It's also very idealistic, in presupposing a 'rational' person who can exist only when divorced hypothetically from material life.

[ckaihatsu]

I would imagine that a Marxist critique of it, or a socialist critique in general, would probably be similar to Sandel's criticism that Rawls' theory of 'rational' people making decisions from behind a 'veil of ignorance' in an 'original position' presupposes a pre-social, atomistic, rational agent, who exists prior to and independently of social relationships. A Marxist who I know had stated that reason only exists for people immersed in a society, and hence having a class and so on, rather than for fictional classless, asocial people.




[T]he presupposition of a pre-social, unreal being who is supposed to govern society still seems to be a problem. It's also very idealistic, in presupposing a 'rational' person who can exist only when divorced hypothetically from material life.


Agreed.

Also it's worth noting that the topic is a misnomer since liberals don't *need* a "defense" against Marxism -- they benefit from the status quo and will simply lean on prevailing ideas and conditions to "justify" their political existence.

[Jimmie Higgins]

liberals aren't usually vehemently anti-communist cold warriors pointing to all these death tolls etc. the usual argument by a left liberal against communism is that it wouldn't work and is not a viable alternative to capitalist society.

Yeah I think that most regular people with liberal politics tend to rely on the "it isn't realistic" arguments - both against socialism or any more radical reform even. In the post-war era liberalism was "guns and butter" and so the argument was basically class-collaboration and what's good for the US is good for us. Support for liberalism in the neo-liberal era tends to be based more on pessimism than optimism for Keynesian reforms as may have been the case in the pre-80s post-war era. Almost all shades of US liberal supporters seem to believe that the US population is "naturally" or even "hopelessly" conservative and therefore we can't hope for more than keeping this politically conservative tenancy neutralized. Almost all mainstream liberal positions these days are defensive and a compromise of even traditional liberal positions.

[moulinrouge]

they usually claim it violates people their rights.

[Railyon]

Been in a heated argument with a free marketeer the other day, who, after my insistence that "jobs are not growing on trees" told me to "learn some economics for fucks sake" - which is funny in two ways, one, that is my major, second, it should be apparent that it is, as Steve Keen put it, "the naked emperor of the social sciences".

Anyway, we came to the topic of communism and he wanted to know what it would look like, of course he was constantly building strawmen like "what if I paint someone's fence and he gives me eggs for it" or "what if I own a lathe, will people expropriate me". Best of all was the question whether communes had "unlimited power". He said he'll rather go with "nation states with limited power" - if he only knew what he signed up for.

Of course that guy was a total loon who also tried to defend Marvin Heemeyer (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer) on the grounds of "coercion at the hands of the state" and that it totally absolutely justified what he did, making him some kind of property fetishist's hero. I held the 10,000 women who were made unemployed by Schlecker Germany against it, asking how he could defend one man suffering "injustice" while not doing the same with thousands of people being laid off, and he saw no problem in that.

What's the lesson? There are some people you can't have sensible arguments with.

[ckaihatsu]

"what if I own a lathe, will people expropriate me".


The correct answer, of course, is "Just yours, buddy."


x D

[ckaihatsu]

[R]eason only exists for people immersed in a society, and hence having a class and so on, rather than for fictional classless, asocial people.


This is actually a *very* good materialist touchstone for remaining "grounded".

Some types one may run into either live in -- and/or are hawking -- a world composed solely of symbols and semantics, where wordplay is their order of the day, detached from the real world as it is. This is fine for artistic explorations and fictional fantasies, but can really cut against the grain and irritate when real-world political matters are at hand.

[Strannik]

In my experience the main liberal argument is "communism is unrealistic/not practical". If one tries to deconstruct it, one arrives at the unspoken argument (really, the biggest problem with arguing with the bourgeoise is that they usually avoid spelling out their basic premises and actual arguments) that human beliefs and behaviour are divine or genetic, certainly not socially constructed. At the center of liberalism stands the same bourgeois "sovereign individual", with a "divine right" to take possession of the World as much as they can, for as long as they can. They are perhaps horrified by the destruction that the capitalism brings about, but never so horrified that they would question the property rights or the idea of supernatural, fixed "self".

You cannot criticise monarchy without questioning the divine right of the kings to rule. And you cannot criticise capitalism without questioning concepts such as "right of possession" by an "individual" - all of which are taken like mystical entities by the liberals instead of taking them like temporal processes which they really are.

[ckaihatsu]

[H]uman beliefs and behaviour are divine or genetic, certainly not socially constructed. At the center of liberalism stands the same bourgeois "sovereign individual", with a "divine right" to take possession of the World as much as they can, for as long as they can.


Um, yeah, that's cute and everything, but I just need to let you know here that God told me I'm to own the property you live on and that you should pay me every month for it.


= D

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am looking for the best attempts by liberals to defend liberalism against Marxist critiques. Triumphalism like Fukuyama is laughably bad, and of course there is the "classical liberal"/libertarian stuff like Von Mises/Popper.

But what is out there in which a leftish liberal actually attempts to give a good explanation of why they have stopped short of Marxism/socialism?

I ask, of course, because I am trying to convert liberals to Marxism and need to know their best arguments.

I think it's good to know the arguments out there and be able to counter them, but I doubt anyone who has one of these arguments (a good one or even a straw-man one) and is really attached to that view can be won-over by countering that view. Still it could be helpful in broader debates where you want to expose these arguments and win other people who might be more receptive over.

Personally, I think the better way to win over (regular folks who are) liberals is to start with the areas of agreement and draw it out from there. You're against the war? Ok, let's start there and then go through how official liberalism doesn't offer a real solution and let's talk logically about how people can actually try and change this situation.

But as for Liberal arguments: well people covered a lot of them already. Most are very weak and use straw-men or misconceptions or broad "common sense" arguments that don't hold up. In part this is because Liberalism has had no real challenge from the Left in many places. In the US, liberals are likely just to see us as sincere and antiquated nucances who aren't very realistic and are therefore irrelevant. But if we look back to times when there was more class struggle and political consciousness and movements, we can see that Liberalism does develop more nuanced and savvy political defenses of the system against worker's power. Many of those arguments still exist in a lot of post-modern ideas since PoMo developed in part to explain why Marxism failed to deliver what it promised and why intellectuals (specifically) should reject a Marxist framework:

1. Marxism is dogmatic and deterministic and reductionist - even if they don't mean in the USSR sense. The idea of historical materialism is rejected as too narrow and too deterministic.

2. Class struggle isn't fundamental in society: they will argue that society is made up of many different competing groups and therefore any revolution would just recreate new divisions of ruler and ruled and just end up replacing one ruling group with another. They argue that capitalist democracy at least allows all these competing interests to have a say.

3. That true democracy would lead to chaos and the "tyranny of the majority". In "In Dubious Battle" the Doc character (based on a real friend of Steinbeck's who was a liberal sympathetic to the plight of workers but opposed to class struggle) argues that any group of people (any mob) causes people to loose their induvidual humanity and do things as a group that they would find distasteful by themselves. The worker's power as Mob-mentality idea.

4. We need experts. An elitist idea that smart people are needed for some things, as if professionals are a different kind of person (or people with a certain kind of temperament) rather than just someone with specialized skills - something that anyone can learn.

[Ocean Seal]

You can't just convert liberals with a uniform approach. Class is an important issue here, if they are not proletarians you arguments aren't going to have much bearing. Arguments that resonate with working class liberals are usually the healthcare argument, jobs for all, and the existence of exploitation. The latter being the only exclusively socialist argument. However, the two former are useful in describing what could be done when we no longer have exploitation.

[MarxSchmarx]

One problem of course is that there is no core "liberal" ideology the way there is Marxism or really even rightwing conservatism. Liberalism perhaps rivals "anarchism" in being a hodgepodge of views, scholars and cranks, that is based more or less on an imprecise moral outlook. Such an amorphous entity, meaning different things to different people, makes it hard to formulate a sustained critique of socialism/communism.

Perhaps the closest one gets at for liberals are the "leftwing of capitalism". It is important to understand that the adjective just modifies the basic noun here, which is capitalism. Explicating the inherent flaws of capitalism, using liberal value systems, can bring them out of this coccoon. For example, show how even a kindler, gentler capitalism still involves the systematic exploitation of the have-nots by the haves. Or compare capitalism to a game of musical chairs, and requires spoils going to the lucky few in order to operate. The point is you need to create a tension between the liberal commitment to equality and fairness and their acceptance of capitalism.

I suspect most capitalist critiques of marxism/communism/whatever that goes beyond the brute force of Randoid verbiage is basically a left-capitalist critique of socialism. John Kenneth Galbraith is probably the most accessible of such left capitalist writers.

I would say that inspite of their great diversity on "social issues" where tehy really cannot be pinned down reliably, a "left-wing of capital" approach to understanding their operation is probably the most ubiquotous knot tying the hodgepodge of liberal anti-socialism.

[ckaihatsu]

Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/1g4s6wax0/

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/

[Red Joe]

Show them the South Park Walmart episode.
This.:D