Can you have socialism/communism without nationhood?

[Schumpeter]

Should there be an international revolutionary movement or should we focus on our own 'one nation'? Or does patriotism and nationhood have the potential to capture the essence of the collective spirit, providing the glue which binds together the proletariat, making it instrumental in promoting a more selfless society? Perhaps successful revolutions could in turn lead to a domino effect?

[Queen Mab]

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Besides, socialism isn't about essences of collective spirit and selflessness, but workers' control of the means of production.

[Schumpeter]

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.

Many of them would disagree with you, don't you think its wrong for middle class intellectuals to dictate to concepts of culture and nationhood vastly contrary to their (working class men+ WOMEN) view. For example look at Labour's open door immigration policy which lowered the wages of workers in Britain and was an act of cultural vandalism which brought division to working class communities at the profit of the elite.

[Schumpeter]

Besides, socialism isn't about essences of collective spirit and selflessness, but workers' control of the means of production.

-

[Schumpeter]

Besides, socialism isn't about essences of collective spirit and selflessness, but workers' control of the means of production.

Without the collective spirit how do you expect collective ownership to come about? The collective spirit is essential;

[Queen Mab]

don't you think its wrong for middle class intellectuals to dictate to concepts of culture and nationhood vastly contrary to their (working class men+ WOMEN) view

Yes, I do. That is exactly what happened in the 19th century. Bourgeois intellectuals constructed a national identity from a fabricated history and various folk practices.

[Schumpeter]

Yes, I do. That is exactly what happened in the 19th century. Bourgeois intellectuals constructed a national identity from various folk practices and a fabricated history.

This is a lie, the concept of collective identity has always persisted throughout human history.

[Zukunftsmusik]

This is a lie, the concept of collective identity has always persisted throughout human history.

Various collective identities, yes. The concept of a collective national identity, however, is a modern invention.

[Schumpeter]

Various collective identities, yes. The concept of a collective national identity, however, is a modern invention.

Is the Roman empire modern to you?

[Queen Mab]

This is a lie, the concept of collective identity has always persisted throughout human history.

Collective identity =/= national identity. I've read Medieval sources where a villager in Leicestershire calls someone from the same county a foreigner. There was no sense of a common English identity until industrial capitalism.

[Schumpeter]

Collective identity =/= national identity. I've read Medieval sources where a villager in Leicestershire calls someone from the same county a foreigner. There was no sense of a common English identity until industrial capitalism.

You've moved the goalposts now, firstly I was not referring to any nation in particular, secondly you have admitted that nationhood pre-dates the 19th century by failing to respond to my point about Rome. Furthermore, one or two sources is no basis upon which to draw historical conclusions. Your point also brings me onto another point, that as the world has become more interconnected, and collective identity whether that be national identity or merely 'county identity' as you have brought up here, has begun to fade, in almost direct accordance with the growing level of exploitation of labour by capital due to globalization. The truth of the matter is that collective identity is essential in mobilizing people... as a collective, people need a reason which strikes fire into their hearts and a lion's roar into their voice, if capitalism is to be confronted it must be confronted by the collective.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Is the Roman empire modern to you?

Did the romans have a collective national (with emphasis on national) identity in the modern sense? I don't think so. As far as I understand, what was required to be a roman was that you were a free wo/man (to the extent the first could really be free), regardless of ethnic origin, mother tongue and whatever criteria we find to be decisive in national identity today.

The concept of the modern nation - sovereignty, national/ethnic unity, standardised language, common state apparatus, the idea of the nation as the people - all of this was born out of the enlightenment and the French revolution and the unification of Italy and Germany. It's undeniably linked to modernity, the growth of capitalism and bourgeois society and so on.

[Schumpeter]

Did the romans have a collective national (with emphasis on national) identity in the modern sense? I don't think so. As far as I understand, what was required to be a roman was that you were a free wo/man (to the extent the first could really be free), regardless of ethnic origin, mother tongue and whatever criteria we find to be decisive in national identity today.

The concept of the modern nation - sovereignty, national/ethnic unity, standardised language, common state apparatus, the idea of the nation as the people - all of this was born out of the enlightenment and the French revolution and the unification of Italy and Germany. It's undeniably linked to modernity, the growth of capitalism and bourgeois society and so on.

Yes the Romans certainly did have a sense of collective, national identity. National identity is not to do with ethnic origin lets make this clear, nor is it to do with mother tongue, it is not about where you come from but your willingness to conform to the collective identity, essentially adopting cultural norms, such as language.

Back on to the Romans, many would run into battle shouting allegiance to the Rome, the story of Rome was well known throughout roman society and it persists to Modern Day Rome itself, for example the football club 'Roma' features a wolf on it's badge, a hark back to story of the foundation of the Roman nation.

[Schumpeter]

--- I've got a female friend coming over *licks lips* -- will respond tomorrow

[Zukunftsmusik]

Yes the Romans certainly did have a sense of collective, national identity. National identity is not to do with ethnic origin lets make this clear, nor is it to do with mother tongue, it is not about where you come from but your willingness to conform to the collective identity, essentially adopting cultural norms, such as language.

There are differing conceptions of nationalism even today. This is just one of them, usually linked to the patriotic nationalism of the french revolution.


Back on to the Romans, many would run into battle shouting allegiance to the Rome, the story of Rome was well known throughout roman society and it persists to Modern Day Rome itself, for example the football club 'Roma' features a wolf on it's badge, a hark back to story of the foundation of the Roman nation.

So your point is that roman nationalism existed because modern italians use roman symbols to show their nationalism? Can't you see that this is exactly an invented tradition? They're using signs of past glory to further Italian nationalism, which has nothing to do with ancient Rome (except these invented traditions trying to make it seem so).

[Ritzy Cat]

Furthermore, one or two sources is no basis upon which to draw historical conclusions.

Isn't this what you're doing ???

[#FF0000]

Should there be an international revolutionary movement or should we focus on our own 'one nation'? Or does patriotism and nationhood have the potential to capture the essence of the collective spirit, providing the glue which binds together the proletariat, making it instrumental in promoting a more selfless society? Perhaps successful revolutions could in turn lead to a domino effect?

No, that simply isn't possible because capitalism is a global system and each nation-state is a part of that framework. Of course that doesn't mean the revolution has to happen everywhere, at the exact same time, and that workers can't or shouldn't organize in their own countries -- just that socialism in one country is not possible.

[dodger]

The national is also international The workers of all countries face the same crisis, to varying degrees: finance capital is seeking to destroy national independence in order to allow it to sack the wealth of all nations. That’s the globalisation agenda, and that’s where the World Trade Organization fits in.

The only way to deal with the globalisation offensive is nationally: defeat it where we are strong, and widen liberated areas. We can do this through asserting the importance of nation and of independence. The only way we can help other workers is by defeating capitalism here, just as the only true help they can give us is by taking up their own fights. That’s true international solidarity– and it’s the only one that works.

In 1881, just two years before his death, the ailing Karl Marx received a letter from a young socialist, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, asking for his opinion about the call to rebuild the International Workingmen’s Association, the most advanced experiment in Left Unity up to that date -

A no frills response!
“It is my conviction that the critical juncture for a new International Workingmen’s Association has not yet arrived and for this reason I regard all workers’ congresses, particularly socialist congresses, in so far as they are not related to the immediate given conditions in this or that particular nation, as not merely useless but harmful. They will always fade away in innumerable stale generalised banalities.” When not explicitly tied to the concrete struggles of a real historical conjuncture, the question of Left Unity can be nothing other than the “statement of a phantom problem to which the only answer can be – the criticism of the question itself.”

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Without the collective spirit how do you expect collective ownership to come about? The collective spirit is essential;

Communists expect social (not simply "collective"; cooperatives are owned collectively and privately) ownership to come about due to the conscious action of the working class. Workers are bound to the class due to their social position, not due to some kind of "spirit", whatever that is!


Yes the Romans certainly did have a sense of collective, national identity. National identity is not to do with ethnic origin lets make this clear, nor is it to do with mother tongue, it is not about where you come from but your willingness to conform to the collective identity, essentially adopting cultural norms, such as language.

Back on to the Romans, many would run into battle shouting allegiance to the Rome, the story of Rome was well known throughout roman society and it persists to Modern Day Rome itself, for example the football club 'Roma' features a wolf on it's badge, a hark back to story of the foundation of the Roman nation.

It is probably wrong to consider the Roman empire - a patchwork of the city-state of Rome, directly-controlled Italian territories, garrisoned provinces ruled mostly by client kings, and the personal property of the Roman state (Pergamon) or the emperor (Egypt) a state, let alone a nation. Even legal norms were different for different ethnicities within the empire - for roman colonists, Greeks and Egyptians in Egypt, for example. There was no universal "Roman identity", except within the city of Rome and among Roman citizens, who were associated with the city even if they were not physical residents (landowners in Campania, for example).

[#FF0000]

The only way to deal with the globalisation offensive is nationally: defeat it where we are strong, and widen liberated areas. We can do this through asserting the importance of nation and of independence. The only way we can help other workers is by defeating capitalism here, just as the only true help they can give us is by taking up their own fights. That’s true international solidarity– and it’s the only one that works.

One can't "defeat capitalism" in one's own country alone, though.The working class in each nation can and have to fight their own struggles in their own immediate surroundings, sure, but defeating one's own bosses is not the same as "defeating capitalism". Capitalism is a global system, and the working class must act as an international class to dismantle it.

It's weird you decided to try and (mis)quote Marx here. The entire Critique Of The Gotha Programme lays out pretty damn well the Marxist perspective on internationalism.

[MaximMK]

Communism socialism works best without nationalist gorups to divide the people. We are all one sentient species and we should act as one!

[jakedragonsly3r]

I believe communism

[Q]

I believe communism
I think this post was not finished?

[Einkarl]

Yes the Romans certainly did have a sense of collective, national identity. National identity is not to do with ethnic origin lets make this clear, nor is it to do with mother tongue, it is not about where you come from but your willingness to conform to the collective identity, essentially adopting cultural norms, such as language.

Back on to the Romans, many would run into battle shouting allegiance to the Rome, the story of Rome was well known throughout roman society and it persists to Modern Day Rome itself, for example the football club 'Roma' features a wolf on it's badge, a hark back to story of the foundation of the Roman nation.

Bullshit they did. I think it is a pretty well established notion that most "citizens" of Rome swore allegiance to local lords and soldiers fought for their generals and not in the name of Rome.

Also your soccer team example is completely unrelated and kind of ridiculous, that's like me saying that the Minnesota Vikings are evidence that ancient Native Americans held a sense of Scandinavian nationalism.

[Jambo]

I know many comrades have already covered this but I’m having my say on the whole Rome argument. I also find the proposed criterion for what constitutes nationhood to be dubious, much like the actual concept itself.

Rome was a slave owning society. A very large percentage of the people who lived under Roman control were slaves, captured and kidnapped from far flung parts of the world, and ignorant to the ideas, language and culture of Rome. Would these people consider themselves Roman? Ermm probably not.

The actual Roman ‘citizens’, the ‘Romans’ were a privileged elite. There was a clear distinction. Those who were citizens were Romans, those who were not, were not.

As to the Roman military, throughout the history of Rome the legions tended to follow their generals and even fight against each other on many occasions in the rivalries and civil wars instigated by these ambitious generals and leaders. In addition the vast majority of the Roman army was not made up of Legionnaires but was composed of Auxiliaries. Auxiliaries were not Roman citizens and were recruited from subjugated tribes and other client peoples of the Romans. They made up specialist units such as slingers/ Archers/ Cavalry and also infantry and were ‘recruited’ from areas specifically known for their prowess in these military disciplines. These people went into battle shouting their traditional/tribal battle cries. After twenty five years of service as an auxiliary a soldier could be granted citizenship, not that they were likely to live that long.

Additionally there is even archaeological evidence that many of the auxiliary units retained many of their old customs and beliefs. Temples to Non-Roman Gods have been found near to fortifications were Auxiliary units served. Did these people consider themselves Roman?

Additionally many of the areas conquered by Rome were allowed to govern themselves to a large extent and retain indigenous rulers who were vassals of Rome (Remember king Herod the bad guy from the baby Jesus story?). Did these people every consider themselves Roman?

A few thousand privileged ‘citizens’ may have stood around having a circle jerk and congratulating themselves on how great Rome was. For the majority of the people in the Roman world though it was just about getting on and surviving as best you could. Roman power was an inescapable reality and so people may have grudgingly conformed to its social/cultural norms and paid lipservice to its ideas and traditions and some may even have liked and benefited from some of its achievements. However if asked would the majority of the people under Roman rule identify themselves as Roman? I would not have thought so.

At the height of the British Empire how many native Australian people would have identified themselves as British? I’m thinking none.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes the Romans certainly did have a sense of collective, national identity. National identity is not to do with ethnic origin lets make this clear, nor is it to do with mother tongue, it is not about where you come from but your willingness to conform to the collective identity, essentially adopting cultural norms, such as language.

Back on to the Romans, many would run into battle shouting allegiance to the Rome, the story of Rome was well known throughout roman society and it persists to Modern Day Rome itself, for example the football club 'Roma' features a wolf on it's badge, a hark back to story of the foundation of the Roman nation.

You do realize that Romanization was essentially enforced through the elite, right? So it is a top down structure and construct which needs to be continually reinforced. If that reinforcement stops...the identity will disintegrate...as happened at the end of the Roman empire.

The revival of Roman culture and heritage is actually an idealization. Again one made by the elite. For centuries the Italians couldn't care less about the Roman period. Didn't identify with it at all. Rather they identified with cities and regions...villages even. During the 18th and 19th century this revival was again enforced by the nationalist unification movements.

But the Roman culture did not persist. It was actually gone for centuries.

[Baseball]

Yes the Romans certainly did have a sense of collective, national identity. National identity is not to do with ethnic origin lets make this clear, nor is it to do with mother tongue, it is not about where you come from but your willingness to conform to the collective identity, essentially adopting cultural norms, such as language.

National identity evolved exactly this way however.
And for the reasons you have stated-- its easier for people who speak the same language, same culture, same history ect to organize themselves.
Nationalism is modern and is also the child of the French Revolution.
It was not a "bourgoise" movement (unless we classify folks like Marx as "bourgoise"), which is why "socialism" and "nationalism" are always closely intertwined.

Rome, for the reasons already stated, was not some nationalistic empire.

[Illegalitarian]

National Identity as a concept is kind of falling apart even today, what makes you think it will exist as a concept when the productive forces develop enough and material conditions are right for an international socialist revolution, or various ones the domino effect or however it happens?


Look at Spain. You've got the Catalans, who identify as Catalonia, the Basques, who also don't identify as Spanish, who are also in France and Scotland, the Scottish who are starting to rebel against the idea of being "English" more and more, Bavarians who do not identify as being German, the list goes on.


National Identity was a construct that popped up around the same time as scientific racism, something to try and bring people and empires together under one large banner. It's never worked, it never will. It might catch popularity here and there among some populations, but blind nationalism is not as widespread and blanketed as you think.

[liberlict]

Marx actually wanted workers to support free trade because he thought it would destroy nations and leave only class antagonisms left (not international ones).

[Blake's Baby]

Of course. Free trade against protectionist monoploies.

'Marxists' who support failed states in an attempt to hold back 'imperialism' (ie the USA) are on to a loser. If capitalism still had an historic civilising mission (against feudal backwardness) then the 'Marxists' who believed in it should be supporting the advanced capitalist nations against the 'backward' ones. But it doesn't. Cpaitalism long ago came to an accommoation with the remnants of feudalism and exhausted any progressive potential that it still retained in Marx's day. For a century or more capitalism has been a dead-end for the human race. We need to end it as soon as possible.

In answer to the OP - you can't have socialist society with nations so better hope you can without.

[argeiphontes]

Marx actually wanted workers to support free trade because he thought it would destroy nations and leave only class antagonisms left (not international ones).



In answer to the OP - you can't have socialist society with nations so better hope you can without.

Wasn't Marx a little too optimistic or idealistic about this, though? It seems to me that in the absence of the nation-state, humans are a tribal animal, which is something we share with the other Hominidae. This seems to bode well for anarchism, but not so much for world-wide coordinated communism.

"When the citizens of a society can see and hear their leaders, then that society should be seen as one." -- Plato, Repubic III

Or does that extend to television and modern communication?

http://i.imgur.com/WYZcQyMl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/VJlhkAW.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/dFGoYfr.jpg

[Blake's Baby]

'humans form groups so communism can't work'.

Is that it?

[PhoenixAsh]

It is exactly the group forming and the social nature of humans that would actually make communism work.

The main difference is that it is often hard to imagine the fact that social standing and hierarchy we know today is something that is enforced on us because of the way we needed to survive and deal with scarcity.

Change the dynamics of survival and the social dynamics will change. Allowing
for less competition and less need to focus on division.

[argeiphontes]

'humans form groups so communism can't work'.

Is that it?

No. Just, the administrative size of communism (the entire planet) doesn't appear natural. There will be a need to use artificial means to maintain it, just like a nation state. It could be as simple as propaganda, I suppose. But it's likely that a government will be required or it will fall apart.

Also, going to the Plato quote, at some level doesn't it all just seem a bit too abstract? Will people in Tennessee really want to work extra hours to provide people in Tunguska with additional microchips or whatever? (With nothing but abstract remuneration.) People tend to have local loyalties, even in a nation-state. How will communism prevent areas from exercising this tendency?

I don't know though, I'm just asking. Maybe it's possible. Some people have a global outlook. But most of the time those people are derided as idealists ;)

[argeiphontes]

It is exactly the group forming and the social nature of humans that would actually make communism work.

The main difference is that it is often hard to imagine the fact that social standing and hierarchy we know today is something that is enforced on us because of the way we needed to survive and deal with scarcity.

Change the dynamics of survival and the social dynamics will change. Allowing
for less competition and less need to focus on division.

But humans are not social like bees or the Borg, they are social like other apes. This includes tribalism, group loyalties, and conflict. What about communism will reduce or destroy this tendency?

I think, again, that this social nature is perfect for anarchism but not for world-wide systems like communism.

[Marxaveli]

Anarchism and communism are the same thing. Quit trying to confuse people by making a distinction between the two.

What is NOT the same, is Anarchism and Marxism. Both advocate a communist society, but both have very different views on HOW to get there, what the role of the state is and how it developed under capitalism, revolutionary tactics, etc. Two different theoretical frameworks. But you are making it out that Anarchists don't advocate for communism, when the vast majority of them do.

[argeiphontes]

Anarchism and communism are the same thing. Quit trying to confuse people by making a distinction between the two.

What is NOT the same, is Anarchism and Marxism. Both advocate a communist society, but both have very different views on HOW to get there, what the role of the state is and how it developed under capitalism, revolutionary tactics, etc. Two different theoretical frameworks. But you are making it out that Anarchists don't advocate for communism, when the vast majority of them do.

Is there a survey or something that backs this up? The ones on this site do, but this site is a communist site so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most people here think that socialism and communism are the same thing, too. In case you haven't been outside lately, most leftists aren't communists, whether they are anarchists or socialists.

Only anarcho-communists advocate for communism. There are many anarchist schools of thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought). For example, I like neo-Proudhonian mutualism as put forth by Shawn P. Wilbur and others. Your mileage may vary.

Even if anarchists are anarcho-communists, surely they believe in the right of other communities for self-determination, don't they? Anarchists wouldn't go invade the commune next door and force it to be communist, would they? My point applies just as much to any totalitarian system, including anarcho-communism, if they do not believe in decentralization and self-determination.

[Blake's Baby]

The vast majority of anarchists in the world are anarchist-communists or anarcho-syndicalists (when these aren't necessarily the same thing). The membership figures for the various anarchist organisation should bear that out. Compared to this other kinds of 'anarchists' are tiny and only really exist on the internet.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The vast majority of anarchists in the world are anarchist-communists or anarcho-syndicalists (when these aren't necessarily the same thing). The membership figures for the various anarchist organisation should bear that out. Compared to this other kinds of 'anarchists' are tiny and only really exist on the internet.

Well, some people count collectivist anarchists - i.e. those who don't advocate an immediate abolition of accounting - separately, so they would form the third major group. But ultimately it doesn't matter. The people who we call anarchists are all for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. And that can't be done on a local scale.

The various pro-capitalists who call themselves "anarchists" are to anarchists what the religious or national "socialists" are to Marxist socialists.

As for the nonsensical notion that a global society can't exist because of some alleged tribal nature of humans ("human nature" arguments are really the least convincing arguments ever, particularly since everyone uses them to "sell" their own notions, from slavery to mutualism), well, the global market already exists, if someone's failed to notice.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, some people count collectivist anarchists - i.e. those who don't advocate an immediate abolition of accounting - separately, so they would form the third major group...

And do they have international organisations and thousands of members?

[argeiphontes]

The people who we call anarchists are all for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. And that can't be done on a local scale.


Great. Add them to the list of utopian idealists, then.



well, the global market already exists, if someone's failed to notice.

Ah, so it's the qualities of the market that the new society will have. Ok, then, I retract my concern, that should work just as well as it does today.

[liberlict]

Wasn't Marx a little too optimistic or idealistic about this, though?


Probably. But that's historical materialism for you. All these other groups are mere ideological constructs describing different relationships to the means and mode of production. I don't view it so much as idealism but rather a bad attempt at reductionism.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

And do they have international organisations and thousands of members?

Good point, I suppose.


Great. Add them to the list of utopian idealists, then.

Well, I certainly think the few anarchists who talk about "the people" as if they were some sort of homogeneous plebeian blob are idealists - but those that rely on class analysis are not idealist. And look who's accusing them of idealism - someone who relies on "human nature" arguments!


Ah, so it's the qualities of the market that the new society will have. Ok, then, I retract my concern, that should work just as well as it does today.

"Qualities of the market"? That's just gibberish. The point is that the global society already exists, and obviously it isn't hampered by what you claim is "human nature".

[argeiphontes]

And look who's accusing them of idealism - someone who relies on "human nature" arguments!


Human nature is a concrete fact that is being investigated by psychology, sociology, anthropology and etc, i.e. science. Applying some philosophy to it is what is idealistic.



"Qualities of the market"? That's just gibberish. The point is that the global society already exists, and obviously it isn't hampered by what you claim is "human nature".

That's right--it exists. Because a global market society exists does not mean a global communist society can exist. Unless they are based on the same principles and modes of operation, which is clearly not the case. There is no empirical proof that communism can exist. It is all conjecture.

[tallguy]

If people are not prepared to countenance socialist islands forming, growing, aligning and allying together, for all of the inherent difficulties and room for corruptions, as a part of the struggle against capitalism in order to bring socialism to the whole world, then all is lost and all that such people are doing is playing philosophy games. And I'm sick of fucking games.

I'm interested in change.

Now.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Human nature is a concrete fact that is being investigated by psychology, sociology, anthropology and etc, i.e. science. Applying some philosophy to it is what is idealistic.

Ha, I wonder if you could cite any academic, peer-reviewed work about "human nature". All I can think of are some pop-"sci" works by Pinker and people like that - hardly high science.

It's such a discredited term - everybody who uses it just happens to think that everything they support is part of "human nature". Cooperation, competition, slavery, capitalism, markets, tribes, heterosexuality, whatever.


That's right--it exists. Because a global market society exists does not mean a global communist society can exist. Unless they are based on the same principles and modes of operation, which is clearly not the case.

Well, that depends - modern capitalism is based on large-scale industrial production, and communism will be based on large-scale industrial production as well. Modern capitalism has a pronounced tendency toward centralization, and communism will be highly centralized. The present global configuration of capitalism belies your notion that people "don't want to work for someone in Tunguska" (I do hope there are very few people in the Tunguska river, it must be very cold). Communism will likewise depend on a global exchange of objects etc.


There is no empirical proof that communism can exist. It is all conjecture.

There is no empirical proof the Sun hasn't blown up in the last eight minutes either.

[argeiphontes]

If people are not prepared to countenance socialist islands forming, growing, aligning and allying together, for all of the inherent difficulties and room for corruptions, as a part of the struggle against capitalism in order to bring socialism to the whole world, then all is lost and all that such people are doing is playing philosophy games. And I'm sick of fucking games.

I'm interested in change.

Now.

People are just playing philosophy games. Go to the masses, your non-Marxist friends or whoever, and explain to them your plans for socialist revolution. That is the gulf you (and I) have to bridge.

Hell, something perfectly reasonable and "modern" like IOPS can't even get 3500 members worldwide. (Though they are close and will probably make their convention cut-off date.) Instead of philosophical notions about class consciousness based on 19th century ideas, it might be important to know how to actually affect people's thinking and behavior. (Not that I think the proper implications have been drawn.)

My advice would be to forget strategies and theories that may or may not have been applicable to other time periods and channel your activity into real-world projects that are steps in the right direction and have the potential to improve people's lives. That's what I intend to be doing when I am able. Being a militant and pure *ist is the worst possible thing to do to change the world. Maybe I'm projecting but far-left Marxism is completely schizoid. The focus should be on principles, direction, and movement in the movement.

(Maybe... I've been day-drinking ;) )

[argeiphontes]

Ha, I wonder if you could cite any academic, peer-reviewed work about "human nature".


You know very well that it's an umbrella term for the full set of human behaviors. Surely a materialist would think that any animal has a fixed and genetically outlined set of behaviors.



Well, that depends - modern capitalism is based on large-scale industrial production, and communism will be based on large-scale industrial production as well. Modern capitalism has a pronounced tendency toward centralization, and communism will be highly centralized. The present global configuration of capitalism belies your notion that people "don't want to work for someone in Tunguska" (I do hope there are very few people in the Tunguska river, it must be very cold). Communism will likewise depend on a global exchange of objects etc.


But those two systems are based on different principles. The things you've mentioned are superficial.



There is no empirical proof the Sun hasn't blown up in the last eight minutes either.

We take it on faith. Which is how you take communism. It's OK to admit it, I won't think any less of you. ;)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

You know very well that it's an umbrella term for the full set of human behaviors.

Well, first of all that is not how the term is generally used, and second, that definition includes non-tribal behavior - in fact, using that definition, you can't say that anything is "against human nature" if people do it.


Surely a materialist would think that any animal has a fixed and genetically outlined set of behaviors.

That just demonstrates that you don't understand materialism, sorry.


But those two systems are based on different principles. The things you've mentioned are superficial.

The development and organization of the means of production is far from superficial. And what "principles"? Communism isn't a nice plan, it's a mode of production and phase of social development. It isn't based on "principles" but material social relations.


We take it on faith.

Well, you might do that. Most of us, however, are familiar with at least the broad outlines of the physics of stars, which makes any sudden explosion highly unlikely. Likewise with the possibility of communism; it's an inference from a predictive, useful theory.

[argeiphontes]

Well, first of all that is not how the term is generally used, and second, that definition includes non-tribal behavior - in fact, using that definition, you can't say that anything is "against human nature" if people do it.


Yeah, but people don't do communism. There has never been communism.



That just demonstrates that you don't understand materialism, sorry.
Fine. Then we are angels without limits. The social sciences are just wasting their time.



And what "principles"?
The principles on which it operates.



Well, you might do that. Most of us, however, are familiar with at least the broad outlines of the physics of stars, which makes any sudden explosion highly unlikely. Likewise with the possibility of communism; it's an inference from a predictive, useful theory.Sol Invictus! All I know of it is based in faith. Faith in the physicists who have told me about its general features. I have personally not seen it up close or run any experiments on it. I have no empirical knowledge of it apart from how it looks in the sky.

Those physical theories seem to work. But the theories on which communism is based haven't predicted anything that I'm aware of.

[Marxaveli]

Most people here think that socialism and communism are the same thing, too.

That's because they ARE the same thing. Only Leninists make a distinction between the socialism and communism, and Leninists make up only a tiny, tiny, portion of the communist movement. The vast majority regard both of these terms to mean the same thing. Some people may choose to identify as a socialist or anarchist because this is a less 'dirty' word than "communist", but they mean the same thing regardless. It's like saying that a white nationalist and a neo-Nazi aren't the the same thing - but they in fact are.


Even if anarchists are anarcho-communists, surely they believe in the right of other communities for self-determination, don't they? Anarchists wouldn't go invade the commune next door and force it to be communist, would they? My point applies just as much to any totalitarian system, including anarcho-communism, if they do not believe in decentralization and self-determination.
This doesn't make any sense at all. How can you force something to be communist when it is already such? More importantly, why would they want to invade in the first place?

totalitarianism and communism are incompatible, as communism is a classless/stateless/moneyless society.

[argeiphontes]

That's because they ARE the same thing. Only Leninists make a distinction between the socialism and communism, and Leninists make up only a tiny, tiny, portion of the communist movement. The vast majority regard both of these terms to mean the same thing. Which is why your whole notion of "market socialism" is utterly ridiculous and can never exist.


Obviously, market socialists make the distinction. There is a difference between defying the doctrine and never being able to exist. It's the most reasonable idea so obviously it has to be denigrated as "utterly ridiculous" by people who are more utopian.



This doesn't make any sense at all. How can you force something to be communist when it is already such? More importantly, why would they want to invade in the first place?

totalitarianism and communism are incompatible, as communism is a classless/stateless/moneyless society.How are anarcho-communists going to tell non-anarcho-communists to be anarcho-communists? If a collective wanted to be mutualist, or cecede from the federation, or whatever, how would they stop them? It would be against anarchist principles to do so, wouldn't it? That's my point--there is no way to enforce anarcho-communism.

[Marxaveli]

Market socialism is an oxymoron, so of course you make that distinction. Funny you call Marxists "utopian", when Market Socialism is about the most utopian thing since social democracy itself.

Also, the term anarcho-communism is redundant. Communism is communism is communism. Much in the same way "democratic socialism" is redundant. Communism isn't something that is enforced, but rather is birthed out of the inherent contradictions of capitalism as a new social order that is in the common interests of all which that social order consists.

It is pretty easy to see why you are restricted. You are not a socialist, you are a capitalist apologist (I say apologist because I doubt you actually own any means to production) paying lip service to socialism in order to present yourself as something you are not.

[argeiphontes]

Market socialism is an oxymoron, so of course you make that distinction. Funny you call Marxists "utopian", when Market Socialism is about the most utopian thing since social democracy itself.


OK, whatever. You can redefine utopian however you like. Market socialism isn't "unrealistic" because markets have been around forever. I realize nobody will ever accept that. It's too bad because a wider set of viewpoints would be nice on the site.



It is pretty easy to see why you are restricted. You are not a socialist, you are a capitalist apologist (I say apologist because I doubt you actually own any means to production) paying lip service to socialism in order to present yourself as something you are not.

I asked for the restriction. I actually believe in market socialism or mutual of some sort. (edit: In fact, this is part of the problem with mutualism. How can an anarchist society stop wage labor, for example? I wouldn't want to live in a society with wage labor.)

[o well this is ok I guess]

Fine. Then we are angels without limits. The social sciences are just wasting their time. No doubt, there is a structure to the human brain, and how it formulates action, how it processes sense-data, so on and so on. Yes, there is perhaps a "human nature" that can be discovered. We're merely doubting that you've a clue what it is, especially considering your limited data on the matter. Seriously bro I did sociology in uni they've got noooooo delusions as to the reach of their knowledge.
And let's face it bro not everything an animal does is dictated by pure genetics. Do you not own a pet? Have you never owned a pet in your life?

[argeiphontes]

No doubt, there is a structure to the human brain, and how it formulates action, how it processes sense-data, so on and so on. Yes, there is perhaps a "human nature" that can be discovered. We're merely doubting that you've a clue what it is, especially considering your limited data on the matter.


No, but you don't either. Which was my point.



And let's face it bro not everything an animal does is dictated by pure genetics. Do you not own a pet? Have you never owned a pet in your life?dEn8EyM_A-U

I now realize I was mistaken to raise the issue here. Just forget it. Enjoy the video. We'll make great pets of the Central Committee.

[o well this is ok I guess]

No, but you don't either. Which was my point I don't. No one here does. Where on earth did any of us pretend to do so?
Bro you're the only one adhering to a naturalist viewpoint, don't point the finger at us and say "I did it because you did so first".

[argeiphontes]

I don't. No one here does. Where on earth did any of us pretend to do so?
Bro you're the only one adhering to a naturalist viewpoint, don't point the finger at us and say "I did it because you did so first".

Um, I'm not accusing you of that. (My whole point was pretty much the opposite...)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Yeah, but people don't do communism. There has never been communism.

People don't "do" capitalism either. Communism and capitalism are modes of production, not examples of individual behavior. Individual behavior that occurs in communism, for example following plans, organizing on a basis other than tribes, working "for someone in Tunguska", whatever, people do all of these things.

So what about communism do you think is "contrary to human nature", again?


Fine. Then we are angels without limits. The social sciences are just wasting their time.

Well, certain theorists certainly are. Take the great conservative sociologists for example - Weber, Tönnies, Parsons, etc. Most of them were brilliant people - it's just that, constrained by the ruling ideology, they tried to explain something - social stability - that doesn't actually exist.

Of course, it simply isn't the case that human behavior is either the unfolding of some genetic "human nature" or completely arbitrary. Like most "naturalist" idealists, you completely ignore environmental factors, particularly social organization, the mode of production etc.


The principles on which it operates.

Which include large-scale industrial production and the global circulation of the social product.


Sol Invictus! All I know of it is based in faith. Faith in the physicists who have told me about its general features. I have personally not seen it up close or run any experiments on it. I have no empirical knowledge of it apart from how it looks in the sky.

Oh, is this the part where you redefine "faith" so that everything is faith? Not interested, sorry. You're clearly using some personal idiosyncratic definition of the word, and while there's nothing wrong with that, I would prefer that you speak in English. I don't speak religiopsian.


Those physical theories seem to work. But the theories on which communism is based haven't predicted anything that I'm aware of.

Well, consider Lenin's prediction of a worldwide imperialist war, in opposition to Kautsky's theory of peaceful "ultra-imperialism", well before WWI. Or the well-supported observation that overproduction leads to periodic crises of capitalism.


That's because they ARE the same thing. Only Leninists make a distinction between the socialism and communism, and Leninists make up only a tiny, tiny, portion of the communist movement.

Well - the last sentence is simply wrong. Numerically, Leninists predominate in the communist movement - unless you want to exclude all revisionists, centrists, people who are plain wrong etc. - in which case, your result might vary according to the group you sympathize with. I would say the overwhelming majority of genuine, consistent communists are Leninists. You, presumably, wouldn't.

In any case, the distinction between socialism and communism as the higher and lower stage of socialist society is something the Marxists-Leninists insist on. Most Trotskyist groups I'm familiar with - with the exception of Pabloites, who found socialism in the Soviet Union on occasion, and Marcyists if you want to count them as Trotskyists - are ambivalent toward the distinction. Certainly few of us agree with Stalin's formula "socialism = DotP".

What argeiphontes was referring to, however, was the distinction between Marxist socialism ("communism") and market, religious, Arab, national, guild, Katheder-, American, Prussian, Bismarckian, Strasserite, whatever, "socialism". Of course no Marxist would recognize market or Prussian or whatever "socialism" as actually socialist.


OK, whatever. You can redefine utopian however you like. Market socialism isn't "unrealistic" because markets have been around forever.

"Markets have been around forever."
"An absence of markets is against human nature."

Let's see, is there any lazy idealist "argument" you haven't used yet?

Oh yeah, "Deus vult!".

In fact large-scale markets are a fairly recent phenomenon, going back to the birth of bourgeois society. Market mechanisms were largely absent in the great state-slaveowning societies and Asiatic despocies.


I realize nobody will ever accept that. It's too bad because a wider set of viewpoints would be nice on the site.

I don't see what would be "nice" about this site turning into another Daily Kos or even Stormfront - hey, national socialists call themselves socialists as well. It's close enough the former as it is.

[Baseball]

In fact large-scale markets are a fairly recent phenomenon, going back to the birth of bourgeois society. Market mechanisms were largely absent in the great state-slaveowning societies and Asiatic despocies.


Large scale markets are required for large scale populations.

Perhaps the absence of market mechanisms is what left the only options for the folks of the "great state slaveowning societies and Asiatic despocies." Certainly you do not declare that markets are a step backwards.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Large scale markets are required for large scale populations.

Why?


Perhaps the absence of market mechanisms is what left the only options for the folks of the "great state slaveowning societies and Asiatic despocies." Certainly you do not declare that markets are a step backwards.

Honestly, I don't know what you're trying to say in the first sentence. What options? And yes, markets were not a step backwards - in fact the emergence of the global market was an immense step forward. Communists don't want to return to the administrative economies of Crete or Egypt, we wish to implement a modern administrative economy based on a global mode of production, with global circulation of goods etc.

I brought state-slaveowning and Asiatic-despotic societies up because argeiphontes claimed that markets existed "forever". Give the bourgeoisie some credit!

[Baseball]

Why?

I guess I had interpreted your comment about "large scale markets" being a recent development as an argument that people had survived for centuries without them. Hence-- an increase in population....

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I guess I had interpreted your comment about "large scale markets" being a recent development as an argument that people had survived for centuries without them. Hence-- an increase in population....

Well, that doesn't follow - there have been societies without large-scale markets with population densities much higher than capitalist societies. In particular, the Asiatic mode of production seems to require large population densities, and little or no market exchange. But a certain level of the development of the productive forces requires markets - signeural or palatial systems couldn't work in today's economy. But at the same time, a higher level of development of the productive forces requires that the anarchy of the market be ended.

[argeiphontes]

Well, consider Lenin's prediction of a worldwide imperialist war, in opposition to Kautsky's theory of peaceful "ultra-imperialism", well before WWI.


Oh? What theories were they using to make those educated guesses? How did those conclusions follow from the theories? I think it was just lucky guesses.



Or the well-supported observation that overproduction leads to periodic crises of capitalism.


That's economics. I don't deny Marxian economics, in fact I'm a big fan.



Of course no Marxist would recognize market or Prussian or whatever "socialism" as actually socialist.


No true Marxist, eh?



"Markets have been around forever."
"An absence of markets is against human nature."

Let's see, is there any lazy idealist "argument" you haven't used yet?


Do you have a dictionary handy? Those are *concrete* arguments based on empirical facts. The facts can be wrong but it won't make the arguments "idealist". You'll have to explain to me how the use of empirical facts makes one's argument "idealist". Only a Marxist would think that. Actually, if the historical argument "markets have been around forever" is idealist, then all of historical materialism is idealist too. Your theories have no meaning.



In fact large-scale markets are a fairly recent phenomenon, going back to the birth of bourgeois society. Market mechanisms were largely absent in the great state-slaveowning societies and Asiatic despocies.


So, in all of history, two societies had "largely absent" markets, huh? I don't see how that's significant. Furthermore, doesn't "largely absent" just mean what *you* want it to mean, like "idealist"?

[argeiphontes]

Well, that doesn't follow - there have been societies without large-scale markets with population densities much higher than capitalist societies. In particular, the Asiatic mode of production seems to require large population densities, and little or no market exchange. But a certain level of the development of the productive forces requires markets - signeural or palatial systems couldn't work in today's economy. But at the same time, a higher level of development of the productive forces requires that the anarchy of the market be ended.

What "Asiatic mode of production"? There's no such thing, it was just invented by Marx. Here's a quote from Wikipedia about markets in Japan's Edo period:



The daimyō operated several hundred castle towns, which became loci of domestic trade. Large-scale rice markets developed, centered on Edo and Ōsaka.[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_japan#cite_note-64) In the cities and towns, guilds of merchants and artisans met the growing demand for goods and services. The merchants, while low in status, prospered, especially those with official patronage. Merchants invented credit instruments to transfer money, currency came into common use, and the strengthening credit market encouraged entrepreneurship.


(It's just like "primitive communism". Which society, exactly, had "primitive communism"?)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

What "Asiatic mode of production"? There's no such thing, it was just invented by Marx. Here's a quote from Wikipedia about markets in Japan's Edo period[...]

Alright, so? Not every Asiatic society had an Asiatic mode of production - perhaps some might argue that Japan had an Asiatic mode of production in the Kofun and Asuka periods, but even then, previous economic forms dominated over forms imported from Korea and China.

Not to mention how unfortunate it is that you chose the Edo period, which immediately preceded the bourgeois state in Japan. Anyway, commercial za date back to the Muromachi period, if I'm not mistaken.


(It's just like "primitive communism". Which society, exactly, had "primitive communism"?)

No society anyone can name due to, well, the absence of written records. But the archeological evidence seems to support the theory.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Oh? What theories were they using to make those educated guesses?

Lenin relied on the theory of imperialism outlined in "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism"; Kautsky advanced a theory of peaceful "ultra-imperialism".


How did those conclusions follow from the theories? I think it was just lucky guesses.

Well, that just shows that you're not familiar with the debate. The necessity of an intra-imperialist conflict followed from the characteristics of imperialism - particularly the period redivision of the world market - and the geopolitical situation, with no significant new markets for the imperialist powers to expand into.


That's economics. I don't deny Marxian economics, in fact I'm a big fan.

Well, no, you deny Marxist economics - "Marxian" is "professorial rigmarole", as Lenin would say, for "bourgeois with light Marxist touches" - by advocating markets, private ownership of the means of production etc.


No true Marxist, eh?

Well, name one Marxist socialists that considers market or Prussian "socialism" to be socialistic.


Do you have a dictionary handy? Those are *concrete* arguments based on empirical facts. The facts can be wrong but it won't make the arguments "idealist". You'll have to explain to me how the use of empirical facts makes one's argument "idealist". Only a Marxist would think that. Actually, if the historical argument "markets have been around forever" is idealist, then all of historical materialism is idealist too. Your theories have no meaning.

Your argument is idealist because it relies on idealist constructions - such as "human nature" - and involves supposed timeless, ahistorical, necessities. Historical materialism, to put it mildly, doesn't.


So, in all of history, two societies had "largely absent" markets, huh? I don't see how that's significant. Furthermore, doesn't "largely absent" just mean what *you* want it to mean, like "idealist"?

"Two societies"? We're talking about two modes of social organization that included most of the world's societies at one point.

[argeiphontes]

Alright, so? Not every Asiatic society had an Asiatic mode of production - perhaps some might argue that Japan had an Asiatic mode of production in the Kofun and Asuka periods, but even then, previous economic forms dominated over forms imported from Korea and China.


So... which society had this "Asiatic mode of production" without markets?



Not to mention how unfortunate it is that you chose the Edo period, which immediately preceded the bourgeois state in Japan.


Great, then tell me what time period the Asiatic mode applies to.



No society anyone can name due to, well, the absence of written records. But the archeological evidence seems to support the theory.

Which evidence?

Not of Ancient Sumer and Mesopotamia, apparently:


http://michael-hudson.com/2002/04/the-new-economic-archaeology-of-debt/][/url]
Commercial debts, usually denominated in silver, are first attested in conjunction with Mesopotamia’s long-distance trade. Interest on agrarian debts, typically denominated in barley, developed as part of the system by which public institutions advanced land to sharecroppers. Similar interest charges were levied on shortfalls in crop deliveries under sharecropping rental agreements, and on arrears of fees and other sums owed to palace collectors and, ultimately, on personal loans of necessities to the poor.


Sumer’s temples and palaces played a key role in mediating the surplus generated by long-distance trade, handicraft industry and agriculture. Within these institutions interest-bearing debt appears as part of a cluster of breakthroughs that included (indeed, presupposed) standardized weights and measures, a public calendar, the designation of silver and barley as monetary commodities, and the centralized administration of (transfer) prices, rations and other rates of remuneration.


By the way, CH, instead of decrying my human nature argument as "idealist" you should look up some evidence to the contrary. There was recently an interesting article on how children prefer substantive equality. If you're interested, I think it's Equality bias in children - Salon.com (this one. I think I may have even posted it to the board before when I liked Council Communism ;)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

So... which society had this "Asiatic mode of production" without markets?

The Khmer Empire, for example, during its early phase, the Qin state in China after the end of the Summer and Autumn period, and to an extent the subsequent Han state (with heavy admixtures of feudalism), and so on, and so on.


Great, then tell me what time period the Asiatic mode applies to.

Like I said, I don't think it applies to Japan at all - at most, there were tendencies toward such an organization in the Asuka and Kofun periods.


Not of Ancient Sumer and Mesopotamia, apparently:

Sumerian and subsequent Mesopotamian states were, you won't believe this, states! As in, societies other than primitive-communist.


By the way, CH, instead of decrying my human nature argument as "idealist" you should look up some evidence to the contrary. There was recently an interesting article on how children prefer substantive equality. If you're interested, I think it's Equality bias in children - Salon.com (http://this one. I think I may have even posted it to the board before when I liked Council Communism ;)

How is that evidence for "human nature"?

[argeiphontes]

Well, that just shows that you're not familiar with the debate. The necessity of an intra-imperialist conflict followed from the characteristics of imperialism - particularly the period redivision of the world market - and the geopolitical situation, with no significant new markets for the imperialist powers to expand into.


Saying that imperialists are going to get into conflicts is trivial. I don't see how that constitutes a theory. Saying that greedy entities are going to argue over resources is the most trivial thing you could possibly say about economics or geopolitics or the kindergarten playground.



Well, no, you deny Marxist economics - "Marxian" is "professorial rigmarole", as Lenin would say, for "bourgeois with light Marxist touches" - by advocating markets, private ownership of the means of production etc.


Marx's economics is an explanation of the functioning of capitalism. I accept that explanation as better than others I've heard. Accepting Marx's interpretation of the economic system is different than arguing in favor of dismantling it.

Furthermore, I do not advocate private ownership of the means of production, that's just based on your metaphysical refusal to admit that there is no qualitative difference between ownership of something by many people and ownership by all people. I don't give a shit as to what Lenin would say.



Well, name one Marxist socialists that considers market or Prussian "socialism" to be socialistic.


Argeiphontes. David Schweickart. Richard Wolff.



Your argument is idealist because it relies on idealist constructions - such as "human nature" - and involves supposed timeless, ahistorical, necessities. Historical materialism, to put it mildly, doesn't.


Human nature is the subject of scientific study. Perhaps scientific study is idealistic? But you didn't say anything about the historical development of markets argument? I wonder why not, huh? Maybe you just overlooked it...



"Two societies"? We're talking about two modes of social organization that included most of the world's societies at one point.

You'll have provide some evidence that there was an "Asiatic mode of production". I don't believe there was ever any such thing. Nor do I believe in primitive communism. Even feudal and slave-owning societies had markets. Marx's work is abstract idealization of historical production methods. I though you said, earlier in some thread, that Marxists shouldn't be abstract and schematic?

[argeiphontes]

How is that evidence for "human nature"?

It is evidence of a natural tendency toward particular attitudes and behaviors. Surely a college student can understand that, right?

(Furthermore you should be a little more grateful... ;) )

[Marxaveli]

markets have been around forever.

LOL. No, they haven't. Not even close. And in fact, markets are quite a relatively young social phenomena in the big scheme of things. It's not a matter of having more varying view points, its a matter of historical accuracy, and to say markets have been around forever is, inaccurate as they very clearly haven't been.


How can an anarchist society stop wage labor, for example? I wouldn't want to live in a society with wage labor.)If wage labor exists, then it is safe to say capitalism still exists, yes? An "anarchist" (communism) society doesn't have wage labor. There is nothing to stop.

[argeiphontes]

LOL. No, they haven't. Not even close. And in fact, markets are quite a relatively young social phenomena in the big scheme of things. It's not a matter of having more varying view points, its a matter of historical accuracy, and to say markets have been around forever is, inaccurate as they very clearly haven't been.


They are not a young phenomenon. They date at least to the neolithic. But it will depend on how restrictive your definitions are, for example those of Polanyi. See this article: http://www.academia.edu/421206/Investigating_Market_Exchange_in_Ancient_Societies _A_Theoretical_Review



If wage labor exists, then it is safe to say capitalism still exists, yes? An "anarchist" (communism) society doesn't have wage labor. There is nothing to stop.Yes, but how will they stop ancaps from running around trying to entice people to work for wages, is what I'm asking. There is no government or coercion in an anarchist society. I agree that ancaps aren't anarchists, but that's not the point. In the Spanish Civil War, there was more than one kind of anarchism coexisting. How is that going to work if the system is supposed to be a world-wide communism? That's why I suspect that anarcho-communism is impossible if it has the same definition of communism as communists have. There is no way to prevent some communities or individuals from not being communist.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Saying that imperialists are going to get into conflicts is trivial. I don't see how that constitutes a theory. Saying that greedy entities are going to argue over resources is the most trivial thing you could possibly say about economics or geopolitics or the kindergarten playground.

The difference between Marxist materialism and moralism masquerading as deep insight into the functioning of society couldn't be any more clear than it is here. Thank you. For Marxists, imperialist cartels aren't "greedy entities". They represent capital that has reached a certain stage, is structured in a certain manner and has a particular relation toward foreign markets. Small shopkeeper capital doesn't have these characteristics - and states that are dominated by small shopkeeper, agricultural capital etc. do not act imperialistically - but this doesn't mean shopkeepers aren't greedy.


Marx's economics is an explanation of the functioning of capitalism. I accept that explanation as better than others I've heard. Accepting Marx's interpretation of the economic system is different than arguing in favor of dismantling it.

It really isn't, on the minimal assumption that you're neither bourgeois nor an extreme masochist who likes deprivation.


Furthermore, I do not advocate private ownership of the means of production, that's just based on your metaphysical refusal to admit that there is no qualitative difference between ownership of something by many people and ownership by all people. I don't give a shit as to what Lenin would say.

"Ownership by many people" exists in joint-stock corporations, so these are a shining example of argeiphontean socialism. From the crown of Spain to the boardroom of Coca-Cola!


Argeiphontes. David Schweickart. Richard Wolff.

Well isn't that cute. And what kind of socialist would consider Prussian socialism to be socialistic? Why, Niekisch and Laufenberg. The problem is that no one consider Niekisch and Laufenberg to be socialist, either, except their supporters - just as no one considers Schweickart, Wolff, Horvat and his majesty Carlos Hugo I, the rightful king of Spain, to be socialists, except their supporters. Now, can you name an unambiguous socialist who thinks all these petit-bourgeois tendencies are socialist? I don't think so.


Human nature is the subject of scientific study.

You can say that another seven million times, and it still won't be true.


Perhaps scientific study is idealistic? But you didn't say anything about the historical development of markets argument? I wonder why not, huh? Maybe you just overlooked it...

What argument? The idealist notion that markets are timeless forms? There is simply no evidence for any of that.


You'll have provide some evidence that there was an "Asiatic mode of production". I don't believe there was ever any such thing.

What, then, was the mode of production in the Khmer Empire, the Qin and Han states?


It is evidence of a natural tendency toward particular attitudes and behaviors.

No, it isn't. All it proves is that a certain subset of the population in certain conditions acts in a specific manner - and even if the sample were a bit more representative, it doesn't say anything about the causes of this tendency.


(Furthermore you should be a little more grateful... ;) )

For what?

[argeiphontes]

The difference between Marxist materialism and moralism masquerading as deep insight into the functioning of society couldn't be any more clear than it is here. Thank you. For Marxists, imperialist cartels aren't "greedy entities". They represent capital that has reached a certain stage, is structured in a certain manner and has a particular relation toward foreign markets. Small shopkeeper capital doesn't have these characteristics - and states that are dominated by small shopkeeper, agricultural capital etc. do not act imperialistically - but this doesn't mean shopkeepers aren't greedy.


That's great, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that saying that imperialists vying for resources will get into conflicts is trivial.



"Ownership by many people" exists in joint-stock corporations, so these are a shining example of argeiphontean socialism. From the crown of Spain to the boardroom of Coca-Cola!


There you go again, trying to conflate things that have nothing to do with each other. If you'd like people to think that stock ownership is the same as the type of ownership proposed by market socialism, you have a tough row to hoe, and you haven't even started.



Well isn't that cute. And what kind of socialist would consider Prussian socialism to be socialistic? Why, Niekisch and Laufenberg. The problem is that no one consider Niekisch and Laufenberg to be socialist, either, except their supporters - just as no one considers Schweickart, Wolff, Horvat and his majesty Carlos Hugo I, the rightful king of Spain, to be socialists, except their supporters. Now, can you name an unambiguous socialist who thinks all these petit-bourgeois tendencies are socialist? I don't think so.


Ah, ok, so it's true by circular definition. No true socialist would say that market socialism is socialism, because no one who says that market socialism is socialism is a socialist. A circular argument, and an ad populum one at that.



You can say that another seven million times, and it still won't be true.


*yawn*



What argument? The idealist notion that markets are timeless forms? There is simply no evidence for any of that.


I didn't say they were timeless forms, I said they were around since prehistory. That's a historical argument, not an idealist one. If historical arguments are idealist, then so is historical materialism.



No, it isn't. All it proves is that a certain subset of the population in certain conditions acts in a specific manner - and even if the sample were a bit more representative, it doesn't say anything about the causes of this tendency.


It's an investigation into a subset of human nature. That a certain subset of the population in certain conditions acts in a specific manner can be due to their nature. The fact that the kids were so young suggests that it is instinctual behavior. It supports the idea that egalitarianism is natural.



For what?

The ammo, comrade.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's great, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that saying that imperialists vying for resources will get into conflicts is trivial.

Imperialist cartels don't vie for resources, they vie for markets. This sort of competition generally does not happen through military conquest - competition between different small agricultural enterprises doesn't usually result in armed intervention, for example.

So once again your idealist, schematic "explanation" ends up explaining too much, since it implies that all capitalist entities should be sending death squads after the competition.


There you go again, trying to conflate things that have nothing to do with each other. If you'd like people to think that stock ownership is the same as the type of ownership proposed by market socialism, you have a tough row to hoe, and you haven't even started.

Stock ownership implies that a limited group of people - the stockholders of a particular enterprise - has exclusive control - ownership - of a particular segment of the means of production. Market "socialism" advocates that a limited group of people - the workers of the "socialist" enterprise - be given ownership of a particular segment of the means of production - those means that the "socialist" company employs.

So what's the difference, exactly?


Ah, ok, so it's true by circular definition. No true socialist would say that market socialism is socialism, because no one who says that market socialism is socialism is a socialist. A circular argument, and an ad populum one at that.

Well, are Niekish and Laufenberg socialists?

It's the same with anarchists and "an"-caps - a word is used in a particular way by the relevant linguistic community, and the fact that an outside group uses the same term for marketing reasons doesn't change the common usage in the relevant group.


I didn't say they were timeless forms, I said they were around since prehistory. That's a historical argument, not an idealist one. If historical arguments are idealist, then so is historical materialism.

So where's the evidence?


It's an investigation into a subset of human nature. That a certain subset of the population in certain conditions acts in a specific manner can be due to their nature.

Can be. Or it could be due to other factors that we actually know exist, y'know?


The fact that the kids were so young suggests that it is instinctual behavior.

Socialization of children starts quite early. Generally, children that have developed without significant human contact don't have notions about fairness - in fact they don't have much in the way of notions at all.


The ammo, comrade.

What ammo? I'm not in the business of selling "natural" remedies to social ills. In particular, Marxists recognize the importance of the transition to a capitalist mode of production at the point when the development of the productive forces demands it, even if capitalism is "unnatural".

[argeiphontes]

Imperialist cartels don't vie for resources, they vie for markets. This sort of competition generally does not happen through military conquest - competition between different small agricultural enterprises doesn't usually result in armed intervention, for example.

So once again your idealist, schematic "explanation" ends up explaining too much, since it implies that all capitalist entities should be sending death squads after the competition.


I didn't saying anything about death squads. Nothing you said overcomes my contention that predicting conflict among imperialists is completely trivial and not worthy of the term "theory".



Stock ownership implies that a limited group of people - the stockholders of a particular enterprise - has exclusive control - ownership - of a particular segment of the means of production. Market "socialism" advocates that a limited group of people - the workers of the "socialist" enterprise - be given ownership of a particular segment of the means of production - those means that the "socialist" company employs.

So what's the difference, exactly?


Stock holders are investors, capitalists. They are not the workers of the firm, like market socialist owners are. This is a huge difference.



Well, are Niekish and Laufenberg socialists?


I have no idea who those people are. I have no intention of learning who they are. It is not important to this argument for me to know who they are.



It's the same with anarchists and "an"-caps - a word is used in a particular way by the relevant linguistic community, and the fact that an outside group uses the same term for marketing reasons doesn't change the common usage in the relevant group.


Anarchists don't say that ancaps aren't anarchists because no anarchists consider them to be anarchists. They say they aren't anarchists because they support private despotism, which is a substantive difference.



So where's the evidence?


Right now I'm reading this article (http://www.academia.edu/421206/Investigating_Market_Exchange_in_Ancient_Societies _A_Theoretical_Review). It has tons of citations to other papers too if you're interested.



Can be. Or it could be due to other factors that we actually know exist, y'know?

Socialization of children starts quite early. Generally, children that have developed without significant human contact don't have notions about fairness - in fact they don't have much in the way of notions at all.


You don't know that. You're just contradicting me. But I don't care enough to argue this point. There is something that psychology and developmental psychology are investigating, and it is human nature. Science is not idealist, however. It may have flaws, but it is an empirical investigation based on deductive reasoning.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I didn't saying anything about death squads.

Of course you didn't, it was a figure of speech. The point is that your "greedy entities will enter into [presumably military] conflicts" theory also applies to the local greengrocer and the canned tuna factory down the road. So, once again, your theory "explains" too much, or rather, it explains things (wars instigated by small canned tuna capital) that don't exist.


Nothing you said overcomes my contention that predicting conflict among imperialists is completely trivial and not worthy of the term "theory".

Apparently it wasn't trivial at all, since Kautsky and the better part (in the quantitative sense) of the SPD, and the Mensheviks in Russia, believed that they lived in an era of peaceful "super-imperialism", just as people today believe that they live in an era of peaceful "globalization".


Stock holders are investors, capitalists. They are not the workers of the firm, like market socialist owners are. This is a huge difference.

Stockholders can be workers - in fact, after the demise of the planned economies in the eastern bloc, many states privatized the economy through workers' shareholding. So, once again, what's the difference between a worker-shareholder and a market "socialist" owner ("socialist owner"! that makes as much sense as "anarchist emperor").


I have no idea who those people are. I have no intention of learning who they are. It is not important to this argument for me to know who they are.

No, it really is important. Niekisch etc. were extreme German chauvinists who considered themselves to be communists - the forerunners of "left wing" Nazis like Strasser in many regards. Of course no one on the left considers them to be socialists. But according to your criteria, they are - they called themselves socialists, and people like Strasser and Goebbels also called them socialists, so...


Anarchists don't say that ancaps aren't anarchists because no anarchists consider them to be anarchists. They say they aren't anarchists because they support private despotism, which is a substantive difference.

And market "socialists" aren't socialists because they support the private ownership of the means of production - there's the "substantive difference". Of course, "socialist" is just a set of sounds, whose association with the socialist movement is conventional - use in the relevant linguistic community defines what the word "socialist" means. And market "socialists" are excluded. Just like Arab or Christian "socialists". (That is also the reason why National "Bolsheviks" aren't Bolsheviks.)


Right now I'm reading this article (http://www.academia.edu/421206/Investigating_Market_Exchange_in_Ancient_Societies _A_Theoretical_Review). It has tons of citations to other papers too if you're interested.

Well it's hardly encouraging when the authors themselves admit that they're using an extremely broad definition of "market".


You don't know that. You're just contradicting me.

I don't know what? About cases of feral children? No, I'm familiar with the literature. Or do you mean that I don't know the causation behind the behavior exhibited by the children in the study? That I don't, but if I have to make an educated guess, I am going to invoke phenomena we know exist, not some ideological (and dangerous) construct like "human nature".


But I don't care enough to argue this point. There is something that psychology and developmental psychology are investigating, and it is human nature.

Then surely you could find peer-reviewed academic articles that talk about human nature.


Science is not idealist, however. It may have flaws, but it is an empirical investigation based on deductive reasoning.

The "hypothetical-deductive method" is an idealist mischaracterization of science.