Hegemonicretribution
23rd November 2005, 20:02
First of all, a few notes: This is written in response to the many repetitive, counter-productive and flame inducing threads that have occured unecessarily. Many of these threads have been a direct result of a basic semantics issue, and two (or more) unrelated and lines of argument have been presented, with neither group ever replying, in relation to what the other has said.
This is by no means conclusive, and does not cover issues such as implementation or sustainability in any depth, if indeed at all. If this proves successful I shall attempt a much harder "communist's guide to capitalism"
and perhaps other attempts at clearling up common misrepresentation of expressions.
Marxism
First of all, and this has been addressed many times, Marxism is not the USSR, China, Cambodia, DPRK or any other common "examples of communism's failure." Whether or not this even constituted a transitory state is heavly contested by the left itself.
The complete implication of Marxist theory has never occurred, and even the existence of an attempt is not taken for granted. The final stage, communism, is a term not applicable whilst there are still remnants of class antagonisms, or problems resulting thereof. In essence, when you talk about communism, you are talking about something that until it is realised, can only be talked about hypothetically.
Private property rights
Within this framework there is still objections based on the view that communism (even in this "utopian" form) inherently reduces rights that can be "guaranteed" under capitalism. These are of course private property rights.
A common view is that Marxism seeks a reduction, or even abolution of private property rights, this is not the case however. Marxism is not concerned with private property rights at all, just the concept of property which it does seek to abolish.
You may well ask why this is necessary, or even if a concept can be abolished. So I will provide a little background. The reason that the concept of private property needs to be abolished is because it necessitates class atagonism, something that few advocate in an ideal society. Unless equal ownership existed along with private property, there would obviously be those with more than others. If you combine this with a society, to which a drive to succeed and inherent greed are a part, then you create the conditions under which conflict is assured. Capitalism is necessary when these conditions exist, and is neither superior, nor inferior to communism in its dealings with these problems. The problem of finite resources and inherent human greed aren't addressed by communism (it simply isn't relevant) because it is a society that can only exist once the source of these problems has been erradicated. The cause of these problems is not people's rights, or lackof, regarding private property, but the very notion of private property itself.
The actual abolution (or even creation) of concepts is a more difficult issue to explain. As I stated I am not going to discuss in any depth the application of Marxist theory, however a small amount of explanation is also necessary here. First of all it is important to realise that concepts can, and have been created throughout history, and are not neccessarily absolute. J.S. Mill talked of the incomprehensibility of one society's laws and customs (prevailing ideas) to that of another, often where custom has become an end in itself and has in fact become more favourable than reason. Expression of these ideas is largely through language, and language has and will evolve to meet the needs of its society. A gradual, and sometimes revolutionary change has occurred on many occassions in the prevailing ideas and customs of any given society. Marxism seeks to steer this progression a particular way, so that concepts that are counter-productive to a sustainable and favourable society (such as private property, inequality, or other ideas arising from poor material conditions) cease to even exist, and where neccessary replace it with more benificial concepts. Benificial is a term not used subjectively, as essentially there are no classes or groups that would benifit any more from a suggested proposal.
There is still obviosly debate in general that can not only exist from this description of Marxism, but is in fact required. Practical application, maintanence and economic implications are still discussed. This was only an attempt to clraify some areas that in my observations I saw largely unaddressed. Feedback and suggestions would be appreciated and if there is an area I could add I would like to here, because I will put this as an article submission when it is finished.
Cheers Dale aka hegemonicretribution
This is by no means conclusive, and does not cover issues such as implementation or sustainability in any depth, if indeed at all. If this proves successful I shall attempt a much harder "communist's guide to capitalism"
and perhaps other attempts at clearling up common misrepresentation of expressions.
Marxism
First of all, and this has been addressed many times, Marxism is not the USSR, China, Cambodia, DPRK or any other common "examples of communism's failure." Whether or not this even constituted a transitory state is heavly contested by the left itself.
The complete implication of Marxist theory has never occurred, and even the existence of an attempt is not taken for granted. The final stage, communism, is a term not applicable whilst there are still remnants of class antagonisms, or problems resulting thereof. In essence, when you talk about communism, you are talking about something that until it is realised, can only be talked about hypothetically.
Private property rights
Within this framework there is still objections based on the view that communism (even in this "utopian" form) inherently reduces rights that can be "guaranteed" under capitalism. These are of course private property rights.
A common view is that Marxism seeks a reduction, or even abolution of private property rights, this is not the case however. Marxism is not concerned with private property rights at all, just the concept of property which it does seek to abolish.
You may well ask why this is necessary, or even if a concept can be abolished. So I will provide a little background. The reason that the concept of private property needs to be abolished is because it necessitates class atagonism, something that few advocate in an ideal society. Unless equal ownership existed along with private property, there would obviously be those with more than others. If you combine this with a society, to which a drive to succeed and inherent greed are a part, then you create the conditions under which conflict is assured. Capitalism is necessary when these conditions exist, and is neither superior, nor inferior to communism in its dealings with these problems. The problem of finite resources and inherent human greed aren't addressed by communism (it simply isn't relevant) because it is a society that can only exist once the source of these problems has been erradicated. The cause of these problems is not people's rights, or lackof, regarding private property, but the very notion of private property itself.
The actual abolution (or even creation) of concepts is a more difficult issue to explain. As I stated I am not going to discuss in any depth the application of Marxist theory, however a small amount of explanation is also necessary here. First of all it is important to realise that concepts can, and have been created throughout history, and are not neccessarily absolute. J.S. Mill talked of the incomprehensibility of one society's laws and customs (prevailing ideas) to that of another, often where custom has become an end in itself and has in fact become more favourable than reason. Expression of these ideas is largely through language, and language has and will evolve to meet the needs of its society. A gradual, and sometimes revolutionary change has occurred on many occassions in the prevailing ideas and customs of any given society. Marxism seeks to steer this progression a particular way, so that concepts that are counter-productive to a sustainable and favourable society (such as private property, inequality, or other ideas arising from poor material conditions) cease to even exist, and where neccessary replace it with more benificial concepts. Benificial is a term not used subjectively, as essentially there are no classes or groups that would benifit any more from a suggested proposal.
There is still obviosly debate in general that can not only exist from this description of Marxism, but is in fact required. Practical application, maintanence and economic implications are still discussed. This was only an attempt to clraify some areas that in my observations I saw largely unaddressed. Feedback and suggestions would be appreciated and if there is an area I could add I would like to here, because I will put this as an article submission when it is finished.
Cheers Dale aka hegemonicretribution