Log in

View Full Version : My "neo-Marxist" theories.... - where to go, how to get ther



malachi151
15th June 2003, 00:10
The problem that Marxism has is that it died in the west after WWII, and in the so called Communist countries it became dogmatic. So today we have the challenge of brining Marxism into the 21st century.

The first step there is understanding the failures of the 20th century, as this site helps in doing.

Here is how I see the 20th century.

The Bolsheviks screwed Marxism over and destroyed any chance for a decent Socialist Revolution. Lenin was wrong to do what he did. Russia was not ready to be a Socialist Republic, and though Stalinist Rapid Industrialization does have its merits its no substitute for capitalism. I term most Communist countries of the 20th century Industrial Feudalisms.

All of the failures of the 20th century come from not paying attention to Marx in the first place, who planning demonstrated that communism is a product of capitalism.

Why do people keep ignoring this? You don't move from some weak economy to communism, you move from advanced capitalism to communism.

Lenin knew this, its why he was ready to go to work in Germany or France or England, but when Russia had its revolution, he stupidly got over eager and took to trying to implement revolutionary Marxism in a country that had never even experienced capitalism. Now I know that he knew that and that they discussed that problem, but they should have just left Russia alone and kept focus on Europe.

At any rate it does not matter, because as we can see the world was really not ready for Communism anyway, and its still not ready.

So, is Communism even something to try and achieve or was it all just a bunch of nonsense? If its is something to achieve, then how do we do it?

I doubt that Marx's description of Communism will even be achieved, nor do I even want it to be.

What are the real goals of Marxism?

Well, the "real goal" IMO is to ensure economic fairness and inclusion of all people in the economic system and to ensure equal opportunity for all and the end of exploitation of man by man.

So first lets look at that.

Do we need to get rid of private property to do that?

No.

I think that the idea of workers control of the means of production is a flawed idea. The basis of Marxism is ultimately democracy and democratic control of everything.

I think that democracy itself is problematic, and that the real flaw of Marxism is that its too democratic.

So, how to we reach the goals of Marxism w/o state control of production while maintaining private ownership of the means of production.

Through investment and public ownership. Instead of no one owning industry, as in state control, everyone should have private ownership, like we have now in the Stock Market.

So, my plan for this is a state run investment plan, a collective portfolio. All workers get shares in the portfolio based on hours worked. Every hour counts the same. You receive a shares in a divided paying account that is invested in a whole market stock and bond portfolio. This would be in addition to regular pay.

Once this takes place the fruits of production will be more fairly and equally shared by all. Then increased computerization and mechanization can take place in a way that will eliminate jobs. As jobs are eliminated efficiency will increase and fewer people will need to work and people can retire sooner. They will be able to retire sooner because of their investment portfolios, which will be like a form of Social Security, except based on private industry, not the state.

The end of capitalism will only happen when capitalism causes its own destruction. We can't jump ahead. The way to end capitalism is to increase mechanization and computerization, consolidate power and eliminate opportunity. Some form of Communism will only happen when all economic opportunity is eliminated in capitalism.

So the country that will first be ready to achieve communism will be America.

It is inevitable, the only choices are capitalism stagnation, relapse to feudalism, or advancement to socialism, and then communism.

The biggest problem with Socialism is that Socialism allows relapse to capitalism. Relapse is easier the weaker the capitalist economy was before it entered socialism.

This is again why America is the best candidate for Communism.

The path to Communism is though the very things that Communists now fight. The truth is that you have to go through advanced capitalism though to get there.

Who is pushing toward Communism the most today? The big Corporations.

As they consolidate power and get more and more powerful and wealthy and eliminate jobs the more they sew the seeds of Communism.

I see the next phase of Capitalism as the Industrialization of the Service Industry.

You see the Industrial Revolution was not enough to create Communism. The Service industry still exists in the same form that feudal production existed. Each worker has control over his own services. A barber, doctor, mechanic, etc. Their skills are still independent and are not industrialized like production has been. These service professions have been the cushion that keeps capitalism alive.

Now, the next stage is to Industrialize Services and put service through the same process of production.

This is happening with computerization, and will continue with computers and robotics.

We have stores with self checkout not, no clerks. See it happening, those jobs are eliminated. As that happens we take steps closer to Communism.

As the internet and computers allow fewer people to service more people communism becomes inevitable as the need for human workers decreases.

The key to communism is not focus on the worker, it is elimination of the worker.

Workers movements actually were a form of counter-revolution. As workers took control they just prolonged capitalism.

The key to all this is pushing capitalism to its breaking point not trying to thwart capitalism.

The real enemy of Communism is the Welfare State.

The Welfare State is a capitalist construction that causes capitalist stagnation. The Welfare State is what allows capitalist exploitation to continue.

The wealthy elite are dependant on the welfare system to appease the poor w/o having to provide work for them. Reducing welfare is actually a way to speed up the march towards Communism because then private industry is forced to deal with these workers.

So ultimately my view of Socialism it that it shoud lnto be state ownership of anything, but private ownership of the means of production through a state brokers portfolio. The PEOPLE though OWN the produciotn, notthrough the state, but directly, the state is just a BROKER in ownership.

A Marxist should at this point be focused on capitalist develpment and education of the masses in preparation and in giving direction for the future. Just as Trotsky said that the Marxist revolutionary should take up arms and join the miltary to be able to influence that institution, revolutionary Marxists now need to take up business and drive capitlaism. This seems contradictory, but we must have Marxists in place in the capitalsits superstructure ready to take capitlaism to the next level and eventually to socialism, from within.

I'm sorry, this post is kind of rambeling I didn't really plan it :P

I'll quit now :D

redstar2000
15th June 2003, 03:04
I doubt that Marx's description of Communism will even be achieved, nor do I even want it to be.

Then why did you call this thread "neo-Marxist"?

What are the real goals of Marxism?

Well, the "real goal" IMO is to ensure economic fairness and inclusion of all people in the economic system and to ensure equal opportunity for all and the end of exploitation of man by man.

Well, that's a big part of it, all right, but hardly the end of the matter. In fact, communist revolution and the end of class society involves changing things beyond all recognition...entering uncharted realms of human freedom.

It ain't just about the money.

I think that the idea of workers control of the means of production is a flawed idea. The basis of Marxism is ultimately democracy and democratic control of everything.

I think that democracy itself is problematic, and that the real flaw of Marxism is that its too democratic.

Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one. But here, if you are going to say things like "the idea of workers' control of production is a flawed idea" and "democracy itself is problematic"...then we expect you to provide argument and evidence for those assertions.

Instead of no one owning industry, as in state control, everyone should have private ownership, like we have now in the Stock Market.

How will that help?

The vast bulk of shares in publicly-held companies are presently in the hands of wealthy families and individuals, or in the hands of trusts and pension funds controlled by those same people. Boards of Directors almost all originate from a tiny circle of people who were born wealthy and trained to move in this rarified atmosphere.

"Democratizing" ownership while leaving all decision-making power in the hands of the present ruling class will hardly "end exploitation of man by man"...though it may spread it around a little more.

The profit motive still operates...which means bust your ass for chump change or get the boot.

So, my plan for this is a state run investment plan, a collective portfolio. All workers get shares in the portfolio based on hours worked. Every hour counts the same. You receive a shares in a divided paying account that is invested in a whole market stock and bond portfolio. This would be in addition to regular pay.

Well, how does the "state" acquire these shares? The corporations aren't going to give them away, that's for sure. Does the state pay for them through general tax revenue?

And where do the shares come from? Does the state go into the stock marker and purchase them? Do corporations issue additional shares as needed to fulfill this new demand?

And when the worker "has" this portfolio, what exactly can s/he do with it? Can s/he "cash it in" at some point and live off the proceeds?

And if you are unemployed, you don't earn shares...so how do you benefit?

A Marxist should at this point be focused on capitalist develpment and education of the masses in preparation and in giving direction for the future. Just as Trotsky said that the Marxist revolutionary should take up arms and join the miltary to be able to influence that institution, revolutionary Marxists now need to take up business and drive capitlaism. This seems contradictory, but we must have Marxists in place in the capitalsits superstructure ready to take capitlaism to the next level and eventually to socialism, from within.

I apologize if I seem unduly harsh, malachi151. I really do try not to be too hard on new members of the board.

But what you have proposed here (or copied from that site in your sig) is wacko!

You (and that guy) have bits and pieces right, here and there...but neither you nor he has evidently bothered to learn much about Marxist theory concerning the evolution of the capitalist system.

And I am frankly suspicious of your "doubts" about workers' democracy. If the working class should not run things after the revolution, who should?

The same bastards who run things now? Or a new set of "Marxist" CEO's?

No way!

:cool:

malachi151
15th June 2003, 03:56
Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one. But here, if you are going to say things like "the idea of workers' control of production is a flawed idea" and "democracy itself is problematic"...then we expect you to provide argument and evidence for those assertions.

Okay, I'm thinking this over again. The idea of the Soviets is possibly workable, the idea of Unions I don't like so much. I think the problem with Marxism in many cases is the focus on the worker to the the extent of the potential harm of industry. I would like to take focus off the worker and put it on the citizen. Allow industry to advance as capitalism does, but many industry pay citizens as it advnaces, bascially like investments do. Unions and communists often have the goal of keeping everyone employed. I see no reason for that. Let people be unemployed and still able to live.

The vast bulk of shares in publicly-held companies are presently in the hands of wealthy families and individuals, or in the hands of trusts and pension funds controlled by those same people. Boards of Directors almost all originate from a tiny circle of people who were born wealthy and trained to move in this rarified atmosphere.

Which is the entire point of my system. To move investment into the hands of the common man.

I explain it more fully in my paper:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/national...ent_program.htm (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/national_investment_program.htm)

Please read that and comment on it, I see no need to cut and paste it into here.

The profit motive still operates...which means bust your ass for chump change or get the boot.

The is making it easier for industry to give people the boot actually by giving people a second source of income which does not require employment to recieve.

Well, how does the "state" acquire these shares? The corporations aren't going to give them away, that's for sure. Does the state pay for them through general tax revenue?

And where do the shares come from? Does the state go into the stock marker and purchase them? Do corporations issue additional shares as needed to fulfill this new demand?

And when the worker "has" this portfolio, what exactly can s/he do with it? Can s/he "cash it in" at some point and live off the proceeds?

And if you are unemployed, you don't earn shares...so how do you benefit?

All explained in my paper.

But what you have proposed here (or copied from that site in your sig) is wacko!

I am the writer of the site in my sig.

Its not wacko, its workable. Going on and on about unatainable goals doesn't do much. I'm working on ideas that can actually achieve much of the goals of Marxism in a reasonable amount of time and that still untimatly exist within a capitalist system which can move more towards Marxist communism if the people so choose.

has evidently bothered to learn much about Marxist theory concerning the evolution of the capitalist system.

Do tell?

The same bastards who run things now? Or a new set of "Marxist" CEO's?

I'll take Marxist CEOs over what we have now :)

My post was kind of a jumble, presenting really two ideas mixed together.

One idea, the investment plan, is for a type of Socialism that does not require state ownership of the means of production.

The other idea is that Communism is the result of the exhaustion of Capitalism. Do you disagree with that? I seem to recall it being clear in both Marx, Engels, and Trotsky that this is the case.

Feudalism begets capitalism begets socialism begets communism. All the countries that tried to impliment Communism in the 20th century never had a developed Capitalist economy. When the Bolshevik Revolution happened it scared the developed coutnries too much and they began strong anti-Communist practise of counter-revoltuion, which is what fascism ultimately was and what WWII was about. WWII was global counter-revolution, as I explain on my site.

Emmanual Goldstein
15th June 2003, 10:41
I generally try to be friendly and non-threatening, but I think I'm going to agree with Redstar: You are a really weird guy, with equally weird opinions.

The phrase "National Investment Plan" sounds like something the World Bank would cook up. You call yourself a Neo-Marxist but you seem to think that some of the the most important parts of Marxism are counter-intuitive. You are ODD!

Actually some peices of what you said did make sense. I'm too tired to read your paper, or really respond articulately, so I'll hold off on that.

redstar2000
15th June 2003, 13:28
I think the problem with Marxism in many cases is the focus on the worker to the the extent of the potential harm of industry.

What do you mean by "the potential harm to industry"?

"Industry" is a rather abstract term in this context; who is being "harmed" exactly?

And no one except a few stone-age Leninists would argue with you about capitalism being necessary prior to socialism/communism, but how does that understanding require the participation of communists to build capitalism? That's their job, not ours.

Basic Marxist economics suggests that the capitalists have only a few long-range options, presuming that they continue to see things in terms of their own class interests: 1. A prolonged period of alternating declines and stagnations (Japan is the best current example); 2. A dramatic implosion of the economy (Argentina is the best example of this right now); or 3. A period of imperial conquest accompanied by looting (the U.S.A.).

The reasons that Marxists focus on the working class are: 1. Putting an end to capitalism is in the class interests of the working class; and 2. The working class has the power of numbers to get the job done.

In the 20th century, it was thought that communists would "lead" the working class revolution and "run the show" afterwards. We now know better.

Our role is much closer to that of, say, the Brookings Institute...we are a "think-tank" for the working class, developing and presenting "policy analyses and options" to our class with the understanding that they will decide.

A somewhat more modest role, perhaps, than "vanguard of the proletariat"...but, in the long run, much more productive.

Unions and communists often have the goal of keeping everyone employed. I see no reason for that. Let people be unemployed and still able to live.

Well, capitalism lets them "live" now...barely. Perhaps under your scheme, they would not be quite as destitute.

And we have no problem with your goal; Marx himself spoke of the necessity of reducing the time spent in "compulsory labor". Eventually, technology will certainly advance to the point where the only "work" that people do will be that which is done for its own intrinsic rewards.

But your scheme of retaining private ownership would result in a two-tier working class--like the one we have now. People who work 10 and 12 and 14 and 16 hour days (the 8-hour day is a quaint memory)...and people who will never find more than brief and temporary gainful employment.

It just doesn't make any sense to retain the forms of an economy that serve us so poorly.

The forms that "public ownership of the means of production" should take is an interesting topic in itself. But private ownership of anything more than the very smallest enterprises is a dead end.

Why prop up a corpse?

:cool: