I think I may have been wrong about Marx.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Man, I haven't been on this site in a while.

My politics have been evolving a bit in the last few weeks. Of course, my politics are constantly evolving, as I learn new things about life and the world around me; so this isn't exactly suprising. However, as some of you may or may not know, I wasn't exactly the biggest fan of Karl Marx when I was around here. I made quite a few crass comments about him, but I didn't exactly have much knowledge of him, other than he was supposedly one of the enemies of anarchism, which I subscribe to.

Well, I've talked to a few people more knowledgable than myself on this subject since I've been gone, and have read a number of things on Marx, and my opinion of him is changing. I used to think that he was a vulgar apologist for coercive power, but he was actually pretty libertarian in nature, contrary to what I believed. More importantly, he essentially believed in what I believe in: workers taking care of their own affairs. What I thought he believed in was an authoritarian elite who controlled the affairs of people. We don't agree on everything, but I can at least respect him, and count him as a friend of labor, even if authoritarian thugs ruined his memory after he died.

As an Individualist, I pride myself on not getting bogged down in dogmatic drivel, and I also value independent, critical thought. Still, however, I must also take responsibility when I get something incorrect. My view on Marx was distorted by capitalists, anarchists like myself, and MLMists who I believe, after what I've learned, did not honor his memory. Still, none of that is any excuse to be willfully ignorant and not do my own research.

Anyway, in closing, I think this is worth reading. It was written by another Individualist, Benjamin Tucker, on Marx's death. Certainly, I obviously don't agree with all of what Marx said, in fact I have a few serious objections, but I don't think he was "the enemy". Anyway, just felt like checking in, hope everyone on the board is doing fine.

http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/karl-marx-as-friend-and-foe

[spartan]

Good to see that you are back and that your politics have, and still are, evolving.

I agree with most of what you are saying, and i also firmly believe that we cant take the authoritarian example, of their misinterpretation of Marxism, as the basis for what actual Marxism was, is and should be (Which in reality had nothing to do with what guys like Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc were advocating and implementing).

The real struggle for the modern left will be in trying to reclaim Marx and Marxism from the authoritarians, and rehabilitate its image to the majority of workers, which has been tarnished because of the authoritarian hijacking of it and the bad things that the authoritarians did in its name (Most of which was contrary to what actual Marxism was and advocated).

[apathy maybe]

Hehe. I too used to think that Marx was "the enemy". But I've since decided that Marx is no more "the enemy" then Adam Smith. Both have problems (Adam Smith arguably many more), but both also advanced the work of understanding human history, economics and sociology.

Indeed, while I still disagree with Marxian class analysis, and I still think that Marx's historical materialism has problems, I find that both are useful in their way, and often can be used to approximate reality (as it were).
You might look at Newton's work as compared to Einstein. Newton came bloody close for what could be observed at the time, and his work is still being used today. Of course, we haven't yet had an "Einstein" as it were that describes history, economics and sociology as grandly as Marx. (Or perhaps we have, and I, not being a really sociologist (having done political science instead), just haven't noticed. Umm?)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I've since decided that Marx is no more "the enemy" then Adam Smith. Both have problems (Adam Smith arguably many more), but both also advanced the work of understanding human history, economics and sociology.

Adam Smith isn't the enemy? He's comparable to Marx? I understand that you aren't a marxist and all, but Adam Smith is the fucking father of free-market capitalism! He's the enemy. It's the direct opposite of what leftists advocate. :confused:

Perhaps you'll compare Engels and Milton Friedman next.

I don't understand how you can compare a genius of the left to a free market capitalist.

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

I guess you haven't read anything by Smith then?

Smith is no more a capitalist (by today's standards) then Marx. While he did support a free market (two things, there have been markets around for a lot longer then capitalism and you could hardly call the system we have today a "free market" system),
his concept of an "invisible hand" is based on a premise that consumers have a perfect knowledge about each good on the market (something obviously false, and something which is fought against by capitalists around the world),
he argued against monopolies (something which many capitalists today have no problem with),
and he was against interest, rent and for the labour theory of value (well, I think. His writing is hard to read, and I can't actually find anything to support these claims)

Anyway, I think that attempting to explain a system is not something that we should condemn someone for.

Some random quotes from Wikipedia

However, it is less well known that Smith also concluded that excessive division of labor would lead man to his most ignorant state possible.

Both Modern economics and, separately, Marxian economics owe significantly to classical economics.
And a link to The Wealth of Nations http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

[Os Cangaceiros]

Adam Smith isn't the enemy? He's comparable to Marx? I understand that you aren't a marxist and all, but Adam Smith is the fucking father of free-market capitalism! He's the enemy. It's the direct opposite of what leftists advocate. :confused:

Perhaps you'll compare Engels and Milton Friedman next.

I don't understand how you can compare a genius of the left to a free market capitalist.

-Alex

You may be a little to harsh on Smith.

The fact is, when Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, he wasn't a prizefighter for either capitalism or socialism, as many economists in the future would be. He was simply laying out ideas that he had.

In fact, it was his mention of a labor theory of value that influenced David Ricardo's own labor theory, and, more importantly, the concept that wages and profits have an inverse relationship, which at that time had obvious revolutionary implications. THIS, in turn, profoundly influenced Marx, and was key in developing Marxist theory (by Engel's own admission). If it wasn't for "Ricardoan socialism", we might not even have Marxism.

[careyprice31]

Adam Smith certainly was an enemy. Regardless of what today's capitalists do today compared with the 18th century Smith, he was still an advocator of Capitalism, plus, he believed in lassez- faire which is a "hands off" policy keep hands off big business and so on. It has been proven that lassez faire does much more harm to the regular common people (and their classes they belong to) such as university students and the proletariat than good.

I seriously do not see how people can actually defend this guy.

[Dean]

Adam Smith certainly was an enemy. Regardless of what today's capitalists do today compared with the 18th century Smith, he was still an advocator of Capitalism, plus, he believed in lassez- faire which is a "hands off" policy keep hands off big business and so on. It has been proven that lassez faire does much more harm to the regular common people (and their classes they belong to) such as university students and the proletariat than good.

I seriously do not see how people can actually defend this guy.

It's worth noting that he advocated a strong distrust of the elites and an "invisible hand" (which didn't work, but you don't see many capitalists giving two shits about that nowadays).

[careyprice31]

It's worth noting that he advocated a strong distrust of the elites and an "invisible hand" (which didn't work, but you don't see many capitalists giving two shits about that nowadays).

How contradictory. He distrusted elites but he wanted laissez faire? to let them alone?

wtf?

[Zurdito]

Adam Smith wrote at a time when capitalism was progressive.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Adam Smith certainly was an enemy. Regardless of what today's capitalists do today compared with the 18th century Smith, he was still an advocator of Capitalism, plus, he believed in lassez- faire which is a "hands off" policy keep hands off big business and so on. It has been proven that lassez faire does much more harm to the regular common people (and their classes they belong to) such as university students and the proletariat than good.

I seriously do not see how people can actually defend this guy.

No one is really "defending" him. To defend him would mean to defend his ideas and suggestions, which no one is doing.

What I'm saying, and what others are saying, is you have to put what he said in context with the time period he lived in. Capitalism and its excesses weren't fully known at the time; hell, industrial capitalism didn't even exist. Smith had no knowledge of where his ideas would lead at the time. You say that laissez faire has been proven to be harmful to the working class; well, this was far, far from proven in Smith's time. Old social orders were collapsing, and the future was up for grabs.

Defending his ideas isn't correct, in my opinion, but neither is putting him on a level alongside Milton Friedman.

[careyprice31]

No one is really "defending" him. To defend him would mean to defend his ideas and suggestions, which no one is doing.

What I'm saying, and what others are saying, is you have to put what he said in context with the time period he lived in. Capitalism and its excesses weren't fully known at the time; hell, industrial capitalism didn't even exist. Smith had no knowledge of where his ideas would lead at the time. You say that laissez faire has been proven to be harmful to the working class; well, this was far, far from proven in Smith's time. Old social orders were collapsing, and the future was up for grabs.

Defending his ideas isn't correct, in my opinion, but neither is putting him on a level alongside Milton Friedman.

The industrial revolution began in the 18th century when adam smith lived. He would have had some experience of industrial capitalism of the time.

Capitalism and imperialism were fully known at that time. It was the 17 and 1800; the world much of it had emerged from feudalism and had been introduced to capitalism and colonialism and imperialism for hundreds of years by then. And the damage it would cause was fully known; hell they knew about the exploitation of miners in forcing them to work in unsafe conditions causing silicosis and stuff way back in like the 1400's.

I havent got words for these orders you speak of, cant remember the names of the different time periods, but the time period where the countries such as france and the us went through their revolutions and settled down. Then there was the period after that.

I have not studied it in great detail; my study speciality is the history of Russia. But I do know something about it.

god im so lacking in terminology its unbelievable.

I know about them but when it comes to remembering the correct names......im terrible.

But Capitalism was in force by adam smith's time.....and Karl Marx grew up during the industrial revolution in the 1800's.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The industrial revolution began in the 18th century when adam smith lived. He would have had some experience of industrial capitalism of the time.

Capitalism and imperialism were fully known at that time. It was the 17 and 1800; the world much of it had emerged from feudalism and had been introduced to capitalism and colonialism and imperialism for hundreds of years by then. And the damage it would cause was fully known; hell they knew about the exploitation of miners in forcing them to work in unsafe conditions causing silicosis and stuff way back in like the 1400's.

I havent got words for these orders you speak of, cant remember the names of the different time periods, but the time period where the countries such as france and the us went through their revolutions and settled down. Then there was the period after that.

I have not studied it in great detail; my study speciality is the history of Russia. But I do know something about it.

god im so lacking in terminology its unbelievable.

I know about them but when it comes to remembering the correct names......im terrible.

But Capitalism was in force by adam smith's time.....and Karl Marx grew up during the industrial revolution in the 1800's.

The economy of the state in the 18th century was one of protectionist policies, tarriffs, and the like. Certainly nothing whatsoever like Smith was proposing, although, contrary to popular belief, Smith did see a role in government regulation in regards to his laissez faire beliefs. Classical liberalism does not directly correlate to modern day right wing "libertarianism".

And industrial capitalism hadn't hit it's stride yet, although the seeds were definitely planted when Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations.

Anyway, this doesn't terribly interest me. All I'm going to say is that while Smith was, in fact, wrong, to insinuate that he was a cold blooded, heartless apologist for capitalist oppression is, I believe, also erroneous.

[KC]

Adam Smith isn't the enemy? He's comparable to Marx? I understand that you aren't a marxist and all, but Adam Smith is the fucking father of free-market capitalism!

Actually, the Physiocrats were the father of "free market" (laissez-faire) capitalism.


He's the enemy. It's the direct opposite of what leftists advocate.

Smith's analysis of capitalist society was the product of the development of capitalist society and the need to construct a bourgeois form of economics; he didn't just come with this stuff itself in a vacuum.




Smith is no more a capitalist (by today's standards) then Marx. While he did support a free market (two things, there have been markets around for a lot longer then capitalism and you could hardly call the system we have today a "free market" system),
his concept of an "invisible hand" is based on a premise that consumers have a perfect knowledge about each good on the market (something obviously false, and something which is fought against by capitalists around the world),
he argued against monopolies (something which many capitalists today have no problem with),
and he was against interest, rent and for the labour theory of value (well, I think. His writing is hard to read, and I can't actually find anything to support these claims)

He also supported taxes to support social services that would be ineffective if privatized (fire stations comes to mind for some reason).

"Adam Smith held that in a primitive society, the amount of labor put into producing a good determined its exchange value, with exchange value meaning in this case the amount of labor a good can purchase. However, according to Smith, in a more advanced society the market price is no longer proportional to labor cost since the value of the good now includes compensation for the owner of the means of production: "The whole produce of labour does not always belong to the labourer. He must in most cases share it with the owner of the stock which employs him.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_value#The_theory.E2.80.99s_develo pment


Adam Smith certainly was an enemy. Regardless of what today's capitalists do today compared with the 18th century Smith, he was still an advocator of Capitalism, plus, he believed in lassez- faire which is a "hands off" policy keep hands off big business and so on. It has been proven that lassez faire does much more harm to the regular common people (and their classes they belong to) such as university students and the proletariat than good.

Actually, he didn't defend laissez-faire. He criticized it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Adam Smith wrote at a time when capitalism was progressive.

Precisely.

[Bilan]

Man, I haven't been on this site in a while.

My politics have been evolving a bit in the last few weeks. Of course, my politics are constantly evolving, as I learn new things about life and the world around me; so this isn't exactly suprising. However, as some of you may or may not know, I wasn't exactly the biggest fan of Karl Marx when I was around here.....
...
...
...

http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/karl-marx-as-friend-and-foe

Have you read any of Marx's works yet?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Have you read any of Marx's works yet?

I've read the Communist Manifesto.

I have a "working knowledge" of Kapital, but admittedly haven't read all of it. I've read bits and pieces here and there, but never cover to cover.

Why, do you think there is something important of his that I should read? I only ask because I'm always interested in reading insightful political theory, regardless of who it comes from. The Manifesto actually sits in between The Wealth of Nations and Mutualist Political Economy on my bookshelf at the moment. I'm reading Anarchism and other Essays at the moment, though.

[RedKnight]

Agora77, are you familiar with autonomism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism It is influenced to a degree by marxism.

[Dean]

I've read the Communist Manifesto.

I have a "working knowledge" of Kapital, but admittedly haven't read all of it. I've read bits and pieces here and there, but never cover to cover.

Why, do you think there is something important of his that I should read? I only ask because I'm always interested in reading insightful political theory, regardless of who it comes from. The Manifesto actually sits in between The Wealth of Nations and Mutualist Political Economy on my bookshelf at the moment. I'm reading Anarchism and other Essays at the moment, though.

"The principles of communism" is a very good starter.

[Joby]

Adam Smith wrote at a time when capitalism was progressive.

Thank's for posting this, I was about to.

Wasn't it Marx himself who said that, in essnce, Capitalism has to come first?

[Joby]

Oh, by the way, Marx wasn't that important.

Yes, a lot of people read his books. Wow. And yet nobody has been able to properly build off of them.

Being a "Marxist" is almost as retarded as being a "Christian." You just take what some guy from a different time said about how we should opertate society, and break off into your own preffered "ism." Throwing around some economic works from the mid-19th Century wouldn't be nearly as good for getting people to think about how society works as having them read Charles Dickens, for example.

I'm not saying Marx wasn't important, just as it would be a lie to say Jesus wasn't very important. But come on, it's been 160 years and we still have people debating points in his books. It's like Rabbi's debating what "God really meant" in the Talmud. It's ridiculous. Read his books, and move on.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I don't really like referring to myself as a marxist, despite agreeing with him on a lot. I just never want to name myself after an individual person, I don't see the point. It isn't marx that counts, it's his ideas.

I like calling myself a direct democrat, or public owner-ist.

Still, the comparison of marxists to christians isn't appropriate, for all the semantic similarities marxists are not in any way religious. Marx is never held as infallible, or hero-worshipped. You cannot quote from Marx as evidence for a point you make, which a christian can do with scripture. There's no submissive bowing or prayer or evangelism or any of that shit, basically.

-Alex

[Chicano Shamrock]

I've read the Communist Manifesto.

I have a "working knowledge" of Kapital, but admittedly haven't read all of it. I've read bits and pieces here and there, but never cover to cover.


The communist manifesto is nice and dandy but really doesn't say too much. And what it does say is a lot of bullshit that sounds nice but doesn't work. For god's sake he wants to build a government-less society by building a super government.

[Bilan]

I've read the Communist Manifesto.

I have a "working knowledge" of Kapital, but admittedly haven't read all of it. I've read bits and pieces here and there, but never cover to cover.

Why, do you think there is something important of his that I should read? I only ask because I'm always interested in reading insightful political theory, regardless of who it comes from. The Manifesto actually sits in between The Wealth of Nations and Mutualist Political Economy on my bookshelf at the moment. I'm reading Anarchism and other Essays at the moment, though.

I think alot of what Marx wrote is really important.
Personally, I hated the Communist Manifesto, and found it painful.
Now days, I've read alot more Marx.
Emma Goldman (Which is the anarchism and other essays I assume you're refering too) is where I started on revolutionary politics. ;)

As for Marx,

- Wage, Labour and Capital

Reasonable short, but excellent text. What its about is self evident.

- on the Paris Commune

Has good ideas on the role of the state, as well as giving a greater understanding of the Paris Commune of 1871.

- The Poverty of Philosophy

Marx's ownage of Proudhon.
I'm currently reading this, and it's so far been fantastic.

"In a future society, in which class antagonisms will have ceased, in which there will no longer be any classes, use will no longer be determined by the minimum time of production; but the time of production devoted to different articles will be determined by the degree of their social utility." - The Poverty of Philosophy.

As for non-Marx texts,
I reccomend things from the Situationist Internationle, such as On the poverty of Student Life, Society of the Spectacle, etc.

Also, check out "BOP secrets' (in my signature) and check out some of the articles in there.

- Workers Councils.

Again, self explanitory, but very good text on council communism, and alot more.

- Anything by Kropotkin or Malatesta.