"What's Left of Marx?"

This is Ronald Suny of the University of Michigan:

Office hours: Professor's column, What's left of Marx?, by Ronald Suny, Michigan Daily: When I was a young professor..., a senior professor of religion came into my modest office ... and asked me, "Is it true that you are a Marxist?" In those days, confident in my radicalism, I assured him I was. "How quaint!" he said. "You know," he continued, "you on the Left believe in the goodness of man and therefore are always disappointed, while we who believe in Original Sin expect the worst and are never disappointed by what happens."

For the Left, in so far as a Left actually exists in the United States, ... certainly the next few decades were ones of disappointment, even disenchantment. The last spasm of hope for many of us came with Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the ex-Soviet Union, who led an experiment in radical reform ... that ended only too quickly in the catastrophic collapse, not only of Soviet Communism, but of any real "third way" alternatives to the triumph of neoliberal economics and eventually neoconservative politics.

The end of Communism and the Soviet empire ... appeared to confirm the perversity of Marxism as political practice and as a view of history. The principal critical analysis of capitalism and imperialism, the major opponent of Western capitalism ..., Marxism was swept from the field, driven underground. Or at least driven into the academy, the universities, where it is occasionally taught to freshmen. In the absence of significant secular revolutionary or reformist alternatives to the "new world order" of Western capitalism and democracy, unanticipated new forces, much more conservative and religious, appeared, first in Iran in the revolution of the ayatollahs in 1979, in the Muslim Brotherhood movements in Egypt and elsewhere, in the mujaheddin resistance to the radical Islamic movements of the present. A Green Menace replaced the Red!

People still ask me, on occasion, "Are you a Marxist?" My answer now is different. "We're not allowed to tell."

When the Soviet Union set itself up as the guardian of the faith, Marxism and socialism were identified ... as being consonant with the practices and achievements of the USSR. Stalin defanged Marx, eliminated the critical power of Marxism and turned it into a legitimizing ideology. Russia was conceivably the worst place to attempt to build the kind of socialism that Marx envisioned coming after capitalism had exhausted all its potential. This is a country that is still today trying to get capitalism right. Actually, many historians claim, this is a country that could not get feudalism right. My own sense is that Marx would have been the most fervent critic, from the Left, of the disempowering of the working class and the exploitative character of the Soviet regime... He would have been appalled...

In my view, what is most important in Marx are his questions, critiques, his values and his moral vision - all part of a legacy that remains a powerful specter that still haunts global capitalism and (what Marxists call) bourgeois democracy at the beginning of the 21st century. Those values continue to inspire people in many parts of the world who without them would be even more disempowered before the onslaught of global capitalism and American hegemony.

For Marx, history did not end with capitalism. He did not legitimize the present as the best of all possible worlds, even as he appreciated the power and productivity of capitalism. Socialists aimed to subvert and supercede bourgeois society in the interest of a more egalitarian, socially just and democratic form of society. This vision certainly contains within it a utopia, as does any politics except conservative acceptance of the way the world exists at the moment. That utopia - that different and better future which the overwhelming one-dimensionality of current political imagination makes appear ridiculous, retains enormous power as an immanent critique of the limits, mystifications, apologetics, and deceptions of bourgeois democracy and market capitalism. Utopia, in other words, might be thought of, not in the usual sense of an impossible dream, but rather a far off goal toward which one directs one's politics, even if the ultimate goal might not be reached. ...

Socialism was, and remains, an alternative imaginary modernity and not an alternative to modernity. It might be thought of today as a classic "empty signifier," a concept without specific content, the content to be filled by actual practices within the ongoing movement of history. From its origins, socialism has been a movement with the goal of extending the power of ordinary people, that is, of extending as far as possible the limits of democracy - not only in the realm of politics (which was the goal of democratic radicals and left liberals), but also in the economy as well. Because the power implicit in property and wealth, they believe, would inevitably distort and corrupt the democratic political sphere, socialists have searched for mechanisms of social control over or social ownership of the means of production. In addition, socialism - in contrast to liberalism but closer to some forms of conservatism, religion and nationalism - seeks a restoration of social solidarity fractured by the individualizing effects of competitive market relations. That remains their utopia, a telos for their politics.

Marx presents a radical critique of the injustices that derive from private property in the means of production, and the power such possession implies over all kinds of economic and political decisions. He argues in favor of establishing real democracy in place of bourgeois democracy, which Marx from his earliest writing understood to be a colossal fraud. Great wealth and property when unchecked by countervailing institutions, their power justified by the dominant discourses, inevitably distort democratic choices. If one imagined a perfect bourgeois democracy, it would be one in which the rich could influence elections by spending large sums of money, buy private media and use it to create or limit popular opinion; where the wealthier members of society had easier access to courts and lawyers than poor people, and money spent in elections would be equated with freedom of speech. Such a perfect bourgeois democracy, of course, would be viewed by its pundits and preachers not as serving only the rich and powerful but by the talking classes as well as the bulk of the population as working in the interests of the whole people for the common good.

What Marx's message has lost, at least for the time being, is the means to make the changes that its system of values and preferences would maintain is so necessary for human well-being... There is no proletariat anymore, ... there is no coherent material force positioned as the gravedigger of and alternative to capitalism. That modernist belief in a unified, conscious class that embodies progress has had to give way to a greater appreciation of the scattered, disjointed elements of dissent and refusal - working people, the Latin American Left, environmentalists, those who struggle for their identity and dignity and engage in a day-by-day struggle which often fails to constrain the seemingly inevitable expansion of global capitalism.

At its best moments, from its origins to its present dismal state, the struggle for socialism has been fundamentally about a struggle for democracy - the extension of empowerment to the greatest number of people. The commitment to democracy, however, was repeatedly compromised by political expediencies, the imperatives of gaining and holding state power, and the usurpation of socialism's aspirations by self-serving politicians. Yet democracy, greater social justice, the promotion of equality and popular control over the economic as well as the political sphere remain the program of those who would take Marx seriously and on his own terms.

Democracy, however, as Americans must now be most acutely aware, does not come easily and cannot be exported on the tips of bayonets. Its gains even in the most stable of polities can be easily reversed. The United States, simultaneously one of the most progressive and the most reactionary countries on the globe, bestrides the world like a colossus that stands in the way of any movement or idea that would curb its dominance, and for the current administration (those I refer to as the Busheviks), that dominance entails the freest of free market economics and the greatest freedom for the U.S. to have its way in the world.

So what is left of Marxism? It is still about expanding democracy, which is still so fragile in much of the world. The utopian aspect of thinking beyond the present - for all of the dangers associated with attempting to impose utopias - at least arms us with a way to think critically about what needs to be changed. Marx makes us think about alternatives, even when his own theory fails any longer to give us either a clear vision of that alternative or a means to achieve it. Granted, this might not be enough... Without vision though, politics circles endlessly around its present conceptions.

In the absence at the moment of a material force to assist us in a progressive direction, Marx's historicity helps us out: change happens, perhaps not in determined, predictable ways as he might have thought. But it happens, and humans still make their own history even if not under circumstances chosen by themselves. ...

Comments

[PeterRabid]

Marxism: an indispensable framework for historical analysis and for understanding current political issues.
Up to now, a poor guide book for running a government. But, should we give up hope? Workers of the world, unite !!

[paine]

aweful nonsense

ecce todays american marx and his academic benefactors

comes forth comrade Suny with a weather report

"there is no proletariat anymore"

we have no proles ( globally speaking)
only helter skelter refusing fragments ....
fighting fecklessly
the liberty to gain
so beloved by the cleo-zeit .....

the american way of progress

socialism turns out
to really be all about democracy max
(seasoned with a a real heavy dash
of equality and fairness )

commissar suny here ---like his pop tart
"america's most wanted " action toy marx spectre ----
" makes us think about alternatives"

[evagrius]

Marxism is no guide to the future but no one can examine contemporary society and economics without being influenced by it.

The description of the perfect bourgeois democracy was excellent.

Do we have one now in the U.S.?

[Hafiz]

I know this is childish but GO BLUE!

[monboddo]

This is just silly. Suny acknowledges in passing that some of the worst crimes of the twentieth century were committed by governments claiming the mantle of Marx, he recognizes that the term "proletariat" is no longer conceptually useful, he admits that Marxism as a variety of historical prediction was flat-out wrong, he completely ignores the visions of dictatorship and apocalyptic revolution that lie at the heart of Marxism--and then he still asks what we can take from Marx? The answer he comes up with -- some variety of "strong democracy" and "socialism" -- just isn't Marxism. After reading this essay, the only conclusion is that there is nothing left of Marx, except for the dead his ideas left behind.

[Cyrille]

So? Bush claims the mantles of freedom and compassion...

Stalin and Mao did claim the mantle of Marx, but Marx would have begged to disagree.

[RW]

Why did Communism fail? Good ideology, wrong species. - E.O. Wilson

[paine]

"the term "proletariat" is no longer conceptually useful"

really ???

" Marxism as a variety of historical prediction "
the analysis of class dynamics
is quite another thing from forecasting
the time table path of political conditions

is this marxism for u ???

the political forecast for september 13th 2007
"the state of society will be ....
partly class struggle "

[paine]

"he ( suny)completely ignores the visions of dictatorship and apocalyptic revolution that lie at the heart of Marxism"

yes he does ... its like describing the romance at the heart of the novel lolita
without mentioning the age of the beloved

[robertdfeinman]

We have a long history of social critics going back to Socrates. Most of them have been insightful. It is much easier to discover what the faults with society are than to devise a way to correct them.

Some of these social critics turn to proscriptive writing. This then become a variety of Utopianism. I like to cite Henry George, because their aren't too many Geogists around to dispute the details, so I can concentrate on my point. Utopians all see a single overriding cause for our problems and thus they have a single solution. For George it was taxation on land.

Most recently the schools have been (as the author hinted) between those who see people as fundamentally altruistic and communal and those who see people as fundamentally selfish.

I'll go out on my dystopian limb and say that the overriding characteristics of human nature is "might makes right" or in another common formulation "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The way to counter this is through democratic institutions. What the human race has yet to figure out, however, is how to get democratic institutions back on track when they are hijacked. Those in political power also have police power. Short of armed conflict there seems to be no way to regain democratic control once it has been perverted.

Even when democracy is functioning it still suffers from the "tyranny of the majority". A random example: the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII. Is it good enough to say that cooler heads prevail eventually? What about all the injustice that was done at the time?

The author makes Marxism into what he wishes it to be, just as many religious leaders chose to highlight the parts of the dogma that they find fits their personal objectives. Does it say in some religious book to go out and smite your enemies, is this an unpleasant remark when trying to make an accommodation with these same people? No problem, just ignore that part.

I've been carrying out a small campaign on the power of the plutocracy in the US recently. First, many people don't believe me, second many people refuse to look at the data, and third, even if they do, how do we go about restoring political equity?

I don't know how to overcome the defects in democracy and I haven't heard any workable suggestions yet. Perhaps if I keep at it long enough a smart person will emerge with some new ideas.

[calmo]

Good for you and that campaign rdf...here's hoping you are listening to those people who don't believe you...so you can solve that impasse and maybe reach a solution to that implementation of "restoring political equity".

Well, I was curious about the (then young, but now presumably, old and wise) professor, who I think is still pretty jaunty and needed to know if he was a political economist.
Close: Social and Political Historian, and Oh my...what a fine set of dental work he carries. [Check out the original article and see if that photo wasn't a Colgate reject.]
Wazat an engaging intro with the senior [in academic circles, rank is everything, no?] professor of religion came into my modest [ok, and the deification of poverty] office or just a frivolous tickle? [Should he have carried the coupling of religion and ideology further...are those real teeth in his head or just laughing gear?]
What are the chances of getting a good read (something beyond entertainment) from Professor Suny on Marx or the derivative, Marxism, the ideology, from any scholar embedded so comfortably in what some (innocents) refer to as a 'capitalist' system?
Slim, I'd say.

[Julio]

paine says...
the political forecast for september 13th 2007
"the state of society will be ....
partly class struggle "

paine says...
"he ( suny)completely ignores the visions of dictatorship and apocalyptic revolution that lie at the heart of Marxism"

yes he does ... its like describing the romance at the heart of the novel lolita
without mentioning the age of the beloved

Paine, you've outdone yourself today. Loved the writing.

[lonesome moderate]

I've always thought of Marx as the ultimate example of what can happen to a brilliant economist who gets too far into politics. Paul Krugman, beware.

[john c. halasz]

"What's left of Marx?" Well, paine, for one.

How about falling rate of profit = growing financialization of the economy = colonization of the future?

[paine]

calmo
nice paddle wheel ride

rf

the usual earnest expo

thanks to u both

as a red hat noodle head
i'll
take my ( implied )
licking off the air

[paine]

julio and hal 90000
thanxs guys
i need a lollipop or two
cherry

[paine]

"How about falling rate of profit = growing financialization of the economy = colonization of the future?"
and visa versa

[richard]

Marx still has the power to inspire:

"Capitalism reduces all qualities to quantities".

[btgraff]

marxism was a failure because it assumed that man was inherantly good and had been corrupted - whereas anyone with experience with infants knows that people start off inherantly selfish with no real conception of the needs of others, and we undergo a process of socialisation.

barring that, there may be a day when marxism can form the basis of a society - look no farther than "star trek" as an example of this (no capitalism in star trek - corporations cease to exist) it requires that technology (robots etc.) to replace all of the jobs that no-one wants, and a level of prosperity so that people have a choice between permanent leisure or doing something meaningful with their lives - working then becomes for a sense of personal fulfillment rather than out of necessity.

http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html

http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/Econ_Star_trek_auth_note.html

[Jim Harrison]

I'm not a Marxist any more than I'm a Christian, but I don't dismiss thinking conducted under the aegis of either ideology; for if these takes on the world were errors, they were powerful errors. As my Dad used to say, wherever you are, you're someplace. Nobody begins with a blank sheet of paper in front of them, which is a good thing since there would be no inquiry at all without motives and presuppositions.

At the very least Marxism had the virtue of asking the question "for whom?" when it interrogated history; and if it was unrealistic in assuming that a utopian future was in prospect, at least it didn't assume, as many classic liberals seem to do, that it has already arrived with the free market and cheap hamburgers.

[S Brennan]

monboddo,

I recalling "that some of the worst crimes of the twentieth century were committed by governments claiming the mantle of Marx"

You should be fair, "the worst crimes of the [19th &] twentieth century were committed by governments claiming the mantle of [capitalism].

I'm all for trashing the legacy of Stalin, but a Kibbutz is communism in practice...every kibbutz member I have ever met has been an outstanding individual, far more capable and caring than any other identifiable group I could name.

I'm not Jewish, but I am proud to know two Jews who were raised this way. They know honor and they know loyalty, know these two things and you will never be without a soul.

[BJ Feng]

I believe Communism is a Platonic model of a perfect society. It's an imaginary ideal that can never be achieved. The Greeks learned early on that Plato's perfect spheres and perfect mathematical expressions could never be attained here on earth. The bad comes when humans try to force perfection when it is not possible.

Capitalism is imperfect, but it is attainable and the best working system we have.

[nihil obstet]

rdf, I appreciate your analysis, but I think this indicates a problem of approach that makes political and economic discussions difficult: The author makes Marxism into what he wishes it to be, just as many religious leaders chose to highlight the parts of the dogma that they find fits their personal objectives.

Which of these are similar? "Marxism", "Christianity", "Hinduism", "Keynesian", "Copernican", "Democrat", "Republican" ? If "Marxism" is similar to the religious terms, then indeed it's a valid criticism of adherents who reject any part of the truth as revealed in the master's writings. Otherwise, it's just baiting. Copernicus was wrong about a lot of how he thought the universe works, but that doesn't mean I think the sun revolves around the earth. I belong to a political party, but there are numerous places where I disagree with the party's saints, who lived over a hundred years ago. Marx may have done some Utopian writing, but I tend to distrust the basis of using "Marxism" like "Islamo-fascism" to dismiss a foreign religion. I don't think you do that totally, but then I don't quite understand why you're plugging into the "Marxism is a religion whose adherents choose what they want" approach, rather than the "Marxism is an approach based on observations and principles of an acute observer from the 19th century, some of which remain fruitful and some of which don't" (or alternatively if you wish "some of which remain seductive despite their inaccuracy").

[BJ Feng]

Brennan I disagree. Communism has killed far more people, than capitalism. What's sad is that those people killed never even had a chance to be anything greater than what communism dictated. At least in early capitalism, we had stories of poor souls who rose to greatness and attained vast amounts of wealth. The only communists who did this were the handful of super-elites. 20-50 million alone died in Mao's Great Leap Forward where he declared that communism was at hand.

And lets not forget the oppression which goes on even today in North Korea and Cuba among others. To those who say we are being similarly oppressed by capitalism, I laugh. If living in America is oppression, then I want to be oppressed, and millions try to enter this country in the hopes that they too, will be oppressed by capitalism.

[Orwell is dead]

The more telling story is not if Marx failed, its why Marx's failure is so much more widely discussed than say: Freud, Weber, Newton, Pasteur, etc etc.

Even the brilliant get more wrong than right. It's how that message is packaged that tells the story.

Was Marx more wrong than Smith?

There is always a peculiar problem with always relying on "great men" and not great ideas. It is much easier to discount inconvenient ideas from discredited men. It's also much easier to accept convenient falsehoods from great men.

But hey what do I know, I think economics is the science of bullshit.

[Bruce Wilder]

The reality of Karl Marx, journalist, is quite a contrast to the Marx, theoretical father of Marxism. His analyses of, say, the American Civil War, or the events surrounding the Paris Commune, are models of clear prose and the expression of analytical insight in the reporting of contemporary events.

The radicalism of Communism was a product of a Hegelian dialetic, but not the material dialectic Marx foresaw -- Communism was formed in the frustration of progressives with stubborn Reaction. It was the failure of the revolutions of 1848, and the triumph of stupid Reactionary feudalism, centuries past its sell-by-date, which created the Communist revolutionary movement. In the Empires of the Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs and Romanovs, liberal reformism was frustrated, neutered, and popular politics isolated in impotent assemblies and protests. With the lid clamped on tightly, given the social and economic chemistry of modernization, made boiling-over inevitable. Political organizing was channeled, not into pragmatic design of public policy, but into fevered imagination and rhetoric, the better to incite mass movements. "Marxism" drew from the well of a faithful vision of a better world thru revolution, and not, unfortunately, from clear-eyed assessment of what could be done within the immediate bounds of reason. But, that wasn't Marx's fault; Marx was as clear-eyed as they come, in assessing contemporary events.

The real authors of Communism, qua revolutionary ideology and movement, were the forces of Conservative Reaction, whose greed, racist bigotry and stubborn stupidity gave the planet two World Wars, the Great Depression, a couple of Holocausts (and in the U.S., sixty-plus years of Jim Crow).

Communism -- radical, violent, ruthless, authoritarian -- was the mirror-image antithesis to the Hegelian thesis of 19th century Right-wing Reaction: the vicious, cruel clinging to the corpse of feudalism, which decayed further into a worm-eaten fascism after World War I.

Making Communism into "the" evil menace mistakes the great sweep of history; the evil menance has always been the potential of the Right to veer from a rational, hesitant conservatism into a vicious, stubborn, Reactionary stupidity. That tendency has deep roots in human nature, and will always be with us.

The faithful hope for "how great it is going to be" is also part of human nature, but that dim, impractical optimism, in the absence of the menance of Reaction, is not likely to find any more dangerous channel than writing useless help files for Microsoft and Apple.

So, yes, Communism is, as other commenters have indicated, a kind of wishful thinking, or a Platonic Ideal of social engineering. But, that, by itself, is harmless. The essence of Communism in the 19th and 20th centuries was the drive -- and the necessity in the face of Reaction immune to reason and resistant to all progress -- to sharp and temper a vision of a hopeful future into a hard, sharp blade that could cut and kill.

It is not healthy for human beings to have to fashion ideas about how the future could-be, should-be into hard, cutting weapons. That's what Communism as an ideology and a movement were -- hard, sharp, cutting, killing weapons in a struggle. We can recognize that that is an unhealthy channel for a hopeful vision of future progress, but we should also recognize what made the development of such ideas-cum-weapons appear to be a necessity.

Eight years of George W. Bush scares me, but it doesn't make me nostalgic for Marxism, even if I do agree with the general thesis forming in the blogosphere that the decrepit Washington Establishment ought to be "overthrown". I am hopeful that, just as the American Revolution did not need a Robespierre or Marat, but got along quite nicely with the likes of John Dickinson and Alexander Hamilton, with no one more radical than the aristocratic republican, Thomas Jefferson, or the articulate Tom Paine, I remain hopeful that the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Bruce Fein might anchor the Right of a rational front ranging thru Al Gore and Barack Obama, to, say, Barney Frank and Bernie Sanders. I'd like to think that America can overcome the bought-and-paid-for cant of such plutocratic institutions as AEI and Brookings (how sad -- someone should punch Saban out for corrupting that once proud institution, the bastard), and adopt an anti-imperialist policy, repair the social contract, and devise a sensible response to global warming, etc.

[S Brennan]

BJ Feng,

You're confused or intentionally confusing, I spoke to the issue of crimes, you speak of deaths and then convert deaths into crime exchanging "death" with the word "killed", which is a clever deceit, or perhaps you were not aware that those two have different meaning? If that's the case, which is it, are you a liar, or an illiterate?

Try this:

Republican governance "killed" the victims of New Orleans.

Or:

Republican governance's indifference led to the "deaths" of thousands of New Orleans people.

One's a crime, the other is just another day in the office for Republican party hacks.

[chris]

Yeesh. That is why I never got anywhere with Marxism. Too airy-fairy. When you press them on the details you get nada. How are incentives set up? Who runs the factories? Who allocates capital?

I'll take my social democracy, nice and boring, please. Capitalism minus the rough edges. Holland or Denmark is good enough for me.

[Denis Drew]

I don't know if the "Mr. Original Sin" in Professor Suny's Op-Ed was of the (unfettered market) economic right, but it is that right these days that seems bereft of any concern for economic checks and balances (Soviet style communism's main defect, both politically and economically).

The free market (remarkable mechanism that it is) should be seen as nothing beyond an operating system (OS) for our economic "computing" mechanism -- in our social justice expectations. The Milton Friedman approach, which expects the OS to eliminate most or all requirements for economic checks and balances -- to automatically lay aside mankind's longest ongoing drama: who's going to eat whose lunch -- amounts to what psychiatrists might call "magical thinking".

Almost all experience, from the minimum wage to the recent Argentine and South East Asian depressions suggests that unfettered market theory almost never works in practice.

Much unfettered market policy seems dependent on circular thinking: if you care that giant monopolies might harm the public (hard to miss Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller), then, their depredations become defined as "distortions" of the free market. If you do not trouble yourself too much about the well-being of minimum wage earners then there seems a strong tendency to see a price demand made by law to be a "distortion" of the natural workings of the market (the race to the bottom being more difficult to detect from the top).

In brain operating terms the (pea sized) midbrain (a.k.a., limbic system; fountain of motivations) seems quite able to distort the analytical workings of even Alan Greenspan's forebrain.

Conceptualizing the free market as nothing but an OS remakes the concept of "distortion" or "market failure" into out dated terminology which terminology implies a greater expectation of justice than educated progressives do. Using such terms seems to me to underwrite the mistaken expectations of fairness from an unfettered market that economic progressives are trying to erase (might be a good idea to check in with economic pros -- I am not -- on terminology).

Unfettered markets boys use their mistaken expectations to define economic deviancy down: whatever happens in the market without human intervention must be the best possible outcome -- which sets easy social responsibility tasks for those who have it easy.

The centuries that have gone by since Adam Smith spotted the "hidden hand" have not exactly been centuries of uniform economic justice all over the world -- more like the opposite. Have the worst outcomes resulted from too much progressive government interfering too often in the market -- or from total lack of checks and balances?

What the very first industrial free market wrought -- in England -- was the race to the very, very bottom: individual weavers who made a decent living (in a fairer bargaining, pre-industrial setup) were replaced by a hundred (?) times more productive steam loom operators who were reduced to living, not just on subsistence, but on the lowest level of subsistence, eating oat cakes three times a day because they could not afford wheat bread -- in exchange for working fourteen hour days; that is, for their wives and kids working fourteen hour days since they would work for less.

In these days of hyper-bean counter management (not knocking management for doing what it is supposed to do) adequate checks and balances can only mean sector-wide agreements (or some equivalent), the way unionization is done around the world -- the only program to run in place of the program that seems to run by default everywhere and every time that adequate checks are absent: the race to the bottom.

As for Marx, I have never read Marx (been impressed by his apparent brilliance in the occasional paragraphs I've seen quoted) but Marx missed the simple balance of power boat, the simple answer to all of capitalism's fearful hazards, the sensible checks and balances route: adequate unionization.

[Winston]

It seems to me that Marxism is interesting from a historical perspective, when we look at what the world looked like during the era when we transitioned from a Malthusian economy to a modern one. Marx's Hegelian theory of history is bunk as were his assumptions of human nature.

I think the only systems that make sense are ones that take into account that people are tribal, greedy, and lazy. I think that in small, less diverse societies (such as the Netherlands or Sweeden) social democracy is the way to go, however, in a large multi-ethnic country, such as the U.S. a less restrained capitalism is a better fit because tribalism (the sense that "we" are in it together) is weaker than greed and laziness.

[robertdfeinman]

nihil obstet, whether intentionally or not you are using a common argument of the religious whenever the more contradictory aspects of organized religion are pointed out.

Marxism is not a religion. From the dictionary:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies...

Marx didn't concern himself with the origin of the universe and he didn't invoke any supernatural powers.

What the utopian aspects of Marxism and the selectivity of religious believers have in common is an adherence to an ideology. All religions are ideologies, but all ideologies are not religions.

I clam that Marx's mistakes were in adopting a too all encompassing view of human nature and his inability to foresee that workers could successfully organize in order to win some rights without the need to replace capitalism.

Some people use the word "religion" as a metaphoric way to refer to ideology, but they are only referring to the passion and closed-mindedness of the fervent followers, not to the supernatural aspects.

says...

Feng, your making the same mistakes made over and over again. You really believe what basically Asia tried to makeup was "communism" in the Marxist idea?

Hardly. It was nothing more than the next dictator. Asia is a anti-democratic despotic state of being.

Hence the use of Marxism as a force into coming in power.

If anything Marxism is a predictor of the final stages of capitalism. We are seeing that now.

Socialism is the abolishment of all forms of authority, including the traditional State.

[demisod]

Marx retains some value as a critic of capitalism, especially the laissez-faire forms. His theories did not stand the test of time, just as Freud's did not, but many of his observations were insightful. His thoughts on labor have an eerie relevance when considering labor arbitrage. Exploiting workers may not be the basis of profit for a firm, but it doesn't hurt the bottom line at all, and it happens a lot.

[kthomas]

Go Red!

[nihil obstet]

rdf, OK, I'm just not understanding the classifications being made about religion and ideology and Marx's utopianism, so I can't respond in any intelligible way. I see economics discussions that cite the "invisible hand" of the marketplace as a metaphor that can be carried a little too far. You know, Adam Smith was a great economist, even though he couldn't foresee everything that was to come. But Marx, now Marx is different. Marx said some things that we don't agree with, so he's the founder of a religion, not an economist. And we must root out the touches of heresy that anyone who cites Marx is clearly guilty of. It comes across to me as the bullying tactic of market fundamentalists, built on years of red-baiting, and so frequently, the economic and political discussions are rigged. I'm interested in knowing what's being suppressed.

And incidentally, I do adhere to an ideology. I don't, in fact, know anyone who doesn't. Adherents to a society's dominant ideology pretend that their beliefs don't constitute an ideology, but that's just a technique of argumentation.

[Lafayette]

says who?: Socialism is the abolishment of all forms of authority, including the traditional State.

If I made idiotic remarks like above, I want to keep my name anonymous as well.

[paine]

b w

"adopt an anti-imperialist policy"

u must have a fairly narrow and blade like
notion of empire

i submit
so long as we have trans nat corporations
we'll have the essence of empire
at least in its contemporary incarnation

[paine]

demisod

"Marx retains some value as a critic of capitalism, especially the laissez-faire forms "

ie not lf's sublation : social market capitalism eh ??

"His theories did not stand the test of time
but many of his observations were insightful"

had you a particular theory of his in mind ???

" His thoughts on labor have an eerie relevance when considering labor arbitrage "

could this be a formal parallel
to early victorian lf capitalism ??

a sort of return to the bad old ways
but now not within national boundaries
but between em

" Exploiting workers may not be the basis of profit for a firm"
what is ... cost cutting ??? innovation ???

if labor produces more value then its paid what's that

" but it doesn't hurt the bottom line at all, and it happens a lot "

amen comrade amen

your comments
are a hunters stew

thanx for the treat

[paine]

rf
"All religions are ideologies, but all ideologies are not religions "

nice point

"his (marx) inability to foresee that workers could successfully organize in order to win some rights without the need to replace capitalism "

nice to see that hallowed pillar of
bernsteinism

but
isn't it really still too soon to tell
if wage workers and capitalism
can co exist
until nether are necessary any longer

don't the last thirty years look like retro-gression no ??

[paine]

chris

"Holland or Denmark is good enough for me "
but what if under capitalism
for an h or a d to exist so must
a congo a somalia
a peru and an india

[paine]

denis d

"Marx missed the simple balance of power boat, the simple answer to all of capitalism's fearful hazards, the sensible checks and balances route: adequate unionization "

ah bernstein strikes again !!!

but from what cometh forth
your magical balance
if not in your os
then what

the class struggle by queensbury rules ???
but what if the os is lethal
to institutions that oppose
its outcomes
like a body rejects an alien transplant

ah yes suppress its immune reactions right

the social market

but notice the os
tears up social contracts when the opportunity arises

[paine]

winston

"Marx's Hegelian theory of history is bunk as were his assumptions of human nature "

double bogey

marx had neither a hegelian theory of history
nor a model of human nature

man as a social product
(not a refined hunk of meat in e o wilson's hive )
a product of his social history

a social history that has evolved itself as it has evolved him
evolved new social institutions and thus
thru these new institutions expressed
and further evolved new social humans
(aery fairy enough for ya ??)

like his contemporary darwin
marx never ventured to put
an end point on this process of social evolution
only the sublation of the present stage capitalism
or series of stages class /state societies
in a next stage post class post state society
and that future stage is only discussed
to the extent
the future's outline is apparent in the present stage

he was not one for
making up menus
for" the cook shops of the future "

utopias are the dreams present minds
make about the future
its not advised to decode them
for policy advice
like some joseph in a multi colored three piece suit

[John]

Lafayette,

Socialism is the abolishment of all forms of authority, including the traditional State.

On this, we agree! Not only is this wrong, it's totally backwards.

It was so I used it as the basis for a front page story at Swords Crossed.

[John]

CORRECTION: Missing word.

It was so "CRAZY", I used it as the basis....

[PeterRabid]

Right on, Paine!

"a social history that has evolved itself as it has evolved him
evolved new social institutions and thus
thru these new institutions expressed
and further evolved new social humans"

I still think we need something of a financial disaster to jog us into the the next evolutionary advance. Given your pessimistic take on the immediate outlook for our politico economic system, I'm surprised you don't think the same.

Or am I misreading you? And how or when do you think that next evolutionary step will come about? I don't expect decryption of utopia, but any oracular utterances will be appreciated.

[realpc]

Marxists believe in the natural goodness, or malleability, of humans, but that isn't the problem. The problem is their belief that some humans are capable of knowing what is best for everyone, and can get everyone to agree.

Marxist Americans are perfectly free to form utopian communes and live together in harmony. There is nothing about our capitalist society that would prohibit this. So why do most Marxists keep their tenured teaching positions and their suburban, property-owning, lifestyles?

It's because many experiments with communal living have been tried and all or most have failed. In a free society, everyone has their own ideas about how everyone else should live, and this makes democratic communism impossible.

The lasting examples of communal living are all authoritarian. It may be a monastery under the authority of a church, or a cult headed by a charismatic leader (Cuba may fit that description).

Humans are altruistic and sociable, and most of us are only mildly individualistic. Our individualism is not the obstacle. The obstacle to communism is freedom. Communism, or socialism (different words, same idea) are at odds with freedom.

This doesn't mean capitalism is the ideal or best possible system. But it is the natural result of the evolution of our freedom and our technology.

Marxists often make valid criticisms of capitalism. But it's always negative criticism, never constructive.

The right to own property is the foundation of freedom. It also leads inevitably to inequality.

I think that instead of finding faults with capitalism we should look for ways to improve it.

[ken melvin]

So --- libertarians are lacking development?

[realpc]

"I think that instead of finding faults with capitalism we should look for ways to improve it."

No, I meant to say: instead of trying to find alternatives to capitalism we should look for ways to improve it.

[W]

I think several of Marx's ideas are still relevant. World class warfare obviously didn't work out the way he thought, and I don't think it will.

I think Marx had two major points right though. First, Marx recognized that society was moving to the point where scarcity won't matter. Excluding environmental disaster or an exhaustion of natural resources, the world economy will probably end scarcity in a couple centuries. Marx deserves credit since the rest of economics is built on scarcity, and no major post-scarcity, non-Marxist economics has emerged.

I think Marx went a little off by assuming people could have enough for basic needs, and there would be no scarcity, but I think people will require more than that.

Second, I think material conditions and economics drive most of the norms, values, and ideas of societies. For example, U.S. racism is closely tied to the economics of slavery and the immediate post-slavery economic system. Sexism likewise can be tied to the historical man/woman division of labor. Materialism isn't the only explanatory factor, but its the most important.

If you take out Marx's theory of history and his view of class, there's a lot that's still relevant.

[calmo]

Appreciate that post jch and hope there's more where that came from...hope all is well with you and that you are not tied up somewhere battling through a maze of duck tape maybe to make that modest (in length only) contribution. As usual....here is a sprinkling of ballbearings.....to get you going...so you can drive me outa my mind.
Ok, thatzit.

[John]

realpc,

As a libertarian, I feel the way you improve capitalism is too remove constraints that cause it to break down or function less optimally at the most basic levels on up.

This doesn't imply that it's perfect when working mostly freely. But it is a strongly held belief my people like me that it works BETTER than the alternatives and works better as individual human action is more free to operate in voluntary exchange. Deviation from any level of voluntary exchange is less perfect in almost all cases.

Even in the area of market failures, an idea created by economists, it's heavily debated to this day whether interventions produce better results than without.

This, I have found, is the major area of contention between serious economists ranging from free market (libertarian...ala GMU, Chicago) to moderate (Rodrik at Harvard and others who tend to be pro-market Democrats with reservations and "2nd best" thinking). Either way, the debate is usually pretty far from where most rank and file Dems are. This is my experience at least.

I see this here when Mark Thoma, differences with GMU-types aside, seems far more free market than most of the posters here. This comes out in many very harsh rebuttals I've seen him give to some "Dobbsian" type posters who exhibit qualities that run contrary to most economists...especially on macro issues where I see much less difference as opposed to micro issues (and policy implications) where there's still more contention.

[dd]

ahh, paine
he makes my heart sing
so many insights
to ponder but did
Marx contemplate credit
in its many forms and fees
such that workers only
are experiencing hyperinflation
while well-satisfied burghers
like myself :)
think only an moderate
inflation dream.

[Bruce Wilder]

paine: "u must have a fairly narrow and blade like
notion of empire . . . so long as we have trans nat corporations
we'll have the essence of empire"

I'd like to think that I have a broad and inclusive notion of "we".

[dd]

Trans nats are their own empire
with their own rules
that apply to none of us here
as we actually think to care

[BJ Feng]

"Yeesh. That is why I never got anywhere with Marxism. Too airy-fairy. When you press them on the details you get nada. How are incentives set up? Who runs the factories? Who allocates capital?"

Bravo Chris, though you probably won't completely agree with what I'm about to say.

1) Marxism, the kind that Marxists envision and claim never has been tried is a Platonic impossibility. Just as it is impossible to form a perfect sphere (quantum mechanics says that we cannot guarantee the atoms are exactly in place all the time) it is impossible to form the kind of INHUMAN (yes inhuman because perfect Marxism requires human beings to act unlike humans) society Marxism envisions. Therefore we should just say that Marx was a philosopher and leave it at that. Ideal Marxism can never exist just as a perfect Platonic sphere cannot exist.

2) Whenever Marxism has been attempted, it has been a dismal failure, DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths and misery of billions. There has never been a system in human history that has led to more misery and oppression, not even slavery affected so many and Marxism as practiced was nothing more than slavery to the State. Therefore we should condemn Marxism and treat those who actively call for it just the same as those who call for a return to Nazism (which was a form of Marxism in practice, the National Socialists of Germany).

In anycase, Marx was a dismal failure. The reason we don't have the same hostility to Plato or others who also failed is because of the great harm his views caused. Marx died a broken man, unable to answer critics, but he simply did not suffer enough for his idiocy in his lifetime.

[calmo]

BJ, (my comrad), how can you B so cruel?
You really want to dig him up again and give him a good thrashing?...now that it has been confirmed that he was somewhat broke?... now that he is unable to answer those critics" (But he B dead forchrisakes!)[See? really unable]
Are you, like eva, a well rounded scholar on all this stuff? Really up on your Plato and Hegelian Dialectic?
Me, neither.
But as far as dismal failures go, I'd say Marx is still atleast an aggravation for most. Plato hardly ever comes up and to denounced as "Platonic" usually means you weren't sexually aggressive enough...unlike being speared with "marxist" which means you are far too serious, if not nutters, fixated on some crazy Revolution, you know?

[hey]

BJFeng:
"...call for a return to Nazism (which was a form of Marxism in practice, the National Socialists of Germany)."

Oh my god.

[Anarcho]

"Socialism is the abolishment of all forms of authority, including the traditional State."

Yes, genuine socialism is that precisely. Anarchists still take that as the aim of socialism. The problem with Marx was that he was willing to tolerate the state as means of transition towards anarchy.

As for right-"libertarians," well they are all in favour of authority (including the state) as long as the authority is that of the property owner directly. They may disagree whether the boss should have a public or private state to enforce his authority, but they are still authoritarians.

As for Mises and Hayek, well, the less said about the former's praise for fascism and the latter's support for Pinochet (and for undemocratic forms of government in general), the better.

The key problem with Marxists like the author of the above article is that they thought that the USSR had something to do with socialism when, in fact, it was simply state capitalism.

Some Marxists refused to do that, particularly libertarian Marxists like Panneokoek and Mattick (who were close to anarchism). And by "libertarian" I mean favouring organisations based on freedom, not supporters of capitalist free markets (which the term has degenerated to in America).

[reason]

John
Even in the area of market failures, an idea created by economists, it's heavily debated to this day whether interventions produce better results than without.

John, admit it you are an extremist loony. The clean air act was a mistake, so was all anti-discrimination legislation, not to mention the dreaded FDA. Such things are only "heavily" debated because there are loonies like you about.

[reason]

http://www.davidbrin.com/libertarianarticle3.html

[realpc]

Anarcho,

There has never been a society without authority. Even animal societies are governed by strict rules, partly inborn and partly learned. The human animal is social and genetically programmed to form communities, and communities cannot exist without some form of authority.

The authorities may be elected or appointed. In tribal societies, the elders might be the rulers. Small groups of gorillas or chimpanzees are headed by alpha males.

Even in the smallest possible social group -- a husband and wife -- authority is divided and negotiated.

Authority is a matter of degree, and it is a fact of life. When liviing things interact, they exert power over each other.

Authority can be extreme and it can be oppressive and unfair. Like any necessary aspect of life, it can be taken to destructive extremes.

Being against authority, in general, in any form, makes no sense. No society has ever existed, or will ever exist, that has no form of authority.

Dislike of authority is a personal, emotional, position. It has no relevance to philosophy or politics.

[John]

Anarcho,

Nice try. but no dice. To hear libertarianism described as authoritarianism is very, very bizarre. The better part of that post is very poor and very uninformed?

Mises loves fascism? Ah, a direct philosophical opponent of Hitler who flees the area when he takes power is a fascist lover? Hayek and Pinochet? I don't think ever heard this before. Care to share?

And by "libertarian" I mean favouring organisations based on freedom, not supporters of capitalist free markets

Is that like saying I support squares but not rectangles?

[John]

Reason, I'm not a loon or an extremist.

Why would you make a post like that? There is plenty of debate among economists. If you should read what I said in this "all or nothing" style that you apparently are using, you're not advancing any discussions.

[john c. halasz]

realpc:

There is no basis or foundation for authority whatsoever. Simply put, any imperative always exceeds the conditions from or in which it arises. In fact, it usually aims at altering those conditions, or, in the case of a negative imperative, a prohibition, at preventing what might otherwise be the case. As a result, all human, i.e. cultural, structures are irremediably riddled with paradoxical injunctions. It is bootless to appeal to any prior existence of "rules", to the sheer existence of societies, or, as is increasingly the case among reactionary-positivistic neo-liberals,- (twerps like yourself?),- to supposed biological causality. Undefined survival/adaption/self-preservation-gone-wild scarcely answers the call. Appeals to "interests", regardless of their distributions, just beg the question. We are all thrown, equally or not, into the abyss of our own fears and makings,

[reason]

John,
no you are not advancing any discussion, because you are assuming the answer without evidence. We cannot argue against you, because you will only make theoretical assertions. The evidence is that life (particularly environmentally) has improved historically BECAUSE of regulations. The recent history of deregulation has produced dangerous instability (read subprime).

Markets are powerful servants, but very poor masters.

[reason]

John,
don't get me wrong though, I think that we can do better, there is GOOD regulation and BAD regulation. And GOOD regulation works with markets. And there really is no substitute for a vibrant and accountable democracy in doing the regulation. I think we need plenty of reforms, I just don't think religious faith in markets is the answer (neither do I think we can do without them).

I labelled you an extremist because of the language you chose (for instance market failure was "and idea created" by economists - no it was an observable feature of the world that they described.) Read the David Brin link.

I keep asking people - have you never played monopoly? What happens at the end of the game (i.e. is it sustainable)? Do you not believe that increasing returns to scale ever exist? If so what is the difference between a private and a public monopoly?

[reason]

John
Deviation from any level of voluntary exchange is less perfect in almost all cases.

Another example of extremist language, masquerading as moderation! The perfect is the enemy of the good. ALWAYS remember that, beware of those seeking perfection!

[John]

Reason,

You misunderstand me. I think a more charitable and accurate reading of my intent is pretty easy to do if you're so inclined.

I'm not looking for perfection. It's all relative. There is no perfect. It's a matter of what is further from perfect between different choices. Like I said, I think that's pretty clear.

And yes, economists can up with the "term" market failure. Again, reading my words more charitably and seeing my intent is far easier than putting words in my mouth.

[BJ Feng]

So how do we live without authority? You agree that we need laws right? Not only fundamental laws such as private ownership, but laws that decide who gets to park at the 20 spaces near the beach. Our current law is that whoever comes first, or whoever owns those spots.

And how are these laws to be enforced? I've heard somewhere that anarchists imagine a posse that will be formed to avenge any wrong. But in practice, this is hard to do and hard to keep from getting out of hand. What if I'm busy and can't come to your posse to avenge someone stealing your parking spot? What if the person who took your spot forms an even bigger posse by bribing them with exclusive rights to the parking spot? He seizes the spot as his own. This can quickly get out of hand. Maybe you could explain the mechanics of anarchy and non-authoritarian rule.

[realpc]

john c. halasz,

Anarchy would quickly evolve into some form of feudalism or tribalism. Chaos evolves into some form of order.

You cannot find an anarchist society anywhere on earth, in any species.

You may despise the fact that power and rules are inherent in nature, but you can't change that fact. It's like despising the fact of death. A waste of emotional energy.

[paine]

powerstrutures
and a state centered society are not identical

obviously
vide tribal societies ....non state
but often lots of structure and power and authority flowing around

perhaps we may need a few distinctions here
to avoid batting each others miscast shadows

[Randolph Fritz]

"There is no proletariat anymore"

Of course there is; it's just not US citizens any more. It's in China and in undocumented alien populations worldwide.

"Goods are free to move, but not people,
Oil is free to move, but not people,
Jobs are free to move, but not people,
Money is free to move, but not people!"
--Another Imperial Day

[W]

Realpc,
Your arguments regarding the necessity of authority are pretty weak. Just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it will always be so. Even if humans are hard-wired to have authority (Do you mean to respect authority or exert authority? Both? Perhaps a conflict in human nature?), it does not mean that humans can't or won't behave otherwise. People act against their genetic predispositions all the time. People intentionally deny their hunger (anorexia), deny their reproductive impulses, and even deny the basic biological desire for life and commit suicide (the only animal to do so).

Arguments that rely on some interpretation of human nature are generally weak. This also goes for those saying that Marxism isn't consistent with human behavior (What do you mean exactly? People have been living communally for millenia. Do you have something else in mind?). This also goes for Marx himself though. Many of his arguments were based on capitalism violating human nature, and human nature being related to human history.

[Lafayette]

rf: "All religions are ideologies, but all ideologies are not religions"

This sort of comment demonstrates a very poor understanding of either.

Some ideologies are/become religions. It simply depends upon the fervor of belief in them.

Communism/Marxism replaced religion. Nazism subjugated religion to its yoke. Muslim fundamentalists exploit religion to further their ideology.

Ideology: a set of beliefs characteristic of a group or individual(s). Religion: a pursuit or interest or belief followed with devotion.

[jan perlwitz]

BJ Feng wrote:

"There has never been a system in human history that has led to more misery and oppression, not even slavery affected so many and Marxism as practiced was nothing more than slavery to the State."

Oh yes, there has been such a system which has led to more misery and oppression in human history than the so called "Marxism". This system that has achieved that is called capitalism.

[jan perlwitz]

BJ Feng wrote:

"Therefore we should condemn Marxism and treat those who actively call for it just the same as those who call for a return to Nazism"

Could you elaborate that, please? Regarding to what statements someone specifically makes shall this someone be equally condemned and treated compared to the ones who call for a return of Nazism. What would someone have to say, what ideas has he to express to be identified by you as an evil "Marxist"?

[jan perlwitz]

BJ Feng wrote:

"Nazism (which was a form of Marxism in practice, the National Socialists of Germany)."

I suspect this statement about Nazism as a form of Marxism is based on freedom. Freedom from any knowledge about the worldview of the Nazis and freedom from any knowledge about the economic and social structure in Germany under the rule of the Nazis.

[jan perlwitz]

BJ Feng wrote:

"Nazism (which was a form of Marxism in practice, the National Socialists of Germany)."

I suspect this statement about Nazism as a form of Marxism is based on freedom. Freedom from any knowledge about the worldview of the Nazis and freedom from any knowledge about the economic and social structure in Germany under the rule of the Nazis.

[Lafayette]

jp: Oh yes, there has been such a system which has led to more misery and oppression in human history than the so called "Marxism". This system that has achieved that is called capitalism.

Both Feng and Perlwitz are dabbling in polemic.

Either statement about the comparative "isms" is beyond formal proof. Both have been excessive in their own way and at different times.

The truth presently is somewhere in between. And, we are not that near finding it.

I think, nonetheless, that Europe is closer to it than the US. Income inequality is usually a good clue ... where there's smoke there's generally a fire.

Still, it's a dicey call -- both China (supposedly communist) and the US (supposedly capitalist) have about the same Gini coefficient. So, go figure ...

[Icarus]

BJ Feng

BJ Feng says...
Brennan I disagree. Communism has killed far more people, than capitalism.

You know...this may sound ludicrous, but, "development", 20th centurey style, has killed more people than any other "ism" one can name. We aren't trained to think of "development" as anything more than a benign guideline, but, it isn't. Every death due to development projects (mega projects) would add up to more than wars, famine, and holocausts put together. A strange assertion, I'm sure...but, look into it.

[jan perlwitz]

Lafayette wrote:

"Both Feng and Perlwitz are dabbling in polemic."

What is the polemic? I merely compare two economic systems, capitalism and what Feng calls "marxism", although, I don't really know what he means with "marxism". When I talk about capitalism then I will mean an economic systems in which the dominant mode of economic activity is to produce things for the market to accumulate capital as the most important motive for economic activity. The capitalist mode of production has become dominant at first in Europe in the 15./16. century and has spread from there all over the world since then. It has brought many achievements for mankind. It has developed the productive basis and lifted the life standards for many people in a way never seen in any other mode of production before. The price for this on the other side, however, has been the death of many hundreds of millions of humans in the course of the centuries until today.

US's and China's economic systems don't belong to different sides in this comparison to be compared. They belong to the same side.

[jan perlwitz]

Erase either "in this comparison" or "to be compared" in the last sentence of my previous posting at free will.

[Lafayette]

Perklwitz, you are/were associating political consequences with economic systems.

There is no reason to do so. Stalin and Hitler proved that political systems can have the same disastrous consequences whilst having very differing economic systems.

The utility of an economic system is NOT measured politically, but by its utility to the largest number of people. Communism, in China today, should have the largest utility on earth, given the number of people.

For the moment, it is nowhere achieving such, and its Gini coefficient shows it is a long way from doing so. The distribution of income is taken as "goodness" in utilitarian terms. Not the absolute amount of income that one can earn.

Based upon the latter, the American capitalist system would win the comparison, hands down. But, is it useful to the greater part of the American population that a comparative handful earn the lion's share of the wealth generated? No bloody way ... José.

So, to my mind, comparing political systems with one another towards debating the merits of one economic system over another just doesn't make sense.

[BJ Feng]

"This also goes for those saying that Marxism isn't consistent with human behavior (What do you mean exactly? People have been living communally for millenia. Do you have something else in mind?)"

Marxism isn't consistent with human behavior because it requires humans to act without incentive. Marx suggested that, under Communism, we could work as we wish, each contributing his own talents to better society and at the end of the day, we would take what we need. But we humans have short attention spans. Few of us would ever choose to work more than a couple of hours a day. To work for the betterment of society simply isn't enough, we need some type of reward to make the effort worthwhile. This is simply the result of evolution. Just like animals, we are trained to act in order to achieve some goal or gain some reward. The more abstract the reward, the harder it is to keep on repeating the behavior, and if you can gain the reward without having to "work for it" then certainly you're going to minimize your effort in the long run. It's just not realistic to expect us to work as hard under Communism if the goods we get aren't dependent on us working. If everyone will get just about the same regardless, then it will be human nature to do as little as possible to skate on by. And if people aren't working as much, then we're not going to produce as many goods and we're all going to be poorer in aggregate. Capitalism allows us to be human. It allows us to act in our own interest and make exchanges based on what we want and need. It gives me the incentive to work since I can expect to be rewarded for it, and it will be a benefit to me since I will only work for a reward worth my while. I don't have to force myself to work longer for the betterment of "society". Capitalism works with human nature and comes easily, while Communism fights human nature and can only be maintained at the point of a gun.

Good point Lafayette, but Communism is both a political and an economic system. Marx stated that the economic revolution cannot occur without a political revolution as well. A dictatorship of the proletariat has to be established first, which is why all communist governments have to be so repressive. People can be fooled into giving communism a try, but they simply cannot be made to continue down the road to ruin without the use of force. A communist government has to be brutally repressive because communism does not work and the people will naturally want to abandon it once it becomes clear that they are worse off than before.

[W]

BJ Feng,
Capitalist incentives have only been around for 500 years, and much of human history has been without any market incentive structure, so I hardly think incentives are "natural." People also routinely behave in ways that contradict your assumptions about human nature. For example, plenty of people throughout the course of human history have sought out war and intentionally sacrificed themselves without monetary incentive and instead for honor, glory, revenge, or ideology (from Thermopylae to modern Baghdad).

Birds never have to contemplate what there nature is. What a bird does is bird nature. The fact that our nature isn't obvious like animal nature is should be an indicator of something. Humans do many different things and don't seem to have a single nature.

Also, Marx never said people would be incentivized with a goal of "social betterment." Marx had a two step progression where people would move from capitalism to socialism. In socialism allocations are made "from each according to his ability to each according to his ability," so incentives are maintained. Only once production becomes essentially effortless does Marx think communism and "to each according to his need" will result. This also shows problems in your last paragraph since you say Marx wanted to go straight to communism, which he did not. In fact, Marx defines communism as the absence of government, so even the use of "communist government," in the context of Marx's beliefs, is a mistake.

On a tangent, you bring up something else Marx deserves credit for. True, capitalism produces more goods--Marx even agreed with this--but other things matter including labor preferences. People generally have strong preferences for the kind of work they do, but capitalist economics doesn't pay much attention to this. Think of the Ricardian model of two goods (two people on two islands who can either fish or pick coconuts). With specialization, we get more fish and coconuts (assuming a comparative advantage). Great, but maybe I prefer fishing to picking coconuts, and maybe I simply like making my own choice instead of having my location dictating my occupation. At least Marx addressed labor preferences.

[John]

W,

Incentives have existed as long as man has been on this planet. Man made tools, worked, hunted and created shelter because of incentives. Market incentives have existed since man first decided to trade something he had for something he liked more. So yes, "incentives" in whatever context are completely 100% natural and the result of man wants, fears desires, anger, love and will. So you are totally wrong there in every way.

Marx considered labor preferences? OK. What does that mean? I thought it was from each according to his ability to each according to his need. You say capitalism doesn't address this? Are you confined to one type of work? Do you have no choice? Do you have no say? You make no sense here at all. None.

[jan perlwitz]

Lafallete says:

"Perklwitz, you are/were associating political consequences with economic systems."

This is just your false perception, or your strawman. I didn't talk about political consequences.

"The utility of an economic system is NOT measured politically, but by its utility to the largest number of people. Communism, in China today, should have the largest utility on earth, given the number of people."

The mere existence of a large number of people is irrelevant for capitalist economy, if their labor force isn't exploitable for capital accumulation. And comparing USA and China is methodical false, if the different basis of capital accumulation isn't taken into consideration. This basis is much lower in China. But as I said, I see US and China on the same side in the comparison. They both are part of the capitalist world economy.

[W]

John,
I probably should have specified material incentives, and you ignored my point that people sacrifice themselves for non-material reasons. My main point getting into the discussion was to point out that problems with naturalistic arguments. These are almost always bad arguments. Look up the naturalistic fallacy or the "is-ought" problem for starters. No serious philosophical argument since the 1800s has relied on interpreting "human nature."

"Marx considered labor preferences? OK. What does that mean? I thought it was from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

Marx said socialism was from each according to his ability to each according to his ability while communism was from each according to his ability to each according to his need. People tend to launch into criticisms about human nature and incentives without having read Marx and knowing this.

"You say capitalism doesn't address this? Are you confined to one type of work? Do you have no choice? Do you have no say? You make no sense here at all. None."

I make no sense because you're reading to much into things. I went off on a tangent. I was not trying to criticize capitalism. The topic of the thread is what can Marx still be credited with. I said he deserves credit for considering labor preferences (and choice) while orthodox economics generally ignores this. Pretty simple.

Most orthodox economic analysis only looks at output and consumption. If people produce through unpleasant means, so what. Marx actually gave some consideration to the fact that people would favor have greater choice in labor activities.

[John]

W,

you said:

you ignored my point that people sacrifice themselves for non-material reasons.

It was included under all the reasons that people do things.

[Lafayette]

JP: I didn't talk about political consequences.

We all are "talking political consequences" here.

You are fooling yourself. To each their own delusions ...

[Lafayette]

What's left of Marx?

Good question.

Marx's analysis of the political and economic situation of 18th century Russia was spot on. A landed-gentry, loyal to a monarchic Tsar, controlled the generation of wealth in a largely agricultural society. Life was mostly a distinction between land-owner and worker peasant. Income inequality was rampant. Marx's understanding of wealth generation was correct, under the circumstances prevailing in 19th century Russia.

Unfortunately, Marx did not recognize that the paradigm shift was underway, from Agricultural to Industrial societies, and would make his work largely irrelevant -- and above his solution inoperable. Which history subsequently proved to be true.

Marx had little notion of what capital could do to further the economy, since he was fixated upon the imbalanced income shares from agricultural production. When his philosophy was applied to post-revolutionary Russia the consequence was comparative failure -- vis-à-vis other societies that did not pursue communism as the dominant ideology.

But, is his philosophy completely outdated, so anachronous as to be consigned to the dust bin of history? Perhaps not.

Marx was intrigued by the income unfairness demonstrated by the world that he lived in. Is today any different, really?

So, Marx has a relevance today to our economic structure, that is, to the consequences of exaggerated wealth accumulation. It is not just the fact that wealth is being amassed in proportions unheard of historically.

We cannot assume that the people who have such fortunes all go to church on Sunday and are rightfully in fear of the God's retribution of evil. We must assume that they make only a passing reference to any ethical consideration whatsoever. They are fixated on the process and not the consequences of unfair wealth accumulation.

For a moral perspective, we should refer to the dictum of Lord Acton (19th century, landed English gentleman and brilliant Roman Catholic thinker): “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Don’t believe this is possible? Then just look at the present American administration, this gaggle of immensely rich plutocrats who think governing is just another means for pawing more riches into their purses.

Furthermore, are they really any different from most of elected Congress who think that the use of power is that of a personal instrument with which to aggrandize themselves?

I hope not … but I wonder …