Criticisms of Marx
T I Russell
What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
ANDERS FLODERUS
T I Russell <t...@tirussell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8rkg3q$isv$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
>
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
>
>
I have not followed the discussions on Marx. Still, after
reading Das Kapital, I would say that the my main objection
is that in spite of all his words, he does not say anything new.
If you want to define a value that depends on the amount of
work needed to produce it, you are of course in your full
right to do so. Doing this does not tell anybody anything new
about anything.
If you want to 'prove' that your value is depending on the
amount of work needed to produce it, you should not use
a type of proof that already Aristotele found wrong.
Aristotele said that it was wrong to reason from a
consequent to its condition. As an example he said that
if all people who drink to much get poor, it is wrong to
claim that all people who are poor drink to much.
He would thus reject the following type of reasoning:
If some people are poor, they must have something
in common. The only thing they can have in common
is that they drink to much. Thus, the poverty of a person
must be decided by how much he drinks.
Still, this is the type of 'proof' Marx uses to show that
the value of an article is decided by the amount
of work needed to produce it:
If you are prepared to pay for different articles, these articles
must have something in common, a value. The only thing
they can have in common is that they are products of work.
Thus, the value of an article must be decided by the amount of
work used to produce it.
( Das Kapital, Book 1, Part 1, Chapter 1.)
If you want to define a surplus value that is decided by how
much of the price that does not go to those that produced
the articles sold (to the capitalist, to taxes, to workers who do
not take part in the production ... ) , you are of course in your full
right to do so. Doing this does not tell anybody anything new
about anything.
When Engels talks about Marx having unmasked the secret of
the surplus value, this is all there is.
You are right in talking about Marx's ideologi, not his science.
He has no science.
Ron Allen
> As far as I'm concerned, the best criticism of Marx is
> the fact that anyone who has attempted to implement his
> theories has ruined countless lives and has generally
> failed miserably.
Ron Allen answers:
What then can you tell us of Marx's theories which were
implemented in the Soviet Union, for example, and which
having been attempted and implemented failed miserably?
I fully agree with you that the Soviet Union was a very
miserable failure. I also know that the Soviet Union
explained and defended itself using marxism. But I
have been unable to find any support for bolshevism in
the writings of Marx or Engels. What did Marx propose
in his theories which the bolsheviks implemented?
<><><><><><><><>
"The policy of Russia is changeless. Its methods, its
tactics, its maneuvers may change, but the polar star of
its policy -- world domination -- is a fixed star."
-- Karl Marx
1867
Renoncer
"T I Russell" <t...@tirussell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
>
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
>
>
As far as I'm concerned, the best criticism
of Marx is the fact that anyone who has
attempted to implement his theories has ruined
countless lives and has generally failed
miserably. R
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Charlie Kester
"T I Russell" <t...@tirussell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
>
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
Since Marxism comes equipped with a nearly impenetrable
set of defense mechanisms, there are no "basic criticisms
in a nutshell" that will sway its "true believers".
Renoncer is right, however, the best criticism isn't
an intellectual one. It's one that looks at what's
happened in the real world when Marxist ideas are tried.
Once those events are admitted, however, there's the
problem of explaining why things always seem to work out
that way. Of all the things I've read about that,
my current favorite is Eric Voegelin's notion that Marx's
theory is a form of Gnosticism. In Voegelin's typically
arcane but apt choice of words, it's an attempt to
"immanentize the eschaton" --- to realize Paradise on Earth.
But that means rebellion against the real order of the world,
setting ourselves up as gods and imposing our will.
It's all downhill from there.
See http://www.millcomm.com/~wmcclain/ev-index.html for more
about Voegelin. His thought is far more complicated than
I could explain here (assuming I fully understood it, which I don't.)
charlie
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<8rlsnq$7hc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <8rkg3q$isv$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>
> Renoncer is right, however, the best criticism isn't
> an intellectual one. It's one that looks at what's
> happened in the real world when Marxist ideas are tried.
>
I don't agree with that. Intellectual criticism is best. Otherwise they
will just say that Lenin and Stalin somehow messed up and next time they
will get it right. One criticism is of their class warfare. The truth is
that people are not all equal in every way. Some people can build a
business that makes cars for example, while others can not. People that can
do things like that are a blessing for us all and should not be considered
enemies in a class warfare. It is true that pure capitalism would result in
the few very rich and the many very poor, but we can have laws that promote
fairness and that stop greed. We can fix the problem without Marxism and
its false principle that everyone is equal. Bill Gates and his partner
developed MS-DOS. Not everyone could do that.
Ron Allen
> Renoncer is right, however, the best criticism isn't
> an intellectual one. It's one that looks at what's
> happened in the real world when Marxist ideas are tried.
Ron Allen answers:
There has never been offered from any one of the best of
bourgeois ideologists and intellectuals a truly successful
ideological and intellectual criticism of socialist ideas
and ideals. In fact, most people I have encountered will
agree that the ideas and the ideals of socialism and
communism are praiseworthy. Most people seem to believe
that such praiseworthy hopes are more or less impractical,
but that they are not immoral ideas or unprincipled
ideals. There are many who believe socialist objectives
are moral, while the operations and the performance of
socialism must always involve immoral practices and
corrupt processes. The debate has been more about
socialist practice, and less about socialist principles.
But the debate about proper socialist practice is a
debate which even the most principled of socialists are
always engaged in. We have yet to establish a social
democratic practice that is proper to the democratic
principles of authentic socialism. There have been some
authoritarian attempts at a statist version of socialism,
but there has never been an authentic attempt at a truly
libertarian version of democratic socialism.
In my opinion, bolshevism and fascism have unfortunately
been attempted and have failed miserably and morally.
But we have not yet attempted a democratic creation of a
libertarian and commonwealth socialism.
Alex Vange wrote:
> I don't agree with that [i.e., with what Mr. Kester
> wrote in the pericope above]. Intellectual criticism is
> best.
Ron Allen answers:
I am very willing to engage any person who wishes to
participate in a purely intellectual critique of
socialism, and of the alternatives to socialism.
Alex Vange wrote:
> Otherwise they will just say that Lenin and Stalin
> somehow messed up and next time they will get it right.
Ron Allen answers:
For that matter, there are fascists who say that
Mussolini and Hitler somehow messed up and the next
time the fascists get political power they will get
it right.
In my personal opinion, fascism and bolshevism did not
succeed because they were undemocratic, and fascism and
bolshevism will never succeed because they are essentially
anti-democratic political philosophies.
Alex Vange wrote:
> One criticism is of their class warfare. The truth is
> that people are not all equal in every way.
Ron Allen answers:
The problem here is that you seem to think class warfare
is somehow about people being equal in every way, that
class warfare has something to say about natural human
abilities and skills being always equal to every single
individual person. The idea of class warfare has nothing
whatsoever to do with equal talents or unequal aptitudes.
The idea of class warfare addresses the fact that private
property for some gives them powers and privileges that
have nothing at all to do with either personal ability
or personal need. There are too many people with
abilities that remain unemployed, just as there are too
many people with needs that remain unanswered.
Alex Vange wrote:
> Some people can build a business that makes cars for
> example, while others can not.
Ron Allen answers:
And very often those with business abilities are unable
to get into business or stay in business because their
abilities were either not sufficiently capitalized or
not sufficiently competitive, which amounts to the very
same thing. Business failures are not always, or usually,
an indication of personal failure or personal lack of
business ability. Business success usually has much more
to do with quantity of financial and physical capital,
and much less to do with the extent of personal business
abilities on the part of a business proprietor. An
entrepreneur with a lot of business sense cannot survive
in business without a lot of business capital. An
entrepreneur with a wealth of commercial genius and a
wealth of market savvy will not succeed in business if
there is a shortage of investment capital. Business
success has more to do with capital abundance and less
to do with capitalist abilities. After all, it does
take capital to be or to become a capitalist. And a
capitalist with more private capital than personal ability
can succeed in any business venture. The success of any
and every commercial business has a lot to do with having
more capital than the competition, and has very little to
do with having more genius than the competition.
Alex Vange wrote:
> People that can do things like that are a blessing for
> us all and should not be considered enemies in a class
> warfare. It is true that pure capitalism would result in
> the few very rich and the many very poor, but we can have
> laws that promote fairness and that stop greed. We can
> fix the problem without Marxism and its false principle
> that everyone is equal. Bill Gates and his partner developed
> MS-DOS. Not everyone could do that.
Ron Allen answers:
Is it true that Bill Gates and Paul Allen developed MS-DOS
alone and in isolation? When you say these two "developed
MS-DOS", what do you mean? Did they do this in a vacuum?
We too often use words uncritically. And for this very
reason we too often give too much credit where much less
credit is due. For example, we give more credit to the
employer for what a business does very well, and we give
less credit to the employees for the success of a good
business. We tend to give more credit to investors with
private capital than we give to inventors with personal
genius.
Socialists do not believe that every person could develop
MS-DOS. Socialists do believe that those who have
developed MS-DOS deserve no more than what they need
to live a free and full life. Socialists also believe
that a free and full access to occupational careers, that
will enable all people to maximize the exercise of their
best productive and creative abilities, is better than a
restricted and partial access to occupational careers.
Socialists believe every person ought to have equal
opportunity to liberally employ themselves in a complete
exercise of their every personal abilities. The more
people are free to pursue any and every occupational
career, the more people there will be employed in the
development of practical technologies. Bill Gates and
Paul Allen has opportunities that so many people do not
enjoy. Their genius was realized and developed because
they had opportunities others do not have. The problem
with capitalism is that opportunities are minimized by
artificial obstacles and unnatural barriers. For
example, the number of medical doctors is limited not
by the natural need for doctors, but by artificial
barriers which keep so many from ever being able to
pursue a medical career. If costs so much time and money
to pursue a medical career, and so the medical association
limits the number of people who can enter medical schools
in order to keep down the number of professional doctors,
and this is done in order to keep up the incomes of those
who enter the medical professions. If the income earnings
of medical professionals were to be reduced, due to an
over-supply of medical professionals, there would be no
pecuniary inducement to enter the medical profession.
The capitalist law of supply and demand dictates the
regulation of medical professionals. There cannot be a
supply of doctors according to need, because this would
reduce the income earnings of doctors. There must be
an artificial maximum of doctors in order to create an
artificial demand for doctors, which keeps the income
earnings of doctors at an all time high. Medical
associations and medical schools regulate the incomes
of medical professionals by regulating the newcomers
into the medical professions.
<><><><><><><><>
"The truth is that medical care today goes where the money
is."
-- Michael De Bakey
"The best medical care today goes where there is the most
pecuniary demand, but not where there is the most human
need for medical care."
-- Ron Allen
Ron Allen
> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote:
> I have not followed the discussions on Marx. Still, after
> reading Das Kapital, I would say that the my main objection
> is that in spite of all his words, he does not say anything
> new.
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 1: Marx wrote nothing new.
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote:
> If you want to define a value that depends on the amount
> of work needed to produce it, you are of course in your
> full right to do so. Doing this does not tell anybody
> anything new about anything.
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 2: MArx's labor theory of value is nothing
new.
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote:
> If you want to 'prove' that your value is depending on
> the amount of work needed to produce it, you should not
> use a type of proof that already Aristotle found wrong.
> Aristotle said that it was wrong to reason from a
> consequent to its condition. As an example he said that
> if all people who drink too much get poor, it is wrong
> to claim that all people who are poor drink to much.
> He would thus reject the following type of reasoning:
> If some people are poor, they must have something in
> common. The only thing they can have in common is that
> they drink to much. Thus, the poverty of a person must
> be decided by how much he drinks.
Ron Allen answers:
Of course, the marxists do not say that people are poor
because those who are poor drink too much. But we will
list this as one of your apparent criticisms of Marx.
Criticism 3: Marx believed that poverty was directly
connected with alcoholism.
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote:
> Still, this is the type of 'proof' Marx uses to show
> that the value of an article is decided by the amount
> of work needed to produce it: . . .
Ron Allen wrote:
Criticism 4: Marx mistakenly attributed the value of a
commodity to the amount of labor needed to produce that
commodity.
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote:
> If you are prepared to pay for different articles, these
> articles must have something in common, a value. The only
> thing they can have in common is that they are products
> of work. Thus, the value of an article must be decided by
> the amount of work used to produce it. ( Das Kapital, Book
> 1, Part 1, Chapter 1.)
Ron Allen answers:
I suppose this criticism is a repeat of Criticism 4.
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote:
> If you want to define a surplus value that is decided by
> how much of the price that does not go to those that
> produced the articles sold (to the capitalist, to taxes,
> to workers who do not take part in the production ... ),
> you are of course in your full right to do so. Doing this
> does not tell anybody anything new about anything.
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 5: Marx told us nothing new about how private
profits are produced through the expropriation of surplus
value.
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote:
> When Engels talks about Marx having unmasked the secret
> of the surplus value, this is all there is.
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 6: Engels was mistaken in thinking that Marx's
theory of exploitation was original to MArx.
Of course, this criticism does not even begin to address
whether or not the payment of tribute to proprietors in
the form of surplus value is itself a factual reality
and everyday practice behind the production of private
profits.
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote:
> You are right in talking about Marx's ideology, not his
> science. He has no science.
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 7: Marx's ideas are ideology, rather than
science.
OK. So we have audited and itemized you list of
criticisms of Marx's ideas and ideals -- his ideology.
Are we to believe that you seriously regard these few
criticisms as sufficiently potent and powerful to fully
challenge marxism as an ideology, or to truly question
marxism as a science? Do you believe these criticisms
are all that imposing or all that impressive?
Perhaps you can try again. Perhaps you can do better
than you have done. If not, then perhaps someone else
can do a better job of criticizing Marx.
<><><><><><><><>
"Labor is the real measure of the exchangeable value of
all commodities."
-- Adam Smith
"The price of the necessaries of life is, in fact, the
cost of producing labor."
-- Thomas Malthus
"Labor makes the far greatest part of the value of
things."
-- John Locke
Ron Allen
> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Since Marxism comes equipped with a nearly impenetrable
> set of defense mechanisms, there are no "basic criticisms
> in a nutshell" that will sway its "true believers".
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 1: Marxism is equipped with a lot of defense
mechanisms.
Of course, Mr. Kester ought to know that every ideology
is equipped with mechanisms of advocacy and defense, of
support and justification.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Renoncer is right, however, the best criticism isn't
> an intellectual one. It's one that looks at what's
> happened in the real world when Marxist ideas are tried.
Ron Allen wrote:
Criticism 2: Marxist ideas have been tried in the real
world, and we can see what has happened.
Of course, what is not being clearly stated is precisely
what Marxist ideas have been tried in the real world.
For example, Marx advocated democratic socialism, and yet
it is more than obvious that what was tried in the name
of Marx, in the USSR for example, cannot be honestly
called democratic, and was much too statist to be called
socialist.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Once those events are admitted, however, there's the
> problem of explaining why things always seem to work out
> that way. Of all the things I've read about that, my
> current favorite is Eric Voegelin's notion that Marx's
> theory is a form of Gnosticism. In Voegelin's typically
> arcane but apt choice of words, it's an attempt to
> "immanentize the eschaton" --- to realize Paradise on
> Earth.
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 3: Marxism is a gnostic doctrine with an
eschatology of immanence.
What is not clear to me is why Eric Voegelin's connection
of marxism with gnosticism is taken as a vigorous and
commanding criticism of either gnosticism or marxism.
I also see no reason to pass an inimical verdict against
marxism because of its eschatological naturalism or its
messianic materialism. I have studied gnosticism in
depth, and it makes for good mythical expressions and
poetic rhetoric. Gnosticism is so much a part of our
language that one can find gnosticism in almost all
occidental literature and spirituality.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> But that means rebellion against the real order of the
> world, . . .
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 4: Marxism implies and entails rebellion
against
the real order of the world.
Of course, revolutionary bourgeois philosophy involved a
rebellion against the real order of the feudal world. I
can see no valid reason to criticize marxism because it is
a radical political philosophy that revolts against the
real order of our capitalist world.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> . . . setting ourselves up as gods and imposing our will.
Ron Allen answers:
Criticism 5: Marxism is about human beings setting
themselves up as gods, imposing their will.
If am curious what is wrong with human beings thinking
of themselves as creators, and thinking of the social
world as being subject to the creative will of the people.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> It's all downhill from there.
Ron Allen answers:
Why you think it's all downhill is not made very clear.
Your criticism is not all that convincing. Did you think
for a moment that your criticism of marxism would be a
devastating critique?
<><><><><><>
"Socialism is the society which grows directly out of
capitalism."
-- Nikolai Lenin
Maxx Power
mistaken. Are you talking about class warfare in principle, or in practice?
If in practice, then you have invoked the reality-based criticism that you
denounced. If in principle, then you are mistaken ecause Marxism is
basically the antithesis of class warfare. There is a leaning away from it,
which could be called warfare against class warfare, but I don't think it's
the same thing. Capitalism is the beast that creates these classes within
which the warfare can occur, due to its being based in "getting ahead" and
"looking out for number one." It is a system *completely* based on greed,
and given the assumption that laws could be created that could reign in that
greed somewhat (a far-flung assumption to say the least), those laws will in
reality probably never come into effect. Public officials cannot preserve
the current system and seek to drastically change it at the same time -- and
they are under pressure from business by the time they get into office to
preserve the system (and incidentally the wealth and power of that system's
principals; the corporate elite). It's a hard fact. America is a
plutocratic society and we are indoctrinated from the time we enter
kindergarten about the holiness of capitalist ideas (usually subtle, but
sometimes not). What do you think we have if not pure capitalism? Our
culture as a whole is a contradiction between a said democracy and a
practiced capitalism. The criticisms of Marxism can be many and varied, but
those criticisms should not be made under the pretense of nationalism,
patriotism, or any other crap premise. Just because someone can build a
business that makes cars does not mean that they should have a more
significant amount of political power or influence than someone such as a
baker or even a garbage man. Does economic necessarily demand social
power? The question isn't what we're going to deny those people as you
speak of, but what we're going to allow.
--
Justin Faulkner
ma...@zoomnet.net
> I don't agree with that. Intellectual criticism is best. Otherwise
they
> will just say that Lenin and Stalin somehow messed up and next time they
> will get it right. One criticism is of their class warfare. The truth is
> that people are not all equal in every way. Some people can build a
> business that makes cars for example, while others can not. People that
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Maxx Power <maxxN...@zoomnet.net> wrote in article
<vqSD5.23307$XV.13...@nntp3.onemain.com>...
> Okay, now either you just horribly contradicted yourself or you're just
> mistaken. Are you talking about class warfare in principle, or in
practice?
They are both bad.
> If in practice, then you have invoked the reality-based criticism that
you
> denounced. If in principle, then you are mistaken ecause Marxism is
> basically the antithesis of class warfare.
The Communists were for "the workers" and against the "bourgious". If
they deny that this is class warfare they are not being factual.
There is a leaning away from it,
> which could be called warfare against class warfare, but I don't think
it's
> the same thing.
Are you a Communist? What do you say Communism is?
Capitalism is the beast that creates these classes within
> which the warfare can occur, due to its being based in "getting ahead"
and
> "looking out for number one."
The mere existance of human beings on this planet creates these
classes. Some people can build things and prosper more than other people.
It is a system *completely* based on greed,
> and given the assumption that laws could be created that could reign in
that
> greed somewhat (a far-flung assumption to say the least),
Why?
those laws will in
> reality probably never come into effect.
Laws like that are in effect now. We have a minimum wage and lot of
other laws.
Public officials cannot preserve
> the current system and seek to drastically change it at the same time --
They certainly can.
and
> they are under pressure from business by the time they get into office to
> preserve the system (and incidentally the wealth and power of that
system's
> principals; the corporate elite). It's a hard fact. America is a
> plutocratic society and we are indoctrinated from the time we enter
> kindergarten about the holiness of capitalist ideas (usually subtle, but
That is true but there is nothing to stop a party of good people from
winning an election and making things better.
> sometimes not). What do you think we have if not pure capitalism?
Certainly not pure capitalism or there would be no minimum wage.
Our
> culture as a whole is a contradiction between a said democracy and a
> practiced capitalism. The criticisms of Marxism can be many and varied,
but
> those criticisms should not be made under the pretense of nationalism,
> patriotism, or any other crap premise.
Why?
Just because someone can build a
> business that makes cars does not mean that they should have a more
> significant amount of political power or influence than someone such as a
> baker or even a garbage man.
True.
Does economic necessarily demand social
> power?
Not at all. People with the most money should not be allowed to buy all
the TV stations and make all the movies. You are right that money talks now
and I am for changing that. But I don't see anything good about Marxism.
The question isn't what we're going to deny those people as you
> speak of, but what we're going to allow.
>
The word "freedom" has been put to bad use, but it does have a basis
in rightness. People should be free to do whatever they want as long as
they don't break the law. We have to figure out exactly what they do that
is bad and outlaw it. If people can only do what you allow that is opposed
to the good qualities that people think of when they use the word
"freedom".
Tom Wetzel
ANDERS FLODERUS wrote in message ...
>
>T I Russell <t...@tirussell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8rkg3q$isv$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
>>
>> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>reading Das Kapital, I would say that the my main objection
>is that in spite of all his words, he does not say anything new.
>
>work needed to produce it, you are of course in your full
>right to do so. Doing this does not tell anybody anything new
>about anything.
Stop right there. Marx does *not* claim that the price of
commodities (exchange value) correlates with the
amount of work time in its production. On the contrary,
he refuted that claim.
What he does say, is that the equivalence of prices to
work time would hold under "simple commodity production",
that is, where all the producers were self-employed
artisans/farmers.
The capital/wagelabor relation results in variations in
the capital instensiveness of industries, and it this
which causes labor time ratios to no longer
correspond to commodity prices.
Tom Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Alex Vange wrote in message <01c03061$0fe990a0$693ae6cf@default>...
>
>http://stormfront.org
>
>Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
><8rlsnq$7hc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> In article <8rkg3q$isv$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>>
>> an intellectual one. It's one that looks at what's
>> happened in the real world when Marxist ideas are tried.
>>
>will just say that Lenin and Stalin somehow messed up and next time they
>will get it right. One criticism is of their class warfare. The truth is
>that people are not all equal in every way. Some people can build a
>business that makes cars for example, while others can not. People that can
>do things like that are a blessing for us all and should not be considered
>enemies in a class warfare. It is true that pure capitalism would result in
>the few very rich and the many very poor, but we can have laws that promote
>fairness and that stop greed. We can fix the problem without Marxism and
>its false principle that everyone is equal.
Where did Marx say that?
Tom Wetzel
Mark....@reading.ac.uk
"Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
I don't agree with that. Intellectual criticism is best. Otherwise they
> will just say that Lenin and Stalin somehow messed up and next time they
> will get it right. One criticism is of their class warfare. The truth is
> that people are not all equal in every way.
Actually, I believe Lenin explicitly acknowledges that: "An equal
distribution of resources is not desirable, because the people recieving
the resources aren't equal."
> Some people can build a
> business that makes cars for example, while others can not. People
that can
> do things like that are a blessing for us all and should not be considered
> enemies in a class warfare.
As has been pointed out before, the difficulty is that capitalism
accentuates those differences. To build a business that makes cars you
do not just need to be good at business, you need to have the initial
capital. You need money to make money.
Another problem, of course, with capitalists great cry that it
promotes success is the problem of intrinsically undesirable jobs, like
cleaning lavatories or sweeping the streets. Capitalism makes these
jobs ECONOMICALLY undesirable too, so there is really no reason why
anyone would want to do them. This is then very amusing, because for
all of Capitalism's claims that it promotes success, it is critically
important to Capitalism that NOT EVERYONE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDS; since if
everyone did, everyone would also be dropping dead from dysentry and
walking in trash a foot high. The result from THAT is the old rule of
grading on the curve: in a capitalist system, a certain number of people
must be economic failures *NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO*. The manifestation
of this in the system, of course, is precisely the previous one: people
skilled yet unable to enter business due to lack of existing money or
reputation.
> It is true that pure capitalism would result in
> the few very rich and the many very poor, but we can have laws that
promote
> fairness and that stop greed.
Socialism has been criticised for being so bad at tolerating
non-socialist subeconomies that set up inside it. But Capitalism, for
some reason, is not criticised for *requiring* a socialist module
bolted-on to it in order that we can actually have, you know, a government.
> We can fix the problem without Marxism and
> its false principle that everyone is equal.
> Bill Gates and his partner
> developed MS-DOS. Not everyone could do that.
Not true. For starters, Microsoft initially BOUGHT MS-DOS from
another firm. And Microsoft didn't get to write it because they were
good at writing operating systems (they hadn't written one before!),
they got to write it because IBM had heard of them. As if that wasn't
enough, MS-DOS is reckoned by many professionals to be one of the worst
OSs ever written. You have pointed out exactly the problem.
Mark....@reading.ac.uk
"Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
> If in practice, then you have invoked the reality-based criticism that
> you
> > denounced. If in principle, then you are mistaken ecause Marxism is
> > basically the antithesis of class warfare.
> they deny that this is class warfare they are not being factual.
I think you are making an error I often see in arguments about
economics: the highs and lows of Communism are not the same as the highs
and lows of changing to Communism from an existing Capitalism. If
Communism had been adopted from the base, theoretically the "bourgious"
and "workers" classes would never have existed and ergo no war could occur.
(Note: I don't actually support Communism either, btw. Or Socialism.)
> which the warfare can occur, due to its being based in "getting ahead"
> and
> > "looking out for number one."
> The mere existance of human beings on this planet creates these
> classes. Some people can build things and prosper more than other people.
However, Capitalism accentuates the process by making what you can
build at all times contingent on what you have previously built. Also,
the people who are most capable of working of course make up the
"worker" class; the "bourgois" the communists despited were those who
had invested their money so well they had no need to do actual labor.
> > principals; the corporate elite). It's a hard fact. America is a
> > plutocratic society and we are indoctrinated from the time we enter
> > kindergarten about the holiness of capitalist ideas (usually subtle,
but
> That is true but there is nothing to stop a party of good people from
> winning an election and making things better.
Yes there is. It's not in the least bit unknown for multinational
companies to say "You do this. We relocate. You get high unemployment
figures.."
> > sometimes not). What do you think we have if not pure capitalism?
> Certainly not pure capitalism or there would be no minimum wage.
Pure capitalism can't be implemented anyway; it requires free access
to the market, which is geographically impossible; it also requires
perfect information, which is impossible the moment the concepts of
advertising and marketing appear.
> > Does economic necessarily demand social
> > power?
> Not at all. People with the most money should not be allowed to
buy all
> the TV stations and make all the movies. You are right that money
talks now
> and I am for changing that. But I don't see anything good about Marxism.
The problem is the margin. If people with the most money are not to
be allowed to make all the movies, we must postulate somewhere a guy is
going to make a movie despite not having much money. How are you going
decide who it's going to be, and how's he going to pay the actors and
similar?
Or are you merely saying he has the useless "right" to make a
camcorder movie with his friends in it which will be thrown in the bin
by all distributors and will never in practice make it to market?
> The word "freedom" has been put to bad use, but it does have a basis
> in rightness. People should be free to do whatever they want as long as
> they don't break the law. We have to figure out exactly what they do that
> is bad and outlaw it. If people can only do what you allow that is opposed
> to the good qualities that people think of when they use the word
> "freedom".
And they can only do up to their bank balance.
Mark....@reading.ac.uk
"ANDERS FLODERUS" <anders....@swipnet.se> wrote:
> If you want to define a value that depends on the amount of
> work needed to produce it, you are of course in your full
> right to do so. Doing this does not tell anybody anything new
> about anything.
> amount of work needed to produce it, you should not use
Which concept of "value" used by Marx do you mean?
> Aristotele said that it was wrong to reason from a
> consequent to its condition. As an example he said that
> if all people who drink to much get poor, it is wrong to
> claim that all people who are poor drink to much.
> He would thus reject the following type of reasoning:
> If some people are poor, they must have something
> in common. The only thing they can have in common
> is that they drink to much. Thus, the poverty of a person
> must be decided by how much he drinks.
Bear in mind, however, that this does not prove that the poverty of a
person is NOT decided by how much he drinks. It shows only that the
above argument does NOT prove that it IS.
> If you want to define a surplus value that is decided by how
> much of the price that does not go to those that produced
> the articles sold (to the capitalist, to taxes, to workers who do
> not take part in the production ... ) , you are of course in your full
> right to do so. Doing this does not tell anybody anything new
> about anything.
> When Engels talks about Marx having unmasked the secret of
> the surplus value, this is all there is.
Marx's point about the surplus value was, AIRI, not about its
existance but about its origin. AFAICT, his theory was this: surplus
value is visibly produced, and must originate somewhere. It cannot
simply be added to the price as an item on its own, because if you can
do that, all other capitalists can do it too, so no real value is
generated. It cannot originate in the cost of any item used in
producing a product, because the exchange prices of those items must be
paid in full. The only possible origin, then, is in the workers, taking
advantage of the fact that the value needed to maintain a worker is
lower than the value of work the worker can produce.
Nathan Kendrick
Mr. Allen writes:
> The success of any
> and every commercial business has a lot to do with having
> more capital than the competition, and has very little to
> do with having more genius than the competition.
Not always so. Read the recent article in Discover about the creation of
the blue LED and blue laser. A feat many big companies threw much money at,
but which a single scientist at a small LED firm in Japan was able to crack
out of genius and perspiration. It does happen. It used to happen a lot
more in the past when there wasn't as much base knowledge required, but it
still happens.
On the division of labor:
If we all just exercised our abilities, who would be the janitors, the trash
men, the guys who do the miserable tasks. Surely even these guys have
abilities worthy of higher employment. The beauty of capitalism is that it
creates an assignment of labor where it is needed without a single higher
authority to direct it, because if a job is in demand, a wage will be paid
until the demand is met. How do you propose this happens in libertarian
socialism? If a job needs to get done, what's the individual's incentive to
do it, if they will get the same benefits by doing some other job that's
not so icky.
On more careful reading and proper rebuttal:
In Mr. Allen's analysis of ANDERS FLODERUS's criticisms, he incorrectly
attributed a criticism of Marx as:
> Criticism 3: Marx believed that poverty was directly
> connected with alcoholism.
That was intended as an example of improper deductive reasoning, not a quote
from Marx. If you're going to pick something apart, please be more
careful.
Plus if you waste time to pick something apart, finishing with an "is that
all you've got?" argument makes me laugh. Please, if they are so weak,
enlighten us as to their deficiencies or ignore them.
On why expended labor does not equal value:
Heinlein's criticism of Marxism: not verbatim, I need to dig the book out,
but here's the gist. If you demand, I'll quote it. (Begin Heinlein
argument) Expended labor does not equal value. A stupid man can pour hours
of work into a project, and you may be worse of then when you began. A
genius may take five minutes and produce something that no other human being
could make. Is the product of the first worth more than the product of the
second? (end Heinlein argument)
That is why true value is set by supply and demand. True value, even in a
communist system, no matter how hard you try to not make it so, is set by
how easy it is to obtain something, and how much people need it. This is
the way of nature.
On the true nature of American capitalism:
We do not live in a purely capitalist system. To think so is to be very
simple-minded. It is capitalism reigned in by a welfare system, anti-trust
laws, and a well-established and powerful legal system which helps protect
the "common man." "Labor" wants better working conditions and decent pay...
not sovereign authority. Just getting people to vote in our system has
proven hard enough.
When government or big business gets out of hand, the people's voice is
heard through strikes (which the media loves--juicy bad news),
demonstrations, and law suits, all protected by laws, which are protected by
our vote. Yes, someone could just try to take
control, but it hasn't happened in over two-hundred years, something to be
said for our
checks-and-balances.
On the problem of division of government:
Can you imagine putting in a good days work and then having to come home and
decide the distribution of rubber to jelly-shoe versus tire factories or
some other trivial government task. Socialism demands some authority to
decide where and how things are distributed, and unless you give that
authority to some group of people, then everyone has to take the role. Not
everyone has time to weigh all issues, so they may make mistakes.
So we establish an association, department, or agency to handle it. But
they now control
something, and control means more authority than the rest of us. They can
wield it as a tool to get what they need or want. And thus corruption
begins, and we have the downfall of socialism.
Of course this is true in capitalism as well. We have division of
governance. But in a capitalist system the government is held in check by
money. If the people want something the government does not supply, they
can buy it. In socialism, this cannot exist, because multiple sources
necessitate competition. (Of course, you can have more than one "source" in
socialism, but they must be controlled together.) How would you propose
this be handled in pure socialism? What's to keep the grain controller from
withholding grain in order to get more tractor parts? What's to keep the
tractor parts controller from giving extra parts to the transportation
authority in exchange for a priority access to trucking? Division of labor
necessitates trade, whether directed or free-market. Is there a third
choice?
On Marxists historical fallacies:
There NEVER existed at the dawn of time an era when all humans were equal.
Even a small scale social structure of families or tribes has a hierarchy.
Just because it is social convention instead of divine or corporate doesn't
make it less of a bureaucracy. Hierarchy is both a natural outcome of large
group social interaction and necessary for human advancement. Hunting large
herds, irrigating fields, and building shelters require the direction of
many by a few or one, "the man with the plan."
To assume that human society can be so simply described in the stages of
feudalism and capitalism and then communism ignores the complexities of real
life. During the roman era there were merchants and a middle class. What
about Greek and Roman republics? What about the meritocracy that existed in
China after Confucius' influence (I wish I could remember the years.) The
change from feudalism to capitalism was not a revolution. Marx's history was
colored by the shock of the French revolution. Feudalism gave way to
capitalism slowly, with the growth in mercantilism and a strong middle class
based on trade and craftsmanship. The problem for Russia was the small size
and weak political power of their middle class.
And finally (whew, and I thought Mr. Allen was long-winded) some personal
thoughts:
We should not argue pure socialism versus pure capitalism. Anybody with a
half-decent education (there aren't as many as there should be out there)
knows that either, in their pure form, is both unrealistic and has numerous
flaws. A proper discussion places them at two ends of a scale, and
attempts to find the proper balance between them. As has been stated,
American capitalism requires some socialist hindrances in order to make it a
viable and stable system. I don't think any good capitalist would dispute
that. Discuss specifics! That's why the "founding fathers" took so long to
make the American system. How would you propose, in a much more socialist
system, the issues of division of labor, distribution of products and
services, and governance take place? Don't leave it to better minds...
they're too busy trying to make a buck to live on.
---
Nathan Kendrick
"Authority and responsibility must be equal--else a balancing takes place as
surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit
irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for
anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy."
-- Heinlein, "Starship Troopers"
(the book, not the bastard corruption of James Cameron)
twe...@beasys.com
"Nathan Kendrick" <nat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On personal ability in a capitalist system:
>
> Mr. Allen writes:
> > The success of any
> > and every commercial business has a lot to do with having
> > more capital than the competition, and has very little to
> > do with having more genius than the competition.
>
> Not always so. Read the recent article in Discover about the creation
of
> the blue LED and blue laser. A feat many big companies threw much
money at,
> but which a single scientist at a small LED firm in Japan was able to
crack
> out of genius and perspiration. It does happen. It used to happen a
lot
> more in the past when there wasn't as much base knowledge required,
but it
> still happens.
Doesn't show that Ron was mistaken. What happens often
in such cases is that any invention is simply taken over
by a firm that is well endowed. This can happen by
theft (e.g. the telephone), by a buyout (e.g. with
countless startups) etc. Success often involves
fortuitous moves, i.e. it is impossible to predict
accurately what the direction of the market will be.
Firms that do so predict will be more successful
than those that do not. But there is an inevitable
element of sheer luck in this precisely because
nobody has yet invented a working crystal ball.
Ron wasn't claiming that firms that come up with innovations
are always the most well endowed, but that commercial
success is dependent on capital. These are different
questions. In fact what firms aim at is monopoly.
Innovation is a weapon for doing that. When a firm acquires
(by whatever means) an innovation that enables it to produce
functionality that no other vendor can provide or to
produce functionality F at a lower cost than other producers
of Fs, then until such time that the competition figures
out how to replicate this, that firm will suck down
monopoly profits. This was explicated quite well by
Marx in volume I of Capital. It is one of those theoretical
contributions of Marx that have been strongly confirmed
by subsequent observation.
>
> On the division of labor:
>
> If we all just exercised our abilities, who would be the janitors, the
trash
> men, the guys who do the miserable tasks.
Huh? This is a nonsequitur.
>Surely even these guys have
> abilities worthy of higher employment.
Doesn't this contradict what you said in the previous sentence?
>The beauty of capitalism is
that it
> creates an assignment of labor where it is needed without a single
higher
> authority to direct it,
No, there is always a single authority to direct it,
namely the particular capital that employs labor,
via its management hierarchy. Each firm is
internally a totalitarian dictatorship, directed
at the goal of capital expansion.
>because if a job is in demand, a wage will be
paid
> until the demand is met. How do you propose this happens in
libertarian
> socialism? If a job needs to get done, what's the individual's
incentive to
> do it, if they will get the same benefits by doing some other job
that's
> not so icky.
Either it is necessary to the production process or not. If it
is necessary to the production process, the workers collective must
find a way to do it.
The ugliness of capitalism is that it destroyed the historic
craft mastery of the worker by breaking up the process of
producing an F into a series of discrete actions which
can be parcelled out to discrete workers, with the whole
integrated only in the conceptions and decisions and plans
of the managerial hierarchy and their professional designers.
Instead of a clock or a saw being made by a craft worker
with all the abilities, and the conceptualization and
execution of the process controlled by that worker, the
process is broken up into discrete parts performed by
different people.
The purpose of this minute restructuring of the labor process
is to isolate routine tasks requiring little skill, so that
people can be hired at low wages to do this, and the
amount of skilled, educationed labor required can be
minimized. This lowers market costs of production but
at the expense of deskilling the workforce, and taking
away from them the mastery and control of the work
process.
>
> On more careful reading and proper rebuttal:
>
[..]
>
> On why expended labor does not equal value:
>
> Heinlein's criticism of Marxism: not verbatim, I need to dig the book
out,
> but here's the gist. If you demand, I'll quote it. (Begin Heinlein
> argument) Expended labor does not equal value. A stupid man can pour
hours
> of work into a project, and you may be worse of then when you began. A
> genius may take five minutes and produce something that no other human
being
> could make. Is the product of the first worth more than the product
of the
> second? (end Heinlein argument)
>
> That is why true value is set by supply and demand. True value, even
in a
> communist system, no matter how hard you try to not make it so, is set
by
> how easy it is to obtain something, and how much people need it. This
is
> the way of nature.
This is a bad argument. What is the "value" you are talking
about? Price? Or something else?
>
> On the true nature of American capitalism:
>
> We do not live in a purely capitalist system.
What does it mean to be a "purely" capitalist system?
A system is a system of a certain kind in virtue
of its developmental tendencies and the structures
that generate those tendencies. Among the tendencies
of a capitalist system is that it tends to generate
oppositional activity by workers, due to their
exploitation. This historically gave rise to unions
and social-democratic parties (though these are
weakest in the US of all advanced capitalist countries).
Because it is of the nature of the capitalist state
that it must be capable of goveerning and appearing
to do so in the interests of the community generally,
it cannot be simply a dictatorship of capital, or
that would be unstable. Hence, restrictions on
the free action of capital, in the interests of the
larger community, are probably inevitable under
capitalism.
Your talk of "pure" capitalism seems to suppose
that the tendency I've just referred to might be
absent. I think there is no reason to suppose that
could be the case.
>To think so is to be
very
> simple-minded. It is capitalism reigned in by a welfare system,
anti-trust
> laws, and a well-established and powerful legal system which helps
protect
> the "common man."
There has been a reduction in these characteristics in most
advanced capitalist countries over the past 20 years.
These restraints, however, are now and have been for the
past several decades, far weaker in the US than in any
other advanced capitalist country. This is indicated
by the absence of a social-democratic party in which
the working class is the main influence, in the absence
of universal health care system, in the high level of
inequality and high level level of poverty, etc.
>"Labor" wants better working conditions and decent
pay...
> not sovereign authority. Just getting people to vote in our system
has
> proven hard enough.
Indications are that one of the reasons the working class
votes to a lower extent in the US than in other advanced
capitalist countries is the absence of a social-democratic
party more directly influenced by them. The political structure
of the US, as well as its history as a slave and settler
state, are all contributory causes of this.
>
> When government or big business gets out of hand, the people's voice
is
> heard through strikes (which the media loves--juicy bad news),
> demonstrations, and law suits, all protected by laws, which are
protected by
> our vote. Yes, someone could just try to take
> control, but it hasn't happened in over two-hundred years, something
to be
> said for our
> checks-and-balances.
The government has the checks on overt capitalist dictatorship
to the (weak) degree it does only because of past struggles
on the part of the population.
>
> On the problem of division of government:
>
> Can you imagine putting in a good days work and then having to come
home and
> decide the distribution of rubber to jelly-shoe versus tire factories
or
> some other trivial government task.
It is sufficient that the decisions people have to make are
broad guidelines, insofar as these are not decisions in which
they are more directly affected. If they are things in which
they are more directly affected, like the management of
the building where they live or the place where they work,
it is easy to imagine many being involved in periodic meetings
to discuss and decide these things. Your argument is the
perennial defense of the bureaucrat.
>Socialism demands some authority
to
> decide where and how things are distributed, and unless you give that
> authority to some group of people, then everyone has to take the role.
No, not more authority, but a change in where the authority
resides.
>Not
> everyone has time to weigh all issues, so they may make mistakes.
>
> So we establish an association, department, or agency to handle it.
>But
> they now control
> something, and control means more authority than the rest of us. They
can
> wield it as a tool to get what they need or want. And thus corruption
> begins, and we have the downfall of socialism.
Sorry. This is a nonsequitur. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy
is countered by the Iron Law of Democracy, that is, that
people will get involved and oppose dictation against bad
decisions affecting them.
>
> Of course this is true in capitalism as well. We have division of
> governance. But in a capitalist system the government is held in
check by
> money.
That is, the basic function of the government is to ensure
prosperity and success for the moneybags who own the
economy.
>If the people want something the government does not supply,
they
> can buy it.
If they have the money.
>In socialism, this cannot exist, because multiple sources
> necessitate competition. (Of course, you can have more than one
"source" in
> socialism, but they must be controlled together.)
nonsequitur of course.
>How would you
propose
> this be handled in pure socialism? What's to keep the grain
controller from
> withholding grain in order to get more tractor parts?
The resources of the grain mill are owned by the community.
If the group of people who have been subcontrated use of
that facility act in an antisocial manner, their subcontract
can be given to someone else.
>What's to keep
the
> tractor parts controller from giving extra parts to the transportation
> authority in exchange for a priority access to trucking? Division of
labor
> necessitates trade, whether directed or free-market. Is there a third
> choice?
"Division of labor" is ambiguous. It can mean merely that
different products are made by different groups, or that there
is a minute differentiation into tasks in producing a given
thing. Only division of labor in the first sense is inevitable.
>
> On Marxists historical fallacies:
>
> There NEVER existed at the dawn of time an era when all humans were
equal.
Does Marxism say there did?
> Even a small scale social structure of families or tribes has a
hierarchy.
> Just because it is social convention instead of divine or corporate
doesn't
> make it less of a bureaucracy.
This is incorrect. There can be no class structure without
property.
>Hierarchy is both a natural outcome of
large
> group social interaction and necessary for human advancement.
It may have been in fact required at certain levels of
social development, once property was introduced. That it
should always be required is a nonsequitur.
>Hunting
large
> herds, irrigating fields, and building shelters require the direction
of
> many by a few or one, "the man with the plan."
Not necessarily.
>
> To assume that human society can be so simply described in the stages
of
> feudalism and capitalism and then communism ignores the complexities
of real
> life.
Marxism is not committed to "stagism" in history. For example,
Asiatic despotism existed contemporaneously with decentralized
feudalism, and the development of capitalism in Europe and
Japan out of simple commodity production.
>During the roman era there were merchants and a middle class.
So what? Wage labor was not the governing factor in the
economic system. It is typical of capitalist apologetics
to adopt an ahistorical system of categories that fails
to acknowledge the real differences in human society
at different times and places.
>What
> about Greek and Roman republics?
Athenian democracy was based on a system of simple
commodity production being predominant, not wagelabor.
>What about the meritocracy that
existed in
> China after Confucius' influence (I wish I could remember the years.)
Asiatic Despotism, which, according to Marx, was a distinct
social formation.
>The
> change from feudalism to capitalism was not a revolution. Marx's
history was
> colored by the shock of the French revolution. Feudalism gave way to
> capitalism slowly, with the growth in mercantilism and a strong middle
class
> based on trade and craftsmanship.
It wasn't always a political revolution. Doesn't follow it
wasn't a revolution in economic relations. This involved
the emergence of new groups, whose economic advance was
based on new ways to exploit labor.
>The problem for Russia was the
small size
> and weak political power of their middle class.
"problem" in regard to what? Russia at the end of the 19th
century was not a society in which capitalism had yet
become securely entrenched. It still had much of the character
of Asiatic Despotism. That is why the system of state
centralism that emerged out of it, under the Communists,
shared many characteristics with it, particularly the
reliance on state autocracy.
>
> And finally (whew, and I thought Mr. Allen was long-winded) some
personal
> thoughts:
>
> We should not argue pure socialism versus pure capitalism. Anybody
with a
> half-decent education (there aren't as many as there should be out
there)
> knows that either, in their pure form, is both unrealistic and has
numerous
> flaws. A proper discussion places them at two ends of a scale, and
> attempts to find the proper balance between them. As has been
stated,
> American capitalism requires some socialist hindrances in order to
make it a
> viable and stable system.
This is probably true.
>I don't think any good capitalist would
dispute
> that.
Very doubtful. The great majority of capitalists currently
favor a neoliberal direction. This is in part a response
to the profits crisis of the '70s. Partly an opportunistic
move based on the current weakness of the working class.
>Discuss specifics! That's why the "founding fathers" took so
long to
> make the American system.
Captitalism didn't really exist in North America when "the founding
fathers" erected the US constitution. Their main aim was
to prevent the mass of ordinary workers and farmers from
attacking the privileges of the propertied elite. This is
quite clear in "The Federalist Papers."
Tom Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Nathan Kendrick wrote in message ...
>But innovation is also a weapon for toppling monopolies. The danger of a
>system where everbody already gets what they need is that innovation is
>stunted.
This statement makes no sense at all.
>Why improve a product or service when it's current quality is good
>enough. All that is left is an appeal to people's sense of community,
which
>for many is not wide enough to encompase more than their immediate friends,
>family, and coworkers.
I think you're trying to say that the search for profit motivates
innovation.
Since the profit does not go to the innovator, typically, this can't be
a plausible motivation for innovation. The firm seeks innovation,
to enhance its monopoly position and to enhance its control over
labor, but those are not goals that a democratic society need
endorse. In short, capitalism fosters the *implementation* or use of
only certain kinds of innovations, not others. It doesn't foster
the implementation of innovations that enhance conviviality
or the mastery of producers or the social good for its own sake (such
as innovations to make life easier for the disabled).
>> >
>> > On the division of labor:
>> >
>> > If we all just exercised our abilities, who would be the janitors, the
>> trash
>> > men, the guys who do the miserable tasks.
>>
>> Huh? This is a nonsequitur.
>>
>> >Surely even these guys have
>> > abilities worthy of higher employment.
>>
>> Doesn't this contradict what you said in the previous sentence?
>>
>
>I don't think so. Maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is that there are
jobs
>which no one likes to do, but which must be done. Somebody has to do it.
>Who assigns people to them? If those people get the same benefits for
doing
>another job that they prefer, what incentive do they have to keep doing the
>bad job?
So people will only do the work the community needs if forced to on
pain of starvation. A truly humane social vision.
Part of my point about the minute division of lavor is, Why divide
the labor process so as to create crappy jobs that you can only
get people to do on pain of starvation?
>
>> No, there is always a single authority to direct it,
>> namely the particular capital that employs labor,
>> via its management hierarchy. Each firm is
>> internally a totalitarian dictatorship, directed
>> at the goal of capital expansion.
>
>Ah, but there is no SINGLE authority. There are many corporations and
>individuals.
So, there isn't one will under economic democracy either. There are
the myriad wills of all the workers.
>Yes each one is a heirarchy, but there are many with
>individual needs and prices they are willing to pay for those services. In
>a socialist system, there must be some other authority to decide what needs
>to be done and who will do it, because money does not exist to exert that
>authority. Maybe it can be up to each collective little village, but if
>some larger task must be accomplished, then the logistics become
staggering.
I see no reason to believe that. Tasks are accomplished by workers, by
people with the experience, skill and tools to do the job. Economic
democracy motivates them by empowering them within their industry.
>
>>
>> Either it is necessary to the production process or not. If it
>> is necessary to the production process, the workers collective must
>> find a way to do it.
>>
>
> Must find a way - that's my point, what is it?
Depends on the work. As I said, the idea is to democratize
information and skills, and to create job comlexes that
reintegrate the responsibility of carrying out work -- the
manual labor required -- with the skill and knowledge to
do the conceptualization and coordination, so as to
eliminate the need for totalitarian hierarchies controlling
production, whether "privately" owned or state owned.
>
>> The ugliness of capitalism is that it destroyed the historic
>> craft mastery of the worker by breaking up the process of
>> producing an F into a series of discrete actions which
>> can be parcelled out to discrete workers, with the whole
>> integrated only in the conceptions and decisions and plans
>> of the managerial hierarchy and their professional designers.
>>
>> Instead of a clock or a saw being made by a craft worker
>> with all the abilities, and the conceptualization and
>> execution of the process controlled by that worker, the
>> process is broken up into discrete parts performed by
>> different people.
>>
>
>One definition of division of labor. Really, this little phrase has been
>bent to many things (by myself included). Here we are talking of mass
>production. Don't forget that in the golden days of craftsmanship the
>majority of people were slaving in the fields to produce food.
And each farmer had a mastery of the skills required for food production,
and not just that, because farms often made a lot of other things
they consumed or bartered with neighbors, like carpentry skills to
build buildings, the ability to make clothes, to can goods, to make
butter, etc.
>Mass
>production enabled cheap plows and tractors to free those people form the
>fields.
Nope, plows and threshers and such were created in the 19th century
before the advent of "scientific management" that broke up and
reorganized the work process as a fragmented set of people
coordinated by a techno-managerial hierarchy.
Plows and tractors can be made by skilled mechanics. The first
autos were made by skilled mechanics. It wasn't till Ford
introduced the assembly line that "scientific management"
methods were brought into auto manufacture.
It's true that the minute division of labor lowers prices, but at a
huge social cost in terms of its effect on the working class.
>So they end up in factories (working longer hours in miserable
>conditions, yes), but that era didn't last long, in the grand scheme. It
>wasn't long before unions and worker's rights concepts improved quality of
>life. And who can argue that it wasn't the Western capitalist system which
>produced the great advances in medicine, science and technology. I guess
it
>is a question of what you call quality of life. That's huge can to open.
I
>digress. There of course different crafts these days that did not exist
>then. Engineers, managers, teachers, etc. Pick almost any middle class
>profession. Unfortunately, there will always be a need for unskilled
labor,
>until robots take over, and we can all be robot repairmen.
Your point is unclear. No one is arguing that capitalism did not
increase the ability of workers to generate more marketable
product per worker hour.
>> The purpose of this minute restructuring of the labor process
>> is to isolate routine tasks requiring little skill, so that
>> people can be hired at low wages to do this, and the
>> amount of skilled, educationed labor required can be
>> minimized. This lowers market costs of production but
>> at the expense of deskilling the workforce, and taking
>> away from them the mastery and control of the work
>> process.
>>
>
>As I said, there has always been a large unskilled work force with little
>control.
Nope. Not true.
>What it worked on has changed. I put to you that the unskilled
>labor of today is a shole lot more skilled than that of 500 years ago, even
>a hundred.
Sorry, I disagree.
>
>> This is a bad argument. What is the "value" you are talking
>> about? Price? Or something else?
>
>I think the value refered to by Heinlein is the intrinsic worth of a
>product. Heinlein argues (by my interpretation, anyway). My understanding
>of Marx is that he asserts that a product has value based on the labor
>necessary to produce it.
What does "intrinsic worth" mean? Does anything have "intrinsic
worth"? Marx didn't think so and neither do I.
>
>> What does it mean to be a "purely" capitalist system?
>
>I was refering to the ideal where there are only market forces and where
>there is free access to all goods and all labor. An ideal.
That is just ideology. What Marx was talking about is understanding
the real system, the real way in which human society tends to
evolve. There are not only market forces in capitalism, nor can
there be, since capitalism requires the state, for example.
>Pure socialism
>would be where everbody gets only what they need and does just what they
are
>good at.
By whose definition? Certainly not Marx's definition. Nor mine.
>
>> Your talk of "pure" capitalism seems to suppose
>> that the tendency I've just referred to might be
>> absent. I think there is no reason to suppose that
>> could be the case.
>>
>
>I had no intention. It is an unrealistic ideal, but realistic systems are
>built upon simple ideas.
Real social formations are not built on ideas at all.
>
>> There has been a reduction in these characteristics in most
>> advanced capitalist countries over the past 20 years.
>> These restraints, however, are now and have been for the
>> past several decades, far weaker in the US than in any
>> other advanced capitalist country. This is indicated
>> by the absence of a social-democratic party in which
>> the working class is the main influence, in the absence
>> of universal health care system, in the high level of
>> inequality and high level level of poverty, etc.
>>
>> >"Labor" wants better working conditions and decent
>> pay...
>> > not sovereign authority. Just getting people to vote in our system
>> has
>> > proven hard enough.
>>
>> Indications are that one of the reasons the working class
>> votes to a lower extent in the US than in other advanced
>> capitalist countries is the absence of a social-democratic
>> party more directly influenced by them. The political structure
>> of the US, as well as its history as a slave and settler
>> state, are all contributory causes of this.
>>
>
>I agree. The other democracies you refer to have other problems associated
>with more socialist leanings. I regret I don't have much knowledge about
>European democracies, other than cursory review, so any argument there
would
>not be solid. And I agree that some effort is needed to increase
>lower-class participation in American government. I think this arises out
>of our very poor education system, a socialist institution I agree with,
>although I admit I am in favor of vouchers.
There will only be a greater working class participation if there is a
political movement that at least to some significant degree reflects
their interests and concerns, and in which they can have some
influence. Right now both the Dems and Repubs are agencies
of big capital.
>
>> The government has the checks on overt capitalist dictatorship
>> to the (weak) degree it does only because of past struggles
>> on the part of the population.
>>
>
>Because our system allows the population to exert force. This is not true
>in much more socialist states that have existed so far.
I don't know what you mean by "socialist states". To be socialist,
as I understand the term, is to be under worker class control.
Maybe you mean that
in Europe, during the era of social democratic influence, the
working class socialist parties were able to exert more influence
than here in the U.S. Those countries however have political
systems that are more open to popular input, through things like
proportional representation.
According to Marx socialism is inconsistent with the existence of the
state, except maybe in its initial stage, since he defines socialism
as the free association of the producers. Sometimes anyway.
A problem is that the word "socialism" has been used to mean
a lot of different things so it really has no clear meaning. That's
why I use the phrase "economic democracy", to refer to what
I personally favor, since I think it is clearer.
>
>> It is sufficient that the decisions people have to make are
>> broad guidelines, insofar as these are not decisions in which
>> they are more directly affected. If they are things in which
>> they are more directly affected, like the management of
>> the building where they live or the place where they work,
>> it is easy to imagine many being involved in periodic meetings
>> to discuss and decide these things. Your argument is the
>> perennial defense of the bureaucrat.
>
>Do you have any experience in management or logistics? Perhaps you do, I
>don't know. But my experience shows that no logistical tasks is ever
>simple, and not just because of red tape. The allocation of resources
often
>demands hours of work. More so the more complex the task. And how many
>times have you ever seen a meeting of more than twenty people resolve
>anything in a short amount of time? Especially on contentious issues. I
>remember by mother complaining about the long-winded, stubborn arguments of
>parents involved in her chapter of my college's parent's association, and
>they were just arguing about what kind of christmas ornaments to sell.
I've been involved in union meetings that were productive, where we were
able to develop our program and work out how we were going to
fight for it. I'm currently involved in a community organization that
regularly has 70 to 80 people at meetings. As long as we have
a clear agenda and do a lot of the nitty gritty in committees, we're
able to be pretty productive and have been quite active in our
community.
>
>> No, not more authority, but a change in where the authority
>> resides.
>
>And where is that exactly?
The ultimate authority in general assemblies of the collective.
These types of meetings, tho, are best only for debating
single, clearly drawn issues, not details. Or major, clearly
drawn policy issues. But that is all they need to do.
Committees that are chosen by them can by delegated
to work out more specific proposals and then bring them
back for approval or amendment to the plenaries. If there
are disagreements on the commitees, there can be
majority and minority reports, and the assembly can decide.
They can also elect people who are responsible for
specific tasks, such as coordination, and ensure over
time that they are accountable to the collectivity. There
are various measures to guard against bureaucratic
degeneration, especially the requirement of rotation,
for example, for the coordinating committee.
That is real democracy.
>
>> Sorry. This is a nonsequitur. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy
>> is countered by the Iron Law of Democracy, that is, that
>> people will get involved and oppose dictation against bad
>> decisions affecting them.
>
>Not true. My experience in the military has shown me that things can get
>pretty bad before people will make a stand, and that change can be very
>difficult in a bureaucracy.
Of course. The military is by definition internally totalitarian. It's not
supposed to be a democracy. I mean, that was one of the problems
with the old state militias in the 19th century, from the point of view
of the ruling class -- they were undependable precisely because
they were popular bodies.
>Democracy does not always prevail. (And it has
>means to in the military, despite common assumptions to the contrary.)
>Change often requires instead a small group of people willing to ramrod an
>idea through. This is a limitation of any heirarchical system, capitalism
>or socialism.
"Socialism", as I pointed out above, has no clear meaning. A system
of economic democracy, of "the free association of the producers", in
Marx's phrase, is not a topdown hierarchy.
>My argument is that a heirarchical government is still
>necessary in a socialist system. Unless you can provide a concrete example
>otherwise.
Socialism as I have defined it here has not existed. Doesn't show it can't.
>
>> That is, the basic function of the government is to ensure
>> prosperity and success for the moneybags who own the
>> economy.
>
>True, but in a regulated capitalist system they are given other incentives
>to not screw the proletariat.
Limits, which are the product of struggles by the proletariat.
>
>> >If the people want something the government does not supply,
>> they
>> > can buy it.
>>
>> If they have the money.
>
>If there is a want, and someone can make a buck providing it, they will.
An
>example I once read: after a meeting of states, the diplomats walked
outside
>to find it raining. The communist diplomats were surprised to find several
>people selling umbrellas. Who got them there so quickly? They could not
>understand that in capitalism opportunity for profit will bring supply
where
>it is needed, without need of governmental appointment.
>
>To your argument, yes, money is always the limiting factor. But if the
>workers do not have money in acapitalist system, then there is no incentive
>to make products. So it is in the moneybags interest to give them buying
>power.
But it is not in the interest of any particular moneybags that he give
his workers the money to buy anything, even tho it is in the interests
of the collective group of moneybags that workers are prosperous
and can buy things. That's one of the contradictions of capitalism.
>
>> >In socialism, this cannot exist, because multiple sources
>> > necessitate competition. (Of course, you can have more than one
>> "source" in
>> > socialism, but they must be controlled together.)
>>
>> nonsequitur of course.
>
>No it isn't. Multiple sources of a product will always breed competition.
>In small numbers, monopoly forces take over, but in large numbers the
>individual interest to beat the others for a small fraction increase of the
>total demand will be more profitable. In socialism, if it is
decentralized,
>there must be more than one producer of a product or service. My commune
>may not be able to produce grain because we live in the mountains and herd
>sheep. But we need grain, so we must trade for it. There are many other
>communes to get it from, so there is competition. And we begin where
>mankind started. This basic resource model is complicated when you bring
in
>finished goods and services.
But you've just described an example where there was a decentralized
socialism where there were multiple sources.
>
>> The resources of the grain mill are owned by the community.
>> If the group of people who have been subcontrated use of
>> that facility act in an antisocial manner, their subcontract
>> can be given to someone else.
>
>Define antisocial. Do you mean the don't share with the other children.
>Who looks out for this? Who exerts authority to punish them?
The community. Heard of collective bargaining?
>These small
>communal prodction units have existed in Russia since before the
Revolution.
>The problem, is that individuals don't have a sense of ownership over a
>communal resource, so they don't take care of it. Someone else will.
>American examples include your local apartment pool. People won't be
>overtly destructive or lazy, but they will only do the bare minimum.
If they are just renters.
>
>> "Division of labor" is ambiguous. It can mean merely that
>> different products are made by different groups, or that there
>> is a minute differentiation into tasks in producing a given
>> thing. Only division of labor in the first sense is inevitable.
>
>Apologies. Here the macroscopic meaning is intended.
>
>> > There NEVER existed at the dawn of time an era when all humans were
>> equal.
>>
>> Does Marxism say there did?
>
>As I was educated, yes. I do not take this directly from the horse's
mouth,
>so I may be wrong.
>
>> > Even a small scale social structure of families or tribes has a
>> hierarchy.
>> > Just because it is social convention instead of divine or corporate
>> doesn't
>> > make it less of a bureaucracy.
>>
>> This is incorrect. There can be no class structure without
>> property.
>
>YES THERE CAN! Class structure based on authority (determined through age,
>gender, fighting ability). The boss may not own any more than you, but he
>can tell you what to do. If he is given that by virtue of some quality you
>do not have, then he is a class above you.
How is there a "boss" in a tribal society of hunters and gatherers? You have
to have settled property to have a boss, speaking literally. There were
certain roles and levels of respect and so on for chiefs and shaman,
and we can see how mabye government evolved out of those elements,
but there was not what government or employment really is in fact,
back then. That there was no literally exact equality in every
respect does not entail that there were classes.
>
>>
>> >Hierarchy is both a natural outcome of
>> large
>> > group social interaction and necessary for human advancement.
>>
>> It may have been in fact required at certain levels of
>> social development, once property was introduced. That it
>> should always be required is a nonsequitur.
>
>Look at our closest relatives... ape social groups have alpha males.
>They're limitation is that they spend so much time defending their harrem
>that their mates may have affairs behind their back.
Sorry, that is just a bad metaphor. Apes don't employ other apes, they
don't have bosses. They don't have a system of social production.
>
>>
>> >Hunting
>> large
>> > herds, irrigating fields, and building shelters require the direction
>> of
>> > many by a few or one, "the man with the plan."
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
>I was about to slam you but I see a way you can be right. A group of
>hunters could get together, all decide on a plan and then carry it out.
But
>can this possibly scale up to larger human projects, such as the building
of
>a damn, the allocation of food, or the assignment of jobs. At what point
>does our committee of 1,000 become overburdened by procedural rules and
>petty squabbling?
Doesn't need to be a committee of a thousand. There can be assemblies
of a 1,000 to decide just the simple main aim and rules. People work
in the groups that build various parts, people who run trains get together
to determine how many and when etc. People who build the forms for
pouring the concrete run that part of the project. They have to coordinate
withe concrete mixers and the people preparing the plans and the people
bringing in the food and materials. They can elect delegates to a
coordinating committee to ensure proper coordination.
During the Spanish revolution in the '30s the unions seized control
of virtually the entire Spanish economy. Principles of economic
democracy were used in the running of every industry -- electric
power, streetcars, food production on farms, garment factories.
They held periodic assemblies, they elected a coordinating committee,
they had work group meetings. It is possible to organize an
economy on the basis of economic democracy. They certainly
went a long ways in that direction. And they did it for 30 months,
til Franco's army eventually crushed them.
>
>> > To assume that human society can be so simply described in the stages
>> of
>> > feudalism and capitalism and then communism ignores the complexities
>> of real
>> > life.
>>
>> Marxism is not committed to "stagism" in history. For example,
>> Asiatic despotism existed contemporaneously with decentralized
>> feudalism, and the development of capitalism in Europe and
>> Japan out of simple commodity production.
>>
>>
>> >During the roman era there were merchants and a middle class.
>>
>> So what? Wage labor was not the governing factor in the
>> economic system. It is typical of capitalist apologetics
>> to adopt an ahistorical system of categories that fails
>> to acknowledge the real differences in human society
>> at different times and places.
>
>I am certainly not "apologizing" capitalism, and I resent the implication.
I'm not saying that is necessarily your intention, but that is what this
sort of argument is often used for.
>I hold the opinon that capitalism is the basis for a stable, efficient, and
>progressive economy, but that it must be restricted by some socialist
>institutions to ensure the protection of the working class. I think a
>system based on socialism will inevitably stagnate and dissolve into
>corruption and black market capitalism.
I see your point, and would agree with you. I gather you mean
that there needs to be restraints on profit making in the interests
of protecting the working class. I would add, also to protect
the ecosystem. I don't see the fight to erect such restraints as
inconsistent with an ideal of a more farreaching alternative
to capitalism, in which control of the economy is democratized.
>
>The ahistorical categories I chose are Marx's, remember, not mine. I view
Not clear from your description above.
>history as a much more complex and continuous process, that can only be
>understood properly by understanding the complex interactions of economics,
>society, religion, government, natural events, politics, etc. I never
>assigned categories.
>
>Marx based his theory of history on a dialectical process of synthesis
>between an antithesis and the established system (I can't remember the
>term). Each step is the result of a conflict. The natural communism was
>overthrown by feudalism, feudalism by capitalism, and then capitalism by
>communism. I say the process is progressive and continuous, and is not
>marked in all places by sudden events.
The process of transition need not always be the sort of political
event we'd call a "revolution" on Marx's theory. But it would tend
to be a period characterized by tumult and conflict, struggle of
some sort.
>A merchant and craft class has
>existed since before christ (or BCE if you prefer), and has gradually
>progressed into the managerial and service roles it fullfills now, with an
Craft workers were workers. People did engage in trading, but
most often of goods either produced by them, or by people
from whom they bought them. It has been only relatively
recently that the economy has been based on most people
working for wages.
>increase in authority. The working class still exists, but their quality
of
>life is greatly imporved over the serfs, slaves, and peasants of old.
But still subject to a system of exploitation.
>
>> Athenian democracy was based on a system of simple
>> commodity production being predominant, not wagelabor.
>
>There existed at the time maritime trade at profitable scale, as well as
>craftsmanship and service economies. There effect was small, but it is an
>example of the earliest middle class.
"Middle class" is a phrase that has no clear meaning. There were
producers of consumer goods, like pots and tools, and of foodstuffs,
who used trade to increase their prosperity, if that's what you're
getting at. And the strength of the small independent producer
was clearly the real base of Athenian democracy, what made it
possible.
>
>> It wasn't always a political revolution. Doesn't follow it
>> wasn't a revolution in economic relations. This involved
>> the emergence of new groups, whose economic advance was
>> based on new ways to exploit labor.
>
>The progression from industrial exploitation to our current regulated
system
>was a matter of about a century, from mid 19th to mid 20th. There have
>always been new ways to exploit labor, just as labor has always invented
new
>ways to protect itself. Another natural progression, like competing
>animals. Before there were serfs who were stuck to the land, or peasants
>who owed a portion of produce to their lord, and there were uprisings or
>changing allegiance to another lord. Now there are non-disclosure
>agreements and workman's compensation. The battle rages on, but a
socialist
>state will not eliminate the conflict between labor and management, even if
>they are one and the same, (the minority in a committee is not always
>happy).
Marx was for doing away with the state (to get back to the topic
of this thread).
I'm sure it is true that not all conflict or social problems will go away
just because economic democracy is developed. That each of us
dies ultimately is a huge problem for which economic democracy
is no cure, just to take an obvious example.
But that doesn't show it would not be a huge improvement.
>
>> >The problem for Russia was the
>> small size
>> > and weak political power of their middle class.
>>
>> "problem" in regard to what? Russia at the end of the 19th
>> century was not a society in which capitalism had yet
>> become securely entrenched. It still had much of the character
>> of Asiatic Despotism. That is why the system of state
>> centralism that emerged out of it, under the Communists,
>> shared many characteristics with it, particularly the
>> reliance on state autocracy.
>
>Exactly... the problem for why a more democratic socialism never emgerged,
>among other social problems which contributed as well.
we agree on that point.
>
>> Very doubtful. The great majority of capitalists currently
>> favor a neoliberal direction. This is in part a response
>> to the profits crisis of the '70s. Partly an opportunistic
>> move based on the current weakness of the working class.
>
>Okay, you got me, but I could say that they aren't "good capitalists."
>
>> Captitalism didn't really exist in North America when "the founding
>> fathers" erected the US constitution. Their main aim was
>> to prevent the mass of ordinary workers and farmers from
>> attacking the privileges of the propertied elite. This is
>> quite clear in "The Federalist Papers."
>
>I knew I should have read more of those. You got me here, I'm not sure
>enough on my early American history. The limitations of studying
>engineering in college. (I hope admitting that doesn't blacklist me.)
You're doing okay. :)
Tom Wetzel
Renoncer
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Ron Allen answers:
> What then can you tell us of Marx's theories which were
> implemented in the Soviet Union, for example, and which
> having been attempted and implemented failed miserably?
>
> I fully agree with you that the Soviet Union was a very
> miserable failure. I also know that the Soviet Union
> explained and defended itself using marxism. But I
> have been unable to find any support for bolshevism in
> the writings of Marx or Engels. What did Marx propose
> in his theories which the bolsheviks implemented?
I'm sorry that I can't answer that question. I'm not
very well read when it comes to Marx. However, being
ignorant has never prevented me from having an opinion.
My sense is that there may well be a striking difference
between Marxism and Communism and that Communism
represents a distortion of Marxist theory. However, I
wouldn't limit the failures of Communism to the Soviet
Union. China and Cuba are both introducing capitalism
(another problematic system) and will someday be quite
indistinguishable from any other political/economic
system. R
Nathan Kendrick
system where everbody already gets what they need is that innovation is
enough. All that is left is an appeal to people's sense of community, which
for many is not wide enough to encompase more than their immediate friends,
family, and coworkers.
> >
> > On the division of labor:
> >
> > If we all just exercised our abilities, who would be the janitors, the
> trash
> > men, the guys who do the miserable tasks.
>
> Huh? This is a nonsequitur.
>
> >Surely even these guys have
> > abilities worthy of higher employment.
>
> Doesn't this contradict what you said in the previous sentence?
>
I don't think so. Maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is that there are jobs
which no one likes to do, but which must be done. Somebody has to do it.
Who assigns people to them? If those people get the same benefits for doing
another job that they prefer, what incentive do they have to keep doing the
bad job?
> No, there is always a single authority to direct it,
> namely the particular capital that employs labor,
> via its management hierarchy. Each firm is
> internally a totalitarian dictatorship, directed
> at the goal of capital expansion.
Ah, but there is no SINGLE authority. There are many corporations and
individuals. Yes each one is a heirarchy, but there are many with
individual needs and prices they are willing to pay for those services. In
a socialist system, there must be some other authority to decide what needs
to be done and who will do it, because money does not exist to exert that
authority. Maybe it can be up to each collective little village, but if
some larger task must be accomplished, then the logistics become staggering.
>
> Either it is necessary to the production process or not. If it
> is necessary to the production process, the workers collective must
> find a way to do it.
>
Must find a way - that's my point, what is it?
> The ugliness of capitalism is that it destroyed the historic
> craft mastery of the worker by breaking up the process of
> producing an F into a series of discrete actions which
> can be parcelled out to discrete workers, with the whole
> integrated only in the conceptions and decisions and plans
> of the managerial hierarchy and their professional designers.
>
> Instead of a clock or a saw being made by a craft worker
> with all the abilities, and the conceptualization and
> execution of the process controlled by that worker, the
> process is broken up into discrete parts performed by
> different people.
>
One definition of division of labor. Really, this little phrase has been
bent to many things (by myself included). Here we are talking of mass
production. Don't forget that in the golden days of craftsmanship the
majority of people were slaving in the fields to produce food. Mass
production enabled cheap plows and tractors to free those people form the
fields. So they end up in factories (working longer hours in miserable
conditions, yes), but that era didn't last long, in the grand scheme. It
wasn't long before unions and worker's rights concepts improved quality of
life. And who can argue that it wasn't the Western capitalist system which
produced the great advances in medicine, science and technology. I guess it
is a question of what you call quality of life. That's huge can to open. I
digress. There of course different crafts these days that did not exist
then. Engineers, managers, teachers, etc. Pick almost any middle class
profession. Unfortunately, there will always be a need for unskilled labor,
until robots take over, and we can all be robot repairmen.
> The purpose of this minute restructuring of the labor process
> is to isolate routine tasks requiring little skill, so that
> people can be hired at low wages to do this, and the
> amount of skilled, educationed labor required can be
> minimized. This lowers market costs of production but
> at the expense of deskilling the workforce, and taking
> away from them the mastery and control of the work
> process.
>
As I said, there has always been a large unskilled work force with little
control. What it worked on has changed. I put to you that the unskilled
labor of today is a shole lot more skilled than that of 500 years ago, even
a hundred.
> This is a bad argument. What is the "value" you are talking
> about? Price? Or something else?
I think the value refered to by Heinlein is the intrinsic worth of a
product. Heinlein argues (by my interpretation, anyway). My understanding
of Marx is that he asserts that a product has value based on the labor
necessary to produce it.
> What does it mean to be a "purely" capitalist system?
I was refering to the ideal where there are only market forces and where
there is free access to all goods and all labor. An ideal. Pure socialism
would be where everbody gets only what they need and does just what they are
good at.
> Your talk of "pure" capitalism seems to suppose
> that the tendency I've just referred to might be
> absent. I think there is no reason to suppose that
> could be the case.
>
I had no intention. It is an unrealistic ideal, but realistic systems are
built upon simple ideas.
> There has been a reduction in these characteristics in most
> advanced capitalist countries over the past 20 years.
> These restraints, however, are now and have been for the
> past several decades, far weaker in the US than in any
> other advanced capitalist country. This is indicated
> by the absence of a social-democratic party in which
> the working class is the main influence, in the absence
> of universal health care system, in the high level of
> inequality and high level level of poverty, etc.
>
> >"Labor" wants better working conditions and decent
> pay...
> > not sovereign authority. Just getting people to vote in our system
> has
> > proven hard enough.
>
> Indications are that one of the reasons the working class
> votes to a lower extent in the US than in other advanced
> capitalist countries is the absence of a social-democratic
> party more directly influenced by them. The political structure
> of the US, as well as its history as a slave and settler
> state, are all contributory causes of this.
>
I agree. The other democracies you refer to have other problems associated
with more socialist leanings. I regret I don't have much knowledge about
European democracies, other than cursory review, so any argument there would
not be solid. And I agree that some effort is needed to increase
lower-class participation in American government. I think this arises out
of our very poor education system, a socialist institution I agree with,
although I admit I am in favor of vouchers.
> The government has the checks on overt capitalist dictatorship
> to the (weak) degree it does only because of past struggles
> on the part of the population.
>
Because our system allows the population to exert force. This is not true
in much more socialist states that have existed so far.
> It is sufficient that the decisions people have to make are
> broad guidelines, insofar as these are not decisions in which
> they are more directly affected. If they are things in which
> they are more directly affected, like the management of
> the building where they live or the place where they work,
> it is easy to imagine many being involved in periodic meetings
> to discuss and decide these things. Your argument is the
> perennial defense of the bureaucrat.
Do you have any experience in management or logistics? Perhaps you do, I
don't know. But my experience shows that no logistical tasks is ever
simple, and not just because of red tape. The allocation of resources often
demands hours of work. More so the more complex the task. And how many
times have you ever seen a meeting of more than twenty people resolve
anything in a short amount of time? Especially on contentious issues. I
remember by mother complaining about the long-winded, stubborn arguments of
parents involved in her chapter of my college's parent's association, and
they were just arguing about what kind of christmas ornaments to sell.
> No, not more authority, but a change in where the authority
> resides.
And where is that exactly?
> Sorry. This is a nonsequitur. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy
> is countered by the Iron Law of Democracy, that is, that
> people will get involved and oppose dictation against bad
> decisions affecting them.
Not true. My experience in the military has shown me that things can get
pretty bad before people will make a stand, and that change can be very
difficult in a bureaucracy. Democracy does not always prevail. (And it has
means to in the military, despite common assumptions to the contrary.)
Change often requires instead a small group of people willing to ramrod an
idea through. This is a limitation of any heirarchical system, capitalism
or socialism. My argument is that a heirarchical government is still
necessary in a socialist system. Unless you can provide a concrete example
otherwise.
> That is, the basic function of the government is to ensure
> prosperity and success for the moneybags who own the
> economy.
True, but in a regulated capitalist system they are given other incentives
to not screw the proletariat.
> >If the people want something the government does not supply,
> they
> > can buy it.
>
> If they have the money.
If there is a want, and someone can make a buck providing it, they will. An
example I once read: after a meeting of states, the diplomats walked outside
to find it raining. The communist diplomats were surprised to find several
people selling umbrellas. Who got them there so quickly? They could not
understand that in capitalism opportunity for profit will bring supply where
it is needed, without need of governmental appointment.
To your argument, yes, money is always the limiting factor. But if the
workers do not have money in acapitalist system, then there is no incentive
to make products. So it is in the moneybags interest to give them buying
power.
> >In socialism, this cannot exist, because multiple sources
> > necessitate competition. (Of course, you can have more than one
> "source" in
> > socialism, but they must be controlled together.)
>
> nonsequitur of course.
No it isn't. Multiple sources of a product will always breed competition.
In small numbers, monopoly forces take over, but in large numbers the
individual interest to beat the others for a small fraction increase of the
total demand will be more profitable. In socialism, if it is decentralized,
there must be more than one producer of a product or service. My commune
may not be able to produce grain because we live in the mountains and herd
sheep. But we need grain, so we must trade for it. There are many other
communes to get it from, so there is competition. And we begin where
mankind started. This basic resource model is complicated when you bring in
finished goods and services.
> The resources of the grain mill are owned by the community.
> If the group of people who have been subcontrated use of
> that facility act in an antisocial manner, their subcontract
> can be given to someone else.
Define antisocial. Do you mean the don't share with the other children.
Who looks out for this? Who exerts authority to punish them? These small
communal prodction units have existed in Russia since before the Revolution.
The problem, is that individuals don't have a sense of ownership over a
communal resource, so they don't take care of it. Someone else will.
American examples include your local apartment pool. People won't be
overtly destructive or lazy, but they will only do the bare minimum.
> "Division of labor" is ambiguous. It can mean merely that
> different products are made by different groups, or that there
> is a minute differentiation into tasks in producing a given
> thing. Only division of labor in the first sense is inevitable.
Apologies. Here the macroscopic meaning is intended.
> > There NEVER existed at the dawn of time an era when all humans were
> equal.
>
> Does Marxism say there did?
As I was educated, yes. I do not take this directly from the horse's mouth,
so I may be wrong.
> > Even a small scale social structure of families or tribes has a
> hierarchy.
> > Just because it is social convention instead of divine or corporate
> doesn't
> > make it less of a bureaucracy.
>
> This is incorrect. There can be no class structure without
> property.
YES THERE CAN! Class structure based on authority (determined through age,
gender, fighting ability). The boss may not own any more than you, but he
can tell you what to do. If he is given that by virtue of some quality you
do not have, then he is a class above you.
>
> >Hierarchy is both a natural outcome of
> large
> > group social interaction and necessary for human advancement.
>
> It may have been in fact required at certain levels of
> social development, once property was introduced. That it
> should always be required is a nonsequitur.
Look at our closest relatives... ape social groups have alpha males.
They're limitation is that they spend so much time defending their harrem
that their mates may have affairs behind their back.
>
> >Hunting
> large
> > herds, irrigating fields, and building shelters require the direction
> of
> > many by a few or one, "the man with the plan."
>
> Not necessarily.
I was about to slam you but I see a way you can be right. A group of
hunters could get together, all decide on a plan and then carry it out. But
can this possibly scale up to larger human projects, such as the building of
a damn, the allocation of food, or the assignment of jobs. At what point
does our committee of 1,000 become overburdened by procedural rules and
petty squabbling?
> > To assume that human society can be so simply described in the stages
> of
> > feudalism and capitalism and then communism ignores the complexities
> of real
> > life.
>
> Marxism is not committed to "stagism" in history. For example,
> Asiatic despotism existed contemporaneously with decentralized
> feudalism, and the development of capitalism in Europe and
> Japan out of simple commodity production.
>
>
> >During the roman era there were merchants and a middle class.
>
> So what? Wage labor was not the governing factor in the
> economic system. It is typical of capitalist apologetics
> to adopt an ahistorical system of categories that fails
> to acknowledge the real differences in human society
> at different times and places.
I am certainly not "apologizing" capitalism, and I resent the implication.
I hold the opinon that capitalism is the basis for a stable, efficient, and
progressive economy, but that it must be restricted by some socialist
institutions to ensure the protection of the working class. I think a
system based on socialism will inevitably stagnate and dissolve into
corruption and black market capitalism.
The ahistorical categories I chose are Marx's, remember, not mine. I view
history as a much more complex and continuous process, that can only be
understood properly by understanding the complex interactions of economics,
society, religion, government, natural events, politics, etc. I never
assigned categories.
Marx based his theory of history on a dialectical process of synthesis
between an antithesis and the established system (I can't remember the
term). Each step is the result of a conflict. The natural communism was
overthrown by feudalism, feudalism by capitalism, and then capitalism by
communism. I say the process is progressive and continuous, and is not
marked in all places by sudden events. A merchant and craft class has
existed since before christ (or BCE if you prefer), and has gradually
progressed into the managerial and service roles it fullfills now, with an
increase in authority. The working class still exists, but their quality of
life is greatly imporved over the serfs, slaves, and peasants of old.
> Athenian democracy was based on a system of simple
> commodity production being predominant, not wagelabor.
There existed at the time maritime trade at profitable scale, as well as
craftsmanship and service economies. There effect was small, but it is an
example of the earliest middle class.
> It wasn't always a political revolution. Doesn't follow it
> wasn't a revolution in economic relations. This involved
> the emergence of new groups, whose economic advance was
> based on new ways to exploit labor.
The progression from industrial exploitation to our current regulated system
was a matter of about a century, from mid 19th to mid 20th. There have
always been new ways to exploit labor, just as labor has always invented new
ways to protect itself. Another natural progression, like competing
animals. Before there were serfs who were stuck to the land, or peasants
who owed a portion of produce to their lord, and there were uprisings or
changing allegiance to another lord. Now there are non-disclosure
agreements and workman's compensation. The battle rages on, but a socialist
state will not eliminate the conflict between labor and management, even if
they are one and the same, (the minority in a committee is not always
happy).
> >The problem for Russia was the
> small size
> > and weak political power of their middle class.
>
> "problem" in regard to what? Russia at the end of the 19th
> century was not a society in which capitalism had yet
> become securely entrenched. It still had much of the character
> of Asiatic Despotism. That is why the system of state
> centralism that emerged out of it, under the Communists,
> shared many characteristics with it, particularly the
> reliance on state autocracy.
Exactly... the problem for why a more democratic socialism never emgerged,
among other social problems which contributed as well.
> Very doubtful. The great majority of capitalists currently
> favor a neoliberal direction. This is in part a response
> to the profits crisis of the '70s. Partly an opportunistic
> move based on the current weakness of the working class.
Okay, you got me, but I could say that they aren't "good capitalists."
> Captitalism didn't really exist in North America when "the founding
> fathers" erected the US constitution. Their main aim was
> to prevent the mass of ordinary workers and farmers from
> attacking the privileges of the propertied elite. This is
> quite clear in "The Federalist Papers."
I knew I should have read more of those. You got me here, I'm not sure
enough on my early American history. The limitations of studying
engineering in college. (I hope admitting that doesn't blacklist me.)
Nathan Kendrick
Nathan Kendrick
rief. -NK
Mark....@reading.ac.uk
"Nathan Kendrick" <nat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> But innovation is also a weapon for toppling monopolies. The danger
of a
> system where everbody already gets what they need is that innovation
is
> stunted. Why improve a product or service when it's current quality
is good
> enough. All that is left is an appeal to people's sense of community,
which
> for many is not wide enough to encompase more than their immediate
friends,
> family, and coworkers.
And the danger of the monopoly system is that innovation is killed.
Consider that there are companies who have taken out patents on
technologies they have no intent of ever using, purely to stop other
companies using them to innovate.
> > > On the division of labor:
> > > If we all just exercised our abilities, who would be the janitors,
the
> > trash
> > > men, the guys who do the miserable tasks.
> > >Surely even these guys have
> > > abilities worthy of higher employment.
> I don't think so. Maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is that there
are jobs
> which no one likes to do, but which must be done. Somebody has to do
it.
> Who assigns people to them? If those people get the same benefits for
doing
> another job that they prefer, what incentive do they have to keep
doing the
> bad job?
But that's just the point. Under capitalism, these jobs are not only
the nastiest to do, they also grant the least benefit. The only reason
anyone would choose to do them is that they couldn't do another one.
That means that capitalism effectively permanently requires that a
certain segment of the population cannot do any other jobs. This makes
a mockery of capitalism's claim to promote success, as it is obliged to
force a certain part of the population to fail.
> life. And who can argue that it wasn't the Western capitalist system
which
> produced the great advances in medicine, science and technology. I
guess it
> is a question of what you call quality of life. That's huge can to
open. I
> digress. There of course different crafts these days that did not
exist
> then. Engineers, managers, teachers, etc. Pick almost any middle
class
> profession. Unfortunately, there will always be a need for unskilled
labor,
> until robots take over, and we can all be robot repairmen.
It was the minds of dedicated researchers that produced great
advances. Capitalism might have *encouraged* them to do it, but it
surely didn't do it itself.
> > at the expense of deskilling the workforce, and taking
> > away from them the mastery and control of the work
> > process.
> As I said, there has always been a large unskilled work force with
little
> control. What it worked on has changed. I put to you that the
unskilled
> labor of today is a shole lot more skilled than that of 500 years ago,
even
> a hundred.
Intriuging. So, since 500 years ago, brooms, cloths and bleach have
become harder to use?
> > What does it mean to be a "purely" capitalist system?
> I was refering to the ideal where there are only market forces and
where
> there is free access to all goods and all labor. An ideal. Pure
socialism
> would be where everbody gets only what they need and does just what
they are
> good at.
Ummm... "free" access? Under capitalism? Surely you mean access
limited by amount of money possessed.
> demands hours of work. More so the more complex the task. And how
many
> times have you ever seen a meeting of more than twenty people resolve
> anything in a short amount of time? Especially on contentious issues.
I
This is, indeed, one of the periods when one is obliged to restate the
maxim: "If it doesn't work, do something else."
> > That is, the basic function of the government is to ensure
> > prosperity and success for the moneybags who own the
> > economy.
> True, but in a regulated capitalist system they are given other
incentives
> to not screw the proletariat.
What are they?
> To your argument, yes, money is always the limiting factor. But if
the
> workers do not have money in a capitalist system, then there is no
incentive
> to make products. So it is in the moneybags interest to give them
buying
> power.
But if workers *do* have the money they need, there is no incentive to
work.
Another point was one that said that capitalist systems inevitably
turn into socialist systems over time anyway. As competition continues
under capitalism, businesses evolve. One of the key fitness criteria is
ability to quash competition. Eventually, then, the evolution reaches a
critical mass where a business can quash all competition; typically the
point at which the amount of money required to enter the industry is
sufficiently high that it could only be obtained by being in the
industry already. Once this happens, free enterprise falls out the
window. After a bit more evolution there will soon be only one company
in each field of production, whereupon the combination of these
companies will begin performing the economic duties of a socialist
government.
Oh, and one other thing I thought was odd. In "The Wealth of
Nations", it's mentioned that "some individuals keep little
[trading] stock.. and therefore their labour is the primary source of
their income. This is the state of the labouring poor in all
countries." The odd thing is, there are MANY people nowadays for whom
labour is the primary source of their income, and a significant number
of them would be no means be referred to as poor.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
<Mark....@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8rslp5$ne$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <01c03061$0fe990a0$693ae6cf@default>,
>
> Actually, I believe Lenin explicitly acknowledges that: "An equal
> distribution of resources is not desirable, because the people recieving
> the resources aren't equal."
Did his fellow Communists hear him say that. What do you say that
Communism is?
>
>
> As has been pointed out before, the difficulty is that capitalism
> accentuates those differences. To build a business that makes cars you
> do not just need to be good at business, you need to have the initial
> capital. You need money to make money.
> Another problem, of course, with capitalists great cry that it
> promotes success is the problem of intrinsically undesirable jobs, like
> cleaning lavatories or sweeping the streets. Capitalism makes these
> jobs ECONOMICALLY undesirable too, so there is really no reason why
> anyone would want to do them. This is then very amusing, because for
> all of Capitalism's claims that it promotes success, it is critically
> important to Capitalism that NOT EVERYONE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDS; since if
> everyone did, everyone would also be dropping dead from dysentry and
> walking in trash a foot high. The result from THAT is the old rule of
> grading on the curve: in a capitalist system, a certain number of people
> must be economic failures *NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO*. The manifestation
> of this in the system, of course, is precisely the previous one: people
> skilled yet unable to enter business due to lack of existing money or
> reputation.
Agreed, we should have a system that pays even the sweepers good money.
> Socialism has been criticised for being so bad at tolerating
> non-socialist subeconomies that set up inside it. But Capitalism, for
> some reason, is not criticised for *requiring* a socialist module
> bolted-on to it in order that we can actually have, you know, a
government.
Pure capitalism would be anarchy. It is interesting that the anarchist
sided with the Communists. The thing is that Capitalism and Communism are
both bad.
>
> > We can fix the problem without Marxism and
> > its false principle that everyone is equal.
> > Bill Gates and his partner
> > developed MS-DOS. Not everyone could do that.
>
> Not true. For starters, Microsoft initially BOUGHT MS-DOS from
> another firm. And Microsoft didn't get to write it because they were
> good at writing operating systems (they hadn't written one before!),
> they got to write it because IBM had heard of them. As if that wasn't
> enough, MS-DOS is reckoned by many professionals to be one of the worst
> OSs ever written. You have pointed out exactly the problem.
>
For a simpler example, not everyone can cut it as a rocket scientist.
Charlie Kester
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> T I Russell wrote:
> > In a nutshell (tall order I know).
>
> > What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
>
> > Since Marxism comes equipped with a nearly impenetrable
> > set of defense mechanisms, there are no "basic criticisms
> > in a nutshell" that will sway its "true believers".
>
> Criticism 1: Marxism is equipped with a lot of defense
> mechanisms.
>
> Of course, Mr. Kester ought to know that every ideology
> is equipped with mechanisms of advocacy and defense, of
> support and justification.
Precisely. Every *ideology*.
I didn't offer Voegelin's analysis as a *proof* that
Marxism is mistaken. I don't believe that can be proven,
since a valid proof can't do anything more than draw
out the implications of whatever premises are accepted.
I offered Voegelin's analysis as a *perspective* on Marxism.
In particular, I offered it as a perspective which explains
why the observed failures of real-life Marxist regimes were
entirely predictable. It is an analysis which shows that
the evil results had their origin, not just in the evil
nature of the Lenins, Stalins, Maos, Pol Pots, etc. who
ruled those regimes, but also in the evil nature of the political
theory they took as their guide.
I did *not* expect Marxists or their friends to be moved by that
perspective. It requires the acceptance of some premises which
they have always rejected, because these premises are incompatible
with their ideology.
twe...@my-deja.com
But there's a little problem with your remarks here.
Namely, you provide no reason for thinking there is
any necessary connection between Marx's social
theory and the practice of regimes using
as justification a Leninist ideology.
Your reply is irrationalist in the sense that, in effect,
you are saying you can make claims without offering
reasons in support of them.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
twe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> But there's a little problem with your remarks here.
> Namely, you provide no reason for thinking there is
> any necessary connection between Marx's social
> theory and the practice of regimes using
> as justification a Leninist ideology.
>
> Your reply is irrationalist in the sense that, in effect,
> you are saying you can make claims without offering
> reasons in support of them.
As I said, if you won't grant the premises,
there's no possibility of proof.
My reasons include observations, and in particular
interpretations of what is being observed, that aren't
accepted by Marxists or their friends. To see how what
I'm saying is reasonable would require a paradigm shift
which they're not willing to make --- even as an
experiment.
I think I *have* shown a necessary connection between
the theory and its application, when I describe it as
a rebellion against God. I also readily admit that if
you don't include God or any similar transcendent being
in your metaphysics, you won't find my reasons satisfactory.
But I never said I could prove my claim in a way that would
compel assent.
twe...@beasys.com
Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8s4uon$rke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> twe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > But there's a little problem with your remarks here.
> > Namely, you provide no reason for thinking there is
> > any necessary connection between Marx's social
> > theory and the practice of regimes using
> > as justification a Leninist ideology.
> >
> > Your reply is irrationalist in the sense that, in effect,
> > you are saying you can make claims without offering
> > reasons in support of them.
>
> As I said, if you won't grant the premises,
> there's no possibility of proof.
That doesn't follow. The point is that for
anything to be a proof, it has to be possible
for any independent enrquier in principle to
verify the truth of the premise without this
requiring that they use the conclusion as
evidence or reason for accepting the premises.
If an argument does not have this structure, it
is circular and is worthless as a "proof"
quite independently of any actual disagreement
about the premises.
Further, another necessary condition for a proof
is that the conclusion follow from the premises.
This is the relevant necessary condition in this
case because I pointed out that it simply DOES
NOT FOLLOW that the characteristics of regimes
ruled over by Leninist parties are a necessary
consequence of Marx's theory.
This is so irrespective of whether Marx's theory
is true or false, defensible or not.
>
> My reasons include observations, and in particular
> interpretations of what is being observed, that aren't
> accepted by Marxists or their friends. To see how what
> I'm saying is reasonable would require a paradigm shift
> which they're not willing to make --- even as an
> experiment.
Nope. Anyone can see that Q follows from
If P then Q
and
P
without accepting whether these two premises are true or
false.
>
> I think I *have* shown a necessary connection between
> the theory and its application, when I describe it as
> a rebellion against God.
Your claim is nonsensical. This is because there are ever
so many theories that are held by persons who do not
recognize a God-centered ideology, many of which would
have other consequences than the type of regime in countries
ruled by Leninist parties.
As I said, you're statements are irrationalist.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
twe...@beasys.com wrote:
=> > As I said, if you won't grant the premises,
> > there's no possibility of proof.
>
> That doesn't follow. The point is that for
> anything to be a proof, it has to be possible
> for any independent enrquier in principle to
> verify the truth of the premise without this
> requiring that they use the conclusion as
> evidence or reason for accepting the premises.
We're using two different senses of proof here.
You seem to be equating it to formal deduction,
while I'm using it in the broader sense which includes
persuasion.
> If an argument does not have this structure, it
> is circular and is worthless as a "proof"
> quite independently of any actual disagreement
> about the premises.
One way to decide between competing paradigms
is to look at their "fertility". Do they offer
new perspectives on old or previously neglected
issues? Considerations like that will almost
always have the kind of circularity you're
objecting to.
I'm using the word "paradigm" deliberately, btw, to
suggest to you that the things we're discussing
here have already been explored in much greater
depth in the work of Thomas Kuhn, and in the
secondary work that followed his.
I think there is a kind of "incommensurability"
between Marxism and, for example, Thomism.
In the face of that incommensurability,
rationality (in the sense of ratiocination)
is ineffective.
My point, from the beginning, is that there isn't
an intellectual argument that will persuade even
the most ardent Marxist to change his views.
If you call that "irrational", so be it.
But I think you have too narrow a concept of rationality.
Rationality, IMO, can't be reduced to methodology.
I think it has to include insight, for example,
and healthy perception of things as they are (what
the classical philosophers called "prudence").
It's *those* aspects of rationality that guide us in
the choice between conflicting paradigms, *not* an
argument or formal proof.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s5e7k$9od$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8s59o7$5pt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> twe...@beasys.com wrote:
>=> > As I said, if you won't grant the premises,
>> > there's no possibility of proof.
>>
>> That doesn't follow. The point is that for
>> anything to be a proof, it has to be possible
>> for any independent enrquier in principle to
>> verify the truth of the premise without this
>> requiring that they use the conclusion as
>> evidence or reason for accepting the premises.
>
>We're using two different senses of proof here.
>You seem to be equating it to formal deduction,
>while I'm using it in the broader sense which includes
>persuasion.
That's okay. It still requires that the premises support
the conclusion. Whether premises P1...Pn support
conclusion Q is independent of whether those
premises are plausible or not.
>
>> If an argument does not have this structure, it
>> is circular and is worthless as a "proof"
>> quite independently of any actual disagreement
>> about the premises.
>
>One way to decide between competing paradigms
>is to look at their "fertility". Do they offer
>new perspectives on old or previously neglected
>issues? Considerations like that will almost
>always have the kind of circularity you're
>objecting to.
You're missing the point. You claimed that the characteristics
of Leninist regimes was related as an effect to
Marx's social theory. This claim is independent of
whether one thinks Marx's social theory is plausible
or not. My point is that you offered no grounds whatever
for that claim. Moreover, there are good reasons
to think there is no such connection. For example,
just for starters, that Marx was for doing away with the
state altogether. I could refer to a lot of other data
as well that casts doubt upon this thesis of yours.
>
>I'm using the word "paradigm" deliberately, btw, to
>suggest to you that the things we're discussing
>here have already been explored in much greater
>depth in the work of Thomas Kuhn, and in the
>secondary work that followed his.
This is irrelevant since the issue isn't the plausibility
of Marxism as a social theory but your allegation
of a causal link between Marx's social theory and
the chacaracter of Leninist regimes.
>
>I think there is a kind of "incommensurability"
>between Marxism and, for example, Thomism.
>In the face of that incommensurability,
>rationality (in the sense of ratiocination)
>is ineffective.
Incommensurability does not entail there are
no objective standards for justifying acceptance
of a theory. You are interpreting Kuhn as
saying that there would be no reasons acceptable
from the point of view of a Newtonian physicist
for making the switch to a relativist worldview.
Kuhn would not agree with that interpretation
of his theory.
And anyway, this is irrelevant to my point since
it is not predicated on acceptance of Marx's
social theory.
>
>My point, from the beginning, is that there isn't
>an intellectual argument that will persuade even
>the most ardent Marxist to change his views.
Irrelevant since that isn't the issue.
>But I think you have too narrow a concept of rationality.
>Rationality, IMO, can't be reduced to methodology.
I didn't say it could be. But it is a necessary condition
of rationality that you not reject the practice of
giving reasons. In this case I have requested reasons
for a claim that you have made, pointing out how
your claim is not plausible. As near as I can make
out, you respond by saying you don't need to give
any reasons.
[..]
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I didn't say it could be. But it is a necessary condition
> of rationality that you not reject the practice of
> giving reasons. In this case I have requested reasons
> for a claim that you have made, pointing out how
> your claim is not plausible. As near as I can make
> out, you respond by saying you don't need to give
> any reasons.
No, I'm saying that you refuse to recognize
my reasons AS reasons.
Let's drop it.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s7eoa$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8s6459$3c$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't say it could be. But it is a necessary condition
>> of rationality that you not reject the practice of
>> giving reasons. In this case I have requested reasons
>> for a claim that you have made, pointing out how
>> your claim is not plausible. As near as I can make
>> out, you respond by saying you don't need to give
>> any reasons.
>
>No, I'm saying that you refuse to recognize
>my reasons AS reasons.
No, you never gave any reasons at all.
You merely made an assertion.
>
>Let's drop it.
I'll take that as an admission you can't
provide any reasons for your claim.
Tom Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Alex Vange wrote in message <01c03061$0fe990a0$693ae6cf@default>...
>
>http://stormfront.org
>
>Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
><8rlsnq$7hc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> In article <8rkg3q$isv$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>>
>> Renoncer is right, however, the best criticism isn't
>> an intellectual one. It's one that looks at what's
>> happened in the real world when Marxist ideas are tried.
>>
>will just say that Lenin and Stalin somehow messed up and next time they
>will get it right. One criticism is of their class warfare. The truth is
>that people are not all equal in every way.
So what? Marx doesn't say they are.
>Some people can build a
>business that makes cars for example, while others can not.
Some people are clever at exploiting people, some are not.
So what?
>People that can
>do things like that are a blessing for us all and should not be considered
>enemies in a class warfare. It is true that pure capitalism would result in
>the few very rich and the many very poor, but we can have laws that promote
>fairness and that stop greed. We can fix the problem without Marxism and
>its false principle that everyone is equal. Bill Gates and his partner
>developed MS-DOS. Not everyone could do that.
What is the "problem"?
Tom Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s37fu$eap$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
This assumes that ideas that "guided" the action of these regimes
is derivable from Marxism. In fact it isn't.
Now, when I asked C.K. to provide some reason for
his claim here that the policies and practices are derived
from Marx's social theory, he could provide no reason.
Instead he responded with irrationalist babble, making
irrelevant references to Kuhn's theory of scientific
revolutions. The question isn't, Is Marx's theory of
how society work true or well-founded? The question
is, Is the application of that theory the best explanation of
the character of Leninist regimes?
I've offered an alternative account, which sees the character
of those regimes in terms of the real social characteristics
of those sociteties. That Lenin's theory of the "vanguard
party" provided a ready-made justification for an elite
taking over an autocratic state, which was a traditional
component of those societies, that modernization rather
than popular self-rule was seen as the goal of the
movement. These things are not derivable from Marx's
theory fo the simple reason they are not present in
Marx's theory. Marx was a radical social-democrat,
the elitist theory of a "vanguard party" was not his
creation. So C.K.'s "explanation" is a non-explanation.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >No, I'm saying that you refuse to recognize
> >my reasons AS reasons.
>
> No, you never gave any reasons at all.
> You merely made an assertion.
Just as I said...
>
> >
> >Let's drop it.
>
> I'll take that as an admission you can't
> provide any reasons for your claim.
Nope. You should take it as a decision
that further conversation with you on this
topic will be unproductive.
Let those who have ears, hear.
Let those who have eyes, see.
This man wants an argument for everything,
as if philosophy were a matter of lawyer-like
debate. I don't agree.
Dr Johnson refutes Berkeley by kicking a stone.
Moore demonstrates the reality of the "external world"
by raising his hand. The Zen master brings the
disciple back to reality with a slap of his stick.
Levinas finds it in the face of the other.
Tom Wetzel
Alex Vange wrote in message ...
>
>
>http://stormfront.org
><Mark....@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:8rslp5$ne$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <01c03061$0fe990a0$693ae6cf@default>,
>>
>> Actually, I believe Lenin explicitly acknowledges that: "An equal
>> distribution of resources is not desirable, because the people recieving
>> the resources aren't equal."
>
> Did his fellow Communists hear him say that. What do you say that
>Communism is?
For example, at the time of the party congress in 1921, Lenin argued
against workers' management of the economy on the gounds that, "What
then would be the role for the vanguard?", i.e. the party leadership.
Can you provide any evidence whatever that Lenin ever advocated
equality in the sense you describe?
>>
>>
>> As has been pointed out before, the difficulty is that capitalism
>> accentuates those differences. To build a business that makes cars you
>> do not just need to be good at business, you need to have the initial
>> capital. You need money to make money.
>> Another problem, of course, with capitalists great cry that it
>> promotes success is the problem of intrinsically undesirable jobs, like
>> cleaning lavatories or sweeping the streets. Capitalism makes these
>> jobs ECONOMICALLY undesirable too, so there is really no reason why
>> anyone would want to do them. This is then very amusing, because for
>> all of Capitalism's claims that it promotes success, it is critically
>> important to Capitalism that NOT EVERYONE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDS; since if
>> everyone did, everyone would also be dropping dead from dysentry and
>> walking in trash a foot high. The result from THAT is the old rule of
>> grading on the curve: in a capitalist system, a certain number of people
>> must be economic failures *NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO*. The manifestation
>> of this in the system, of course, is precisely the previous one: people
>> skilled yet unable to enter business due to lack of existing money or
>> reputation.
>
> Agreed, we should have a system that pays even the sweepers good money.
If they are forced to seek work under the thumb of bosses, they will still
be exploited. Why should owners qua owners receive anything? What
is the justification for income derivable solely from ownership of
productive assets?
[..]
T. Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s7m2t$37g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8s7h1a$98s$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >No, I'm saying that you refuse to recognize
>> >my reasons AS reasons.
>>
>> No, you never gave any reasons at all.
>> You merely made an assertion.
>
>Just as I said...
>
>>
>> >
>> >Let's drop it.
>>
>> I'll take that as an admission you can't
>> provide any reasons for your claim.
>
>Nope. You should take it as a decision
>that further conversation with you on this
>topic will be unproductive.
Unproductive because I challenge your
assertions.
>Let those who have ears, hear.
>Let those who have eyes, see.
See what? Hear what?
>
>This man wants an argument for everything,
>as if philosophy were a matter of lawyer-like
>debate. I don't agree.
Doesn't follow. It isn't necessary to provide an
argument for something that one can be
warranted in believing without reasons.
If I look at the wall, I can simply see it is
white. That is prima facie reason for taking
it to be white, I need no further reasons.
>
>Dr Johnson refutes Berkeley by kicking a stone.
>Moore demonstrates the reality of the "external world"
>by raising his hand. The Zen master brings the
>disciple back to reality with a slap of his stick.
>Levinas finds it in the face of the other.
The claim that Leninist regimes are the application
of Marx's social theory is hardly in the same boat
as the claim that this rock exists here.
To fall back on the refrain "I don't need to provide
reasons" is an irrationalist dodge.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s37fu$eap$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
See, you read this without understanding. I *told* you
I was simply offering an observation, a perspective, and not
a proof. But you proceeded to beat me over the head and
demand a proof anyway...
>
> This assumes that ideas that "guided" the action of these regimes
> is derivable from Marxism. In fact it isn't.
Obviously, you want to argue that what the "Marxist"
tyrants believed wasn't Marxism. I.e., you want to save
the theory from some of its adherents. No problem;
I readily admit that not all "Marxists" subscribe to
every element of Marx's philosophy.
But I think there's one element of it that they all
share, and it's the one that I recognized after reading
Voegelin. I think that element is the explanatory factor
we were looking for in this thread.
> Now, when I asked C.K. to provide some reason for
> his claim here that the policies and practices are derived
> from Marx's social theory, he could provide no reason.
No, I gave a reason, but you refused to look at it.
I pointed to the assertion of will, the desire to control.
I said Marxism reflects a desire to create Paradise on Earth,
a Paradise of own devising, and that this is a rebellion
against God. I.e., sin.
I think it's plain that the rulers of Marxist regimes
were motivated by that same desire to control, to impose
their will upon the world. Did they pervert the Marxist vision,
or exploit it for their own ends? Perhaps. But that wasn't
my point. My point was that the theory gave them cover;
it established a system of values which allowed them to claim
that their self-assertion was good rather than evil. Because
the heart of the theory is the idea of changing the world
(rather than simply describing it, in Marx's famous phrase),
and that means asserting control over it.
>
> Instead he responded with irrationalist babble, making
> irrelevant references to Kuhn's theory of scientific
> revolutions. The question isn't, Is Marx's theory of
> how society work true or well-founded? The question
> is, Is the application of that theory the best explanation of
> the character of Leninist regimes?
Again, this name-calling. The point of mentioning Kuhn
was to remind you that we're operating in territory where
even the most fundamental assumptions are open to question.
The Marxists themselves often talk about the need for
consciousness-raising, and about the way different consciousnesses
impose their own internal logic and ways of looking at things.
The methods of proof which are acceptable in one paradigm
are often inadmissable in another. Rationality isn't necessarily
what you think it is. I don't consider myself irrational
just because I don't want to play the game the way you insist
on having it played.
> I've offered an alternative account, which sees the character
> of those regimes in terms of the real social characteristics
> of those sociteties. That Lenin's theory of the "vanguard
> party" provided a ready-made justification for an elite
> taking over an autocratic state, which was a traditional
> component of those societies, that modernization rather
> than popular self-rule was seen as the goal of the
> movement. These things are not derivable from Marx's
> theory fo the simple reason they are not present in
> Marx's theory. Marx was a radical social-democrat,
> the elitist theory of a "vanguard party" was not his
> creation. So C.K.'s "explanation" is a non-explanation.
My point is that Marxism appeals to people who have a desire to
control, i.e., dominate. I think it makes self-assertion (aka "self-
realization") the highest value. So it hardly surprises me when
tyrants emerge from the Marxist camp.
I may be wrong about this, and I don't mind if you disagree with me.
But it *is* an explanation of why Marxist regimes usually turn out the
way they do. Obviously, it's one you don't like...but I can't help
that.
Charlie Kester
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s7m2t$37g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > "Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >No, I'm saying that you refuse to recognize
> >> >my reasons AS reasons.
> >>
> >> No, you never gave any reasons at all.
> >> You merely made an assertion.
> >
> >Just as I said...
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Let's drop it.
> >>
> >> I'll take that as an admission you can't
> >> provide any reasons for your claim.
> >
> >Nope. You should take it as a decision
> >that further conversation with you on this
> >topic will be unproductive.
>
> Unproductive because I challenge your
> assertions.
No, unproductive because you're not making any
effort to consider things from another viewpoint.
> >Let those who have ears, hear.
> >Let those who have eyes, see.
>
> See what? Hear what?
Please see my response to your post today,
at a node higher up this thread.
>
> >
> >This man wants an argument for everything,
> >as if philosophy were a matter of lawyer-like
> >debate. I don't agree.
>
> Doesn't follow. It isn't necessary to provide an
> argument for something that one can be
> warranted in believing without reasons.
> If I look at the wall, I can simply see it is
> white. That is prima facie reason for taking
> it to be white, I need no further reasons.
>
> >
> >Dr Johnson refutes Berkeley by kicking a stone.
> >Moore demonstrates the reality of the "external world"
> >by raising his hand. The Zen master brings the
> >disciple back to reality with a slap of his stick.
> >Levinas finds it in the face of the other.
>
> The claim that Leninist regimes are the application
> of Marx's social theory is hardly in the same boat
> as the claim that this rock exists here.
But I say that it is.
>
> To fall back on the refrain "I don't need to provide
> reasons" is an irrationalist dodge.
I haven't said any such thing. That's *your*
interpretation of what you *think* I've been saying.
What I've said is that I *have* offered reasons
and that despite my attempt to show them to you,
you've refused to recognize them as such.
Even though I began by saying I had no "proof"
that would satisfy everyone,
you're still insisting that I prove something on
*your* terms. I don't think it's irrational of me
to refuse to take that bait.
Ron Allen
> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Since Marxism comes equipped with a nearly impenetrable
> set of defense mechanisms, there are no "basic criticisms
> in a nutshell" that will sway its "true believers".
Ron Allen wrote:
> Criticism 1: Marxism is equipped with a lot of defense
> mechanisms.
> Of course, Mr. Kester ought to know that every ideology
> is equipped with mechanisms of advocacy and defense, of
> support and justification.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Precisely. Every *ideology*.
Ron Allen answers:
Precisely. And that includes bourgeois ideology.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I didn't offer Voegelin's analysis as a *proof* that
> Marxism is mistaken.
Ron Allen answers:
Voegelin's analysis is offered as a line of argument
against marxism. If Voegelin's analysis is contra
Marx, then how can you offer Voegelin's argument as
anything else other than an argument contra Marx and
marxism?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I don't believe that can be proven, since a valid proof
> can't do anything more than draw out the implications
> of whatever premises are accepted.
> I offered Voegelin's analysis as a *perspective* on
> Marxism.
Ron Allen answers:
But you were responding to a post which asked very
pointedly: "What are the basic criticisms of Marx's
ideology?" You are now telling us that you are answering
that very conspicuous question about criticism with a
re-directed consideration of perspective, rather than
criticism. And you are offering us this perspective,
rather than a criticism, by using an anti-marxist like
Voegelin? Voegelin's perspective on marxism is about
like Robert H. W. Welch, Jr.'s perspective on marxism.
Mr. Welch was the founder of the John Birch Society, and
like Eric Voegelin, Mr. Welch has vouchsafed us with a
"perspective" on marxism.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> In particular, I offered it as a perspective which
> explains why the observed failures of real-life Marxist
> regimes were entirely predictable.
Ron Allen answers:
The problem with Mr. Voegelin's perspective, and your
perspective, is that it assumes the "real-life Marxist
regimes" which made up the bolshevik régimes of the
USSR and China were in fact and in truth realizations
of authentic marxist ideas and ideals.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> It is an analysis which shows that the evil results had
> their origin, not just in the evil nature of the Lenins,
> Stalins, Maos, Pol Pots, etc. who ruled those regimes,
> but also in the evil nature of the political theory they
> took as their guide.
Ron Allen answers:
OK. Then tell us what Marx himself advocated, and what
bolshevism actualized in the Soviet Union. Keep in mind
that maoism in China and castroism in Cuba were variants
of the bolshevism in Russia. I have studied the writings
of Voegelin, and I am not as impressed as you seem to be
by his argument, analysis, criticism, perspective, or
what have you as concerns Marx or marxism. But I am very
willing and very eager to debate Voegelin's critical
examination of Marx and marxism. I have his books in my
personal library, and so I can get into it at your very
first initiative.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I did *not* expect Marxists or their friends to be moved
> by that perspective.
Ron Allen answers:
As we marxists do not expect you to be moved by a marxist
perspective, I am sure.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> It requires the acceptance of some premises which they
> have always rejected, because these premises are
> incompatible with their ideology.
Ron Allen answers:
Of course, libertarian socialism and anarchic communism
require the acceptance of some premises which Voegelin
and his followers have always rejected, because the
premises of democratic socialism and commonwealth
communism are incompatible with the ideology which
espouses capitalism and commercial free markets.
Perhaps you can spell out these basic philosophical and
political premises we socialists wholly reject, for the
sake of furthering discussion.
<><><><><><><><><>
"God shows his contempt for wealth by the kind of person
he selects to receive it."
-- Austin O'Malley
Ron Allen
> But there's a little problem with your remarks here.
> Namely, you provide no reason for thinking there is
> and the practice of regimes using as justification a
> Leninist ideology.
> Your reply is irrationalist in the sense that, in effect,
> you are saying you can make claims without offering
> reasons in support of them.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> As I said, if you won't grant the premises, there's no
> possibility of proof.
Ron Allen answers:
Tell us the specific premises we must grant.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> My reasons include observations, and in particular
> interpretations of what is being observed, that aren't
> accepted by Marxists or their friends.
Ron Allen answers:
My reasons also include my observations. And like you
I not only observe, I also interpret, and a lot of how
I interpret what I observe has a lot to do with what I
have learned from reading, listening, and thinking
about political and social philosophy and practice.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> To see how what I'm saying is reasonable would require
> a paradigm shift which they're not willing to make ---
> even as an experiment.
Ron Allen answers:
I was born and I was educated to think within a strongly
anti-marxist and pro-capitalist paradigm. My change over
from a bourgeois philosophical confidence and certitude
to a philosophical communism was itself a paradigm shift.
It was both an experimental and an existential shift.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I think I *have* shown a necessary connection between
> the theory and its application, when I describe it as
> a rebellion against God.
Ron Allen answers:
How can communism be a rebellion against the hebrew-
christian deity, if that very same deity's prophets and
preachers have been very often known to prescribe and to
advocate communist principles and practices -- or
principles and practices that are far more compatible
with the ethic of communism than with the ethic of
capitalism? The primitive and apostolic community of
christians was a communist fellowship in its very first
beginnings.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I also readily admit that if you don't include God or
> any similar transcendent being in your metaphysics, you
> won't find my reasons satisfactory.
Ron Allen answers:
If we must grant as a dogmatic given the existence of a
divine being, then your argument is more theological and
less philosophical. Your reasons are more revelation
than reason.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> But I never said I could prove my claim in a way that
> would compel assent.
Ron Allen answers:
That is a cop-out. You join a philosophy newsgroup,
and you seem to imply you have something to teach us,
and rather than tell us something reasonably compelling
or philosophically persuasive, you end up telling us you
never promised us you could prove any claim.
I say, either you have a compelling argument, or a
persuasive analysis, or you do not. If you do not,
then why post an intro that pledges more than you are
willing to give, more than you are willing to risk?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"What a society thinks of itself, that is what determines
the fate of society, that is what indicates the prospects
of society -- its outcome and its future."
-- Ron Allen
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s7p9o$681$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Not a proof, a reason for thinking your claim has any plausibility at all.
>
>>
>> This assumes that ideas that "guided" the action of these regimes
>> is derivable from Marxism. In fact it isn't.
>
>Obviously, you want to argue that what the "Marxist"
>tyrants believed wasn't Marxism. I.e., you want to save
>the theory from some of its adherents. No problem;
>I readily admit that not all "Marxists" subscribe to
>every element of Marx's philosophy.
That isn't the issue. The issue is one of explanation.
>
>But I think there's one element of it that they all
>share, and it's the one that I recognized after reading
>Voegelin. I think that element is the explanatory factor
>we were looking for in this thread.
>
>> Now, when I asked C.K. to provide some reason for
>> his claim here that the policies and practices are derived
>> from Marx's social theory, he could provide no reason.
>
>No, I gave a reason, but you refused to look at it.
>I pointed to the assertion of will, the desire to control.
>I said Marxism reflects a desire to create Paradise on Earth,
>a Paradise of own devising, and that this is a rebellion
>against God. I.e., sin.
For humans to live is to assert their will. The desire to
control what? Capitalists aim to control the circumstances
of production in such a way as to expand their capital.
If they do not do so, they will lose out in the contest for
economic power that is capitalism.
Now, if you say it is the desire of some to gain control
over everyone else, then insofar as any class differentiation
facilitates or gives an avenue for the realization of that
desire, why is that an explanation for a Leninist regime
arising in Russia rather than say a capitalist regime?
Moreover, if you say it is the desire for some to gain control
over everyone else, since this implies that the aim is a
class society, how is this consistent with Marx's
conception of a classless society based on "free association
of the producers" where there would be no longer any
basis or reason for existence of the state?
In otherwords, your "explanation" is a non-explanation
because you posit an element in Marx's theory that
isn't there. Now you might provide reasons as to why
you think it is there, but you've not done so.
>
>I think it's plain that the rulers of Marxist regimes
>were motivated by that same desire to control, to impose
>their will upon the world. Did they pervert the Marxist vision,
>or exploit it for their own ends?
And what was this "Marxist vision" that they "exploit" for
their own ends? You above posit as essential to Marxism
an alleged "desire for control over everything". Now,
what does this mean? If it means the control of everyone
in society by a ruling group, you are supposing that the
aim of Marx was merely the creation of a new form of
class society rather than "the free association of producers".
Hence your assumption is flatly contradiced by what Marx
says.
Moreover, since the concentration of power into the hands
of a minority is true of every type of class society, it cannot even
account for what differentiates Leninist regimes from
corporate capitalism, and thus cannot differentiate alleged
"Marxist" from non-marxist systems.
>Perhaps. But that wasn't
>my point. My point was that the theory gave them cover;
>it established a system of values which allowed them to claim
>that their self-assertion was good rather than evil. Because
>the heart of the theory is the idea of changing the world
>(rather than simply describing it, in Marx's famous phrase),
>and that means asserting control over it.
Every social order has a structure in which people have control
over what takes place and a system for allocating resources
and so on. Some historical systems were centralized systems
such as Asiatic despotism, as under ancient Egyptian or
Chinese bureaucratic state autocracy.
If you're claiming that Marx's theory aimed at a system of
centralised state control, that is not consistent with
Marx's descriptions of a society of "free association of
the producers" and of the state being no longer necessary.
What differentiates the authoritarian state centralist
regimes is not the way the theory of Marx was employed
as ideological cover, but the way Lenin's theory of the
"vanguard party" was used to justify concentration of
power in the hands of an elite. Thus it is more plausible
to describe these states as the implementation of Lenin's
theory than that of Marx. It was not for nothing that they
called their official ideology "Marxism-Leninism".
Further, what was it that this ideology provided cover for?
What it provided cover for was the concentration of power
into the hands of a ruling class, a managerial hierarchy
whose power and position was based on their monopoly
of the state.
There is nothing in Marx's theory that advocates
such a class running things. There is nothing in Marx's
theory that says it should be an elite that "controls everything"
rather than "the associated producers", which is Marx's
actual description of the group who he envisions
planning and controlling production under socialism.
So how can Marx's theory provide cover such an elite?
>>
>> Instead he responded with irrationalist babble, making
>> irrelevant references to Kuhn's theory of scientific
>> revolutions. The question isn't, Is Marx's theory of
>> how society work true or well-founded? The question
>> is, Is the application of that theory the best explanation of
>> the character of Leninist regimes?
>
>Again, this name-calling. The point of mentioning Kuhn
>was to remind you that we're operating in territory where
>even the most fundamental assumptions are open to question.
But not open to the practice of providing reasons in response
to questions?
>The Marxists themselves often talk about the need for
>consciousness-raising, and about the way different consciousnesses
They do? Where?
>impose their own internal logic and ways of looking at things.
Impose in what sense?
>The methods of proof which are acceptable in one paradigm
>are often inadmissable in another. Rationality isn't necessarily
>what you think it is. I don't consider myself irrational
>just because I don't want to play the game the way you insist
>on having it played.
Yeah, you want to be able to make assertions without having
to provide reasons for thinking they are true.
>
>> I've offered an alternative account, which sees the character
>> of those regimes in terms of the real social characteristics
>> of those sociteties. That Lenin's theory of the "vanguard
>> party" provided a ready-made justification for an elite
>> taking over an autocratic state, which was a traditional
>> component of those societies, that modernization rather
>> than popular self-rule was seen as the goal of the
>> movement. These things are not derivable from Marx's
>> theory fo the simple reason they are not present in
>> Marx's theory. Marx was a radical social-democrat,
>> the elitist theory of a "vanguard party" was not his
>> creation. So C.K.'s "explanation" is a non-explanation.
>
>My point is that Marxism appeals to people who have a desire to
>control, i.e., dominate.
No. Capitalism appeals to people who want to control. That is
what bosses and landlords do. It could be said with equal
truth that the theory (of Marx) appeals to those who want to be able
to secure control over their own lives, by getting out from
under being controlled by the bosses' system.
>I think it makes self-assertion (aka "self-
>realization") the highest value.
Why is that equivalent to wanting to dominate *others*?
Is the desire for autonomy in one's work and life
equivalent to the desire to be a tyrant over others?
That is the implication of your assertion.
>So it hardly surprises me when
>tyrants emerge from the Marxist camp.
>
That capitalism is a system that gives free reign for some
to dominate and exploit others, as bosses and landlords,
it doesn't suprise me that tyranny arises from capitalism.
Leninism chose a distored interpretation of Marx's
theory and also adapted elements of the 19th century
social democratic tradition that were independent of Marx's
social theories. The 19th century socialist movement
used avenues of representative democracy to fight for
laws and policies in the interests of workers. This led
to a tendency to conceive of socialism, on the part
of some people, in terms of government control.
This tendency to favor government
control rather than workers control was a reflection of an
electoralist social-democratic movement, which placed
emphasis on the role of politicians.
These were aspects of the social-democratic movement that
are logically independent of Marx's theory as a theory of
historical development
That this was not an inevitable consequence of Marx's
theory is shown by the emergence of an anti-statist
socialist tradition around the beginning of the 20th
century, in the form of the mass syndicalist or worker
council tedencies, that accordingly tended to view
socialism in terms of direct workers' management.
Since both looked to Marx's social theory for understanding
the world, Marx's social theory clearly cannot be sufficient
to account for implentation via a group of politicians controlling the
state versus a mass movement of workers taking over
control of industry.
Marx's social theory, and its weaknesses,
were also logically independent
of the Leninist theory of a "vanguard party", that adopted
state socialist tactics and extended them to the whole
economy, as a vehicle of expanding control by the "vanguard."
Yet the "vanguard party" theory was directly inconsistent
with Marx's view that "the work of workers emancipation
must be the work of the workers' themselves."
But the will to control others is legitimated precisely by
the "vanguard party" theory, not by the democratic
socialist movement in Europe that went before. Lenin's
theory was a peculiarity of the Russian movement before
World War I, and was a reflection of the cultural and economic
legacy of Asiatic despotism, to which it was adapted.
As such, it is highly implausible to suppose that the explanation
for the emergence of Lenin's theory, as the theory that provided
cover for the new ruling elite in Russia, China, Vietnam,
derives from Marx's social theory.
Tom Wetzel
Ron Allen
> I didn't say it could be. But it is a necessary condition
> of rationality that you not reject the practice of giving
> reasons. In this case I have requested reasons for a claim
> that you have made, pointing out how your claim is not
> plausible. As near as I can make out, you respond by saying
> you don't need to give any reasons.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> No, I'm saying that you refuse to recognize my reasons AS
> reasons.
> Let's drop it.
Ron Allen answers:
You are posting on a philosophy debate newsgroup. Can
you debate as a philosopher, or not? Can you give valid
reasons for whatever claims you make? You do not have
to provide my reasons, or anyone else's reasons, but
your own reasons. There are right-wing people that post
messages in this newsgroup who demand that I give them
empirical data supporting socialist truth claims. I
give what I can give. I give my reasons. I cannot give
convincing or conclusive empirical support for socialism
since the empirical reality of today is not socialist.
In other words, one cannot prove a prescriptive claim
using descriptive facts. But one can still provide some
compelling reasons for why some alternative or different
reality might be a better one than the conservative and
cautious reality we have already created.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Sure, he, that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason,
To fust in us unused."
-- William Shakespeare
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8s7kq5$4q1$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> For example, at the time of the party congress in 1921, Lenin argued
> against workers' management of the economy on the gounds that, "What
> then would be the role for the vanguard?", i.e. the party leadership.
>
> Can you provide any evidence whatever that Lenin ever advocated
> equality in the sense you describe?
The Communists believed that they would have to have government, but
only until the whole world was Communist. After the whole world was
Communist they said that the govenment would disolve and then they could
have the anarchist Communism of equality.
> > Agreed, we should have a system that pays even the sweepers good
money.
>
> If they are forced to seek work under the thumb of bosses, they will still
> be exploited.
They would not exploited if they worked short hours and made really
good money. They could also try to go into busisness themselves if they
don't want a boss. Authority is necessary and good.
>Why should owners qua owners receive anything?
Because they started the business. Without them civilization would
collapse.
What
> is the justification for income derivable solely from ownership of
> productive assets?
I am opposed to people making money in the stock market, but people
who do actual work should be rewarded and people who start businesses should
get money then people who do less effective things.
Alex Vange
>
> >will get it right. One criticism is of their class warfare. The truth is
> >that people are not all equal in every way.
>
> So what? Marx doesn't say they are.
If so, then what is it that Marx does say?
>
> >Some people can build a
> >business that makes cars for example, while others can not.
>
> Some people are clever at exploiting people, some are not.
> So what?
Henry Ford paid his people very good money, when they would of actually
worked for much less. He was not good at exploiting people, but at making
the business that makes cars. Without people like that we might be still
riding horses.
>
> >People that can
> >do things like that are a blessing for us all and should not be
considered
> >enemies in a class warfare. It is true that pure capitalism would result
in
> >the few very rich and the many very poor, but we can have laws that
promote
> >fairness and that stop greed. We can fix the problem without Marxism and
> >its false principle that everyone is equal. Bill Gates and his partner
> >developed MS-DOS. Not everyone could do that.
>
>
> What is the "problem"?
The problem is the things that the Communists complained of. That there
were the few very rich and the many poor.
Ron Allen
> Unproductive because I challenge your assertions.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> No, unproductive because you're not making any effort
> to consider things from another viewpoint.
Ron Allen answers:
How about you, Mr. Kester? Are you making an honest
effort to consider philosophical and political questions
from an alternative viewpoint -- i.e., from an anarcho-
communist or libertarian-socialist point of view?
Do you realize that anarcho-capitalism, laissez-faire
capitalism, and free-market capitalism are put forth
everywhere and set forth always in the United States,
where I have lived all my life? Democratic and
libertarian socialism is the most radical of the
alternative viewpoints. Social liberalism is merely a
bourgeois alternative to social conservatism. The
welfare state is a reactionary substitution for a more
revolutionary solution to the problems of capitalism.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I *have* offered reasons and despite my attempt to show
> them to you, you've refused to recognize them as such.
Ron Allen answers:
But you are posting your anti-marxist messages on a
philosophy debate newsgroup, and not on a theology debate
newsgroup. If your particular reasons have to do with
faith arguments founded upon propositional revelation,
then would it not be more profitable and more practical
for you to post your messages on a theology debate
newsgroup. Of course, you are free to post your messages
wherever you wish. But your readers expect a different
reasoning from you if you elect to post fundamentalist
dogma and authoritarian truths on a philosophy debate
newsgroup.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Even though I began by saying I had no "proof" that
> would satisfy everyone, you're still insisting that I
> prove something on *your* terms. I don't think it's
> irrational of me to refuse to take that bait.
Ron Allen answers:
But you did not initially explain why your proofs would
not satisfy everyone, until some posted responses more
or obliged you to be more specific as to why your proofs
would not satisfy everyone. Until you were more specific
about your proofs, you left us marxists with a vague and
hazy sense that perhaps we were unsatisfied because we
were just too irrational or too closed-minded. And we
like to think that we have developed within ourselves
some of those philosophical virtues, like honesty and
authenticity. It seems that the virtues you have
cultivated within your own self have more to do with
the theological virtues, such as faith and credence.
<><><><><><><><>
"Philosophers are capable of almost endless enjoyment of
mutual misunderstanding."
-- Lyman Bryson
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s8buf$lb7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8rkg3q$isv$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "T I Russell" <t...@tirussell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
>>
>> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
>
>your question is a dangerous one:
>any answer is sure to touch off a firestorm of protest
>from those who wish to defend Marx.
>
>If I can do so without committing myself
>to a full exposition or defense of his ideas,
>I would also recommend von Mises' "Socialism"
>as a good example of the kind of criticisms
>which have been made of Marx's theory.
>Another good source is Karl Popper's
>"The Open Society and its Enemies".
Popper's critique is directed against some
vulgar stalinist conception of Communist ideology.
Besides, Popper's critique is based on logical
postivist ideology which is generally viewed
as discredited in philosophy these days.
von Mises is an exponent of classical liberal
capitalist ideology, which makes a lot of
mistakes one of which is assuming that
socialism is identical with centralized
state management and top-down
planning.
von Mises' objections can be gotten around
fairly easily via, for example, the interative
planning process described by Albert and
Hahnel in "The Political Economy of Participative
Economics."
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
"T I Russell" <t...@tirussell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
>
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
Well, as you can see from the followup,
your question is a dangerous one:
any answer is sure to touch off a firestorm of protest
from those who wish to defend Marx.
If I can do so without committing myself
to a full exposition or defense of his ideas,
I would also recommend von Mises' "Socialism"
as a good example of the kind of criticisms
which have been made of Marx's theory.
Another good source is Karl Popper's
"The Open Society and its Enemies".
OTOH, if I can't avoid that commitment,
forget I mentioned them. ;)
Charlie Kester
Tom, the question was, "What are the basic criticisms
of Marx's ideology?"
Not "What's the response to those criticisms?"
Let's let the man do his own reading and decide for himself
whether there's any value in the books I suggested.
</gently>
But thanks for illustrating my point about the danger
in answering the question!
------------
In article <8s8f9a$pv7$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Charlie Kester wrote in message <8s8buf$lb7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <8rkg3q$isv$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "T I Russell" <t...@tirussell.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In a nutshell (tall order I know).
> >>
> >> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
> >
> >Well, as you can see from the followup,
> >your question is a dangerous one:
> >any answer is sure to touch off a firestorm of protest
> >from those who wish to defend Marx.
> >
> >If I can do so without committing myself
> >to a full exposition or defense of his ideas,
> >I would also recommend von Mises' "Socialism"
> >as a good example of the kind of criticisms
> >which have been made of Marx's theory.
> >Another good source is Karl Popper's
> >"The Open Society and its Enemies".
>
> Popper's critique is directed against some
> vulgar stalinist conception of Communist ideology.
> Besides, Popper's critique is based on logical
> postivist ideology which is generally viewed
> as discredited in philosophy these days.
>
> von Mises is an exponent of classical liberal
> capitalist ideology, which makes a lot of
> mistakes one of which is assuming that
> socialism is identical with centralized
> state management and top-down
> planning.
>
> von Mises' objections can be gotten around
> fairly easily via, for example, the interative
> planning process described by Albert and
> Hahnel in "The Political Economy of Participative
> Economics."
>
> Tom Wetzel
>
>
Ron Allen
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Well, as you can see from the followup, your question is
> a dangerous one: any answer is sure to touch off a
> firestorm of protest from those who wish to defend Marx.
Ron Allen answers:
It suits you just find for someone to ask about the
criticisms of Marx, but it seems to get your goat if
someone seeks to defend Marx. What would your reply
have been had T I Russell asked a different question:
What are the basic commendatory opinions expressed in
Marx's ideology?
As to the "firestorm of protest", why must you interpret
a critique of your criticism as being a "firestorm"?
This is a philosophy debate newsgroup. What we are
supposed to be engaged in here is debate. If you post
a message on this newsgroup, do you actually expect it
not to attract some debate? If you post a controversial
message, do you really look for no controversy?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> If I can do so without committing myself to a full
> exposition or defense of his ideas, I would also
> recommend von Mises' "Socialism" as a good example of
> the kind of criticisms which have been made of Marx's
> theory.
Ron Allen answers:
I have read this book. It's criticism is of state
socialism, just as many of his other books are a
criticism of state capitalism. Have you yourself
actually read Ludwig von Mises, or have you only heard
someone recommend him? I am a student of Mises, in
that I have read many of his books, and I have enjoyed
reading them. I agree with his argument against state
socialism, but it has nothing whatsoever to say in
criticism of libertarian and democratic socialism.
Mises offers his criticism of socialism as if it were
a criticism of every possible socialism; but that's
only because, as his criticism makes clear, he sees no
other possible socialism other than state socialism,
other than totalitarian socialism, other than command-
and-control socialism, other than centralized rule
socialism.
If any person wishes to employ Mises' critique of
socialism, I am here to engage in such a discussion.
I tried to get into such a discussion some years ago,
but the initial takers just dropped out after a few
posts.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Another good source is Karl Popper's "The Open Society
> and its Enemies".
Ron Allen answers:
I have not read this book. I keep thinking about
getting that book, but I have had to shop for books on a
limited book budget.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> OTOH, if I can't avoid that commitment, forget I mentioned
> them. ;)
Ron Allen answers:
Since you do not wish to debate, rather than asking us
to forget your posted messages, why don't you just do us
a favor and forget posting messages?
<><><><><><><><><>
"A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is
like a boxer who never goes into the ring."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Charlie Kester
illustrating my point. I knew I could
count on you.
:)
------------
In article <39E8694D...@bellsouth.net>,
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> T I Russell wrote:
> > What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > Well, as you can see from the followup, your question is
> > a dangerous one: any answer is sure to touch off a
> > firestorm of protest from those who wish to defend Marx.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> It suits you just find for someone to ask about the
> criticisms of Marx, but it seems to get your goat if
> someone seeks to defend Marx. What would your reply
> have been had T I Russell asked a different question:
> What are the basic commendatory opinions expressed in
> Marx's ideology?
>
> As to the "firestorm of protest", why must you interpret
> a critique of your criticism as being a "firestorm"?
> This is a philosophy debate newsgroup. What we are
> supposed to be engaged in here is debate. If you post
> a message on this newsgroup, do you actually expect it
> not to attract some debate? If you post a controversial
> message, do you really look for no controversy?
I don't think there's any controversy in saying
that Voegelin, Mises and Popper have offered
criticisms of Marxist ideology. I answered the
question that was asked.
The ensuing polemics don't interest me.
Charlie Kester
> Ron Allen answers:
> Since you do not wish to debate, rather than asking us
> to forget your posted messages, why don't you just do us
> a favor and forget posting messages?
I took the original questioner to be asking for information
he could use to prepare himself for the debate. My response
was to give him some pointers to info I thought might be
useful.
But I also cautioned him that debate with Marxists
is likely to be futile. You will recall that I did not
support an intellectual critique. I still don't, and
that's why I am declining your invitation to debate.
I don't have the time or the interest, nor do I believe
that debate can settle the issue.
If that means that I've violated the charter for this
newsgroup, please accept my apology. I won't wander into
this den of sophistry again.
Ron Allen
> ...and thank you, Ron Allen, for also illustrating my
> point. I knew I could count on you.
> :)
Ron Allen answers:
You are welcome, anytime you feel inclined to do so, to
engage in free discussion with me on both the pros and
the cons of either capitalism or communism.
------------
T I Russell wrote:
> What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Well, as you can see from the followup, your question is
> a dangerous one: any answer is sure to touch off a
> firestorm of protest from those who wish to defend Marx.
Ron Allen wrote:
> It suits you just fine for someone to ask about the
> criticisms of Marx; but it seems to get your goat if
> someone seeks to defend Marx. What would your reply
> have been, had T I Russell asked a different question:
> What are the basic commendatory opinions expressed in
> Marx's ideology?
> As to the "firestorm of protest", why must you interpret
> a critique of your criticism as being a "firestorm"?
> This is a philosophy debate newsgroup. What we are
> supposed to be engaged in here is debate. If you post
> a message on this newsgroup, do you actually expect it
> not to attract some debate? If you post a controversial
> message, do you really look for no controversy?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I don't think there's any controversy in saying that
> Voegelin, Mises and Popper have offered criticisms of
> Marxist ideology. I answered the question that was asked.
Ron Allen answers:
I think not. The question asked was: "What are the basic
criticisms of Marx's ideology?" The question was not:
Who are the best critics of Marxist ideology?
But even more to the point, my response is that Voegelin,
Mises, and Popper do not offer a valid criticism of
marxist ideology per se, but only a valid criticism of
the orthodox ideology of what is usually called by the
name "Marxism-Leninism".
You are a christian, as I recall you saying in one of
your posts. Surely you understand the big difference
between a valid criticism of establishment christianity
and a dubious criticism of emancipative christianity.
If an anti-christian critic simply and uncritically
decides to lump every possible version of christianity
under the very same tyrannical version of christianity
that we have all come to know from history books, then
you would very likely jump in and engage that inept
critic, making sure that the difference between an
emancipative christianity and an establishment
christianity is made as clear as possible. So also, I
have jumped in to engage your opinion that the likes
of Voegelin, Mises, and Popper have given us the final
and finest word on the subject of socialism, that their
criticism is generally and universally accepted as the
last word by the best authorities on the topic of
socialism.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> The ensuing polemics don't interest me.
Ron Allen answers:
Fine. But surely we can be forgiven for having made the
mistake of thinking the matter did interest you, seeing
as you did post a response to T I Russell's initial
question. We assumed you had thrown down the gauntlet,
that you were either making a case or a challenge.
<><><><><>
"The criminal is prevented, by the very witnessing of the
legal process, from regarding his deed as intrinsically
evil."
-- F. Nietzsche
Ron Allen
> Since you do not wish to debate, rather than asking us
> to forget your posted messages, why don't you just do us
> a favor and forget posting messages?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I took the original questioner to be asking for information
> he could use to prepare himself for the debate. My response
> was to give him some pointers to info I thought might be
> useful.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes. And that's quite OK. You did fine. But then you
did not wish to debate whether Voegelin, Mises, or Popper
gave a satisfactory or salutary criticism of marxism.
You posted an opinion on a debate newsgroup, having no
desire to debate. That's the problem. If T I Russell
posted his initial question on a debate newsgroup, I
suppose he must have wished for the criticisms of marxism
to provoke and encourage some debate about those very
criticisms.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> But I also cautioned him that debate with Marxists is
> likely to be futile.
Ron Allen answers:
That may be true. But since most right-wingers will not
debate, or will not stay with it, then it is just as true
that debate with anti-marxists is also likely to be a
futile endeavor.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> You will recall that I did not support an intellectual
> critique. I still don't, and that's why I am declining
> your invitation to debate. I don't have the time or
> the interest, nor do I believe that debate can settle
> the issue.
Ron Allen answers:
Are we to take it then, that you believe Voegelin, Mises,
and Popper have settled the issue?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> If that means that I've violated the charter for this
> newsgroup, please accept my apology. I won't wander
> into this den of sophistry again.
Ron Allen answers:
Sophistry is a vice of philosophers. It is not a virtue.
But intelligent debate is a virtue of philosophers. You
seem to be confusing the vice with the virtue.
<><><><><><><>
"One often makes a remark and only later sees how true it
is."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sab8c$tv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
[..]
>
>I don't think there's any controversy in saying
>that Voegelin, Mises and Popper have offered
>criticisms of Marxist ideology. I answered the
>question that was asked.
>
>
Your statements here strike me as disingenuous.
The pointers you provided were to authors
whose polemics were directed against Stalinism,
not against the actual social theory of Marx. Or,
in other words, they, like you, make statements
that are highly biased in that they do not acknowledge
that there are different interpretations and uses
of Marx's theory other than its vulgarization
by Stalinist regimes.
Now for Ron and I to point this out is quite relevant.
Tom Wetzel
Ron Allen
> The success of any and every commercial business has a
> lot to do with having more capital than the competition,
> and has very little to do with having more genius than
> the competition.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Not always so. Read the recent article in Discover about
> the creation of the blue LED and blue laser. A feat many
> big companies threw much money at, but which a single
> scientist at a small LED firm in Japan was able to crack
> out of genius and perspiration. It does happen. It used
> to happen a lot more in the past when there wasn't as much
> base knowledge required, but it still happens.
Ron Allen answers:
I was talking about the success of commercial businesses.
I was not talking about personal success. Although your
story is a very good one, it does not address what I was
saying. In a socialist context, scientists will have the
resources they need to make discoveries, and inventors
will have the resources they need to make inventions.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> If we all just exercised our abilities, who would be the
> janitors, the trash men, the guys who do the miserable
> tasks. Surely even these guys have abilities worthy of
> higher employment.
Ron Allen answers:
I have suggested that young teenagers, before they are
wholly engaged as mature adults in employment that allows
them to fully exercise their productive and creative
abilities, be responsible for the janitorial and junking
duties in public places. This will teach them the
virtues of responsibility and cooperation. This will
also keep them busy doing important public work. This
will exercise their bodies, their minds, and their wills.
This will train them for life as mature and reliable
adults, conscientious citizens and trustworthy workers.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> The beauty of capitalism is that it creates an
> assignment of labor where it is needed without a single
> higher authority to direct it, . . .
Ron Allen answers:
True. There is no "single higher authority to direct
the assignment of labor" throughout the national economy,
but there are a lot of workplaces with single higher
authorities who direct the wage workers. Workers are
not just hired where they are needed to provide for a
public need; rather, they are hired where they are needed
to produce private profits. This is because private
profit always precedes public benefit in the capitalist
system. The public good is always secondary to private
considerations. And this is the most important and the
most stubborn problem of capitalism. This is one of the
most significant and persistent problem of capitalism, a
problem which socialism is itself intended to resolve
and bring to an end. Socialism is not about private
profits over public benefit. Socialism is about private
benefit and public benefit being always identical and
always interchangeable -- always indistinguishable
considerations, always equivalent calculations.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> . . . because if a job is in demand, a wage will be paid
> until the demand is met.
Ron Allen answers:
But, do not make the mistake here of reading "demand" as
if it were the same as "need". Capitalism asks of
workers that they participate in production according to
the demands of their employers, whereas socialism asks of
workers that they engage in productive activities
according to the needs of society. The employer demands
profits first and foremost. If the needs of the community
are provided for, but the demand for profits is not, then
the business enterprise must go out of business, or else
reduce production in order to reduce costs while also
increasing price. This is artificial scarcity, and this
is a very common procedure in capitalism. In a capitalist
model of doing economy, as soon as production becomes
plentiful, as soon as production is bountiful enough to
meet human need, there is a crisis created. In order for
private profits to stay high as possible, production must
stay as artificially low as possible. If production is
too low, profits will be reduced. But if production is
too high, profits will also be reduced. And production
is too high, not when human needs are answered, but when
consumer demand is exceeded, when the spending capacity
of the wage workers has been surpassed. Layoffs reduce
production artificially. Layoffs also reduce demand, so
that although the needs of laidoff workers are the same,
their demand capacity is either greatly reduced or it is
nil, depending upon the level of each worker's poverty.
Socialists say: This is simply not the way to prudently
do economy. We need an economy that supplies human need,
and not an economy that supplies only consumer demand.
What the defenders of capitalism do not grasp about
capitalism is this: There can be a lot of human poverty
and yet there will also be supply meeting demand. This
is because need is uncommunicated in a commodity and
commercial economy, in a capitalist economy. Profits
can be at an all time high, and at the very same time
poverty can be at an all time high. This is not a
rational mode of production and distribution. This is
not a prudent or humanistic mode of economy. This has
got to be put to an end.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> How do you propose this happens in libertarian socialism?
Ron Allen answers:
The principle of libertarian socialism is stated thus:
From each person according to ability; to each person
according to need.
This can also be stated thus: From each according to the
social need for production; to each according to the
personal ability to utilize or consume.
<><><><><><><><>
"We hear and apprehend only what we already half know."
-- Henry David Thoreau
Ron Allen
> If a job needs to get done, what's the individual's
> incentive to do it, . . .
Ron Allen answers:
In our capitalist system. the incentive for wage workers
to take a job under an employer is to work for a wage in
order to have money to buy enough of their needs to get
by. They earn a minimum or a minimal wage, under the
command and control of an employer, so that they can buy
what little they can afford with their wages. The working
class keeps their little wage jobs as long as they produce
an optimal measure of private profits for the employer
class.
What are the incentives to produce in a socialist mode
of economy? There is a positive incentive to engage in
productive and creative labor whenever a person is free
to fully exercise his or her best abilities for the good
of self and society. There is also a positive incentive
to work when one's participation in socially necessary
labor produces enough goods so that every person's needs
are abundantly answered. There will be no production for
private profits, but only production for the public good.
There will be no need for advertising. There will be no
need to produce demand through advertising. There will
be no more production of junk, the sole purpose of which
is to create demand, which increases corporate profits.
For example, there are fast food restaurants that will
advertise new junk trinkets on TV almost every month.
These advertisements are purposely targeted at children,
who cannot critically analyze whether they really must
have another trinket. The children then pressure their
parents to take them there so they can get the latest
trinket. And so, the parents take their kids to fast
food restaurants, where the children develop a taste for
fast food, which they do not need, and which is not good
for them. And what this ends up producing are unhealthy
people demanding unhealthy food. This produces a lot of
profits for the fast food industry, while it produces
nothing that is truly useful for the people. This is not
a rational economy. It is a wasteful economy.
The ultimate incentive for doing any task is the need to
do the task. I have often done menial work, drudge work,
flunky work. When I finished doing the work I enjoyed
the satisfaction of knowing that I did a necessary job
very well. I have done all kinds of work, and desk jobs
are not nearly as rewarding as dirty jobs.
As long as work is divided and distributed according to
class there will be a certain disgrace or dishonor
attached to certain kinds of work. When work has lost
its class character, its class attributes, that is when
we will all do our fair share for the good of our self
and our society. Work does not have to have a class
makeup. Those who defend the capitalist mode of labor
assignment also defend the bourgeois designations of
labor, which designates some kinds of labor as beneath
human dignity, and which designates other kinds of labor
as reserved for the dignified class.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> . . . if they will get the same benefits by doing some
> other job that's not so icky.
Ron Allen answers:
Human beings -- when they no longer live and work in a
class divided society, and when work is no longer divided
according to class -- will do whatever labor is socially
necessary. Otherwise it will all fall apart. If people
cannot live and work together in a far more cooperative
and prudent manner, then we will be forced to return to
a far more competitive and predacious life and work
together. If we cannot live together in a truly anarchic
and communal society, then we cannot enjoy the benefits
of such a life together, and we will not deserve the
beauty and the bounty of such a good life together.
There are those among us who think that such a
cooperative and liberating life is preferable to our
capitalist mode of life, but that such a unified and
emancipative life is impossible for us to ever realize.
These nay-sayers know with utmost certainty that we the
people cannot live and work together, side by side,
shoulder to shoulder, in a libertarian social democratic
commonwealth -- even though there has never been an
honest and national attempt made in our modern times to
democratically and constitutionally realize such a
praiseworthy life together. I do not agree with these
anti-socialist pessimists. I do not agree with these
anti-democratic defeatists. I do not agree with these
anti-humanistic cynics. When it comes to bring about a
better social life together, we are all misanthropic,
alarmist, and distrustful underachievers. In capitalism
we are told to believe in our own selves, but not to
believe too much in others. A socialist philosophy
simply says that, if we can all believe in ourselves,
then why can't we all believe in each other? If I can
believe in my self, then why can't you believe in me?
If you can believe in your self, then why can't I also
believe in you? If we can believe in our own selves,
then why can't we believe in them, and them in us?
<><><><><><><><>
"Intellectual blemishes, like facial ones, grow more
prominent with age."
-- François La Rochefoucauld
Ron Allen
> In Mr. Allen's analysis of ANDERS FLODERUS's criticisms
> [of Marx], he incorrectly attributed a criticism of Marx
> as:
> Criticism 3: Marx believed that poverty was directly
> > connected with alcoholism.
> That was intended as an example of improper deductive
> reasoning, not a quote from Marx.
Ron Allen answers:
I was not quoting Marx. I was merely registering what I
understood to be a stated criticism of Marx or marxism.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> If you're going to pick something apart, please be more
> careful.
Ron Allen answers:
I think this advice is more apropos to you, as your
reading of my criticism seems to be mistaken. But I
will hearken to your sage advice notwithstanding.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Plus if you waste time to pick something apart, finishing
> with an "is that all you've got?" argument makes me laugh.
Ron Allen answers:
Laughter is good for us. I am glad to have been good for
you.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Please, if they are so weak, enlighten us as to their
> deficiencies or ignore them.
Ron Allen answers:
I was "wasting time picking something apart" precisely in
order to "enlighten" you.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Heinlein's criticism of Marxism: not verbatim, I need to
> dig the book out, but here's the gist. If you demand,
> I'll quote it.
Ron Allen answers:
At your convenience, please feel free to quote Heinlein
as extensively as you desire.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> (Begin Heinlein argument) Expended labor does not equal
> value. A stupid man can pour hours of work into a project,
> and you may be worse off than when you began.
Ron Allen answers:
The labor theory of value has nothing whatsoever to do
with labor that has no value -- i.e., no productive
rationale or no creative purpose. Only labor that has
some value can and will produce value. If after doing
labor one is worse off, then that labor may have had no
value, and therefore that labor likely produced no value.
The labor theory of value fundamentally assumes a value
theory of labor -- i.e., only that labor has value which
produces value.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> A genius may take five minutes and produce something
> that no other human being could make. Is the product of
> the first worth more than the product of the second?
> (end Heinlein argument)
Ron Allen answers:
I do not know what your question means. I do not know
what your question is asking.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> That is why true value is set by supply and demand.
Ron Allen answers:
What is "true value"? Is the "true value" of a product
its utility value, or its exchange value? Supply and
demand determine the exchange value of a commodity. But
supply and demand do not establish the use value of a
good.
By the by, in my opinion, the true value of a good is a
reflection of the use value of a good.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> True value, even in a communist system, no matter how
> hard you try to not make it so, is set by how easy it
> is to obtain something, and how much people need it.
> This is the way of nature.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes, indeed. But what you have failed to note is that
communism is about supplying need, while capitalism is
about supplying demand. You talk about the value of a
good in a communist system being directly connected to
"how much people need it". That is very true. And that
has everything to do with the utility value of a good,
and nothing to do with the market value of a good. The
only exchange value a good will possess in a communist
system is the opportunity cost every good has or entails.
But this exchange value has nothing to do with a market
value, or a commercial value, because in communism
commodity production will be replaced with utility
production. In capitalism, on the other hand, commodity
production is directly connected to how much people can
demand, which means how much spending money people have
in their possession. Money rather than need, demand
rather than need, is the impetus to supply. This is why
capitalism has empowered us to eliminate natural poverty,
even while capitalism has not enabled us to eliminate
artificial poverty -- i.e., the shortages which are
planned precisely to produce a more profitable good.
<><><><><><><>
"Opinions have vested interests just as men have."
-- Samuel Butler
Ron Allen
> We do not live in a purely capitalist system.
Ron Allen answers:
We do not need "a purely capitalist system" in order to
criticize and analyze the fundamental and intrinsic
problems of capitalism.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> To think so is to be very simple-minded.
Ron Allen answers:
I am not guilty of thinking so. I do know that we do not
live in what those who defend capitalism regard as a truly
capitalist system. I also know that it is just as
impossible to get pro-capitalists to discuss the purely
theoretical problems of capitalism, as it is to get the
apostles of capitalism to debate the more down-to-earth
and matter-of-fact practices of unrefined capitalism.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> It is capitalism reigned in by a welfare system, . . .
Ron Allen answers:
But who created the welfare system? The wealthy and
powerful élites created our welfare capitalist system in
order to forestall and avert a violent overthrow of the
capitalism that does exist -- whether it be pure or
impure.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> . . . anti-trust laws, and a well-established and powerful
> legal system which helps protect the "common man." "Labor"
> wants better working conditions and decent pay... not
> sovereign authority.
Ron Allen answers:
The direct producers do not want sovereign and democratic
authority because they are taught by bourgeois propaganda
that such an arrangement is not possible, that such an
organization is not preferable or permissible.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Just getting people to vote in our system has proven hard
> enough.
Ron Allen answers:
That may be because there is some undefined cognizance
on the part of most people that the alternative political
parties are really nothing more than one bourgeois
political party with two wings. The formal alternatives
people are being given are really and factually nothing
but fictional alternatives. As long as there are no
other real alternatives offered to the people for their
consideration and choice, people will simply see the
two-party options as chimerical illusions.
<><><><><><>
"Consciousness reigns but doesn't govern."
-- Paul Valéry
Ron Allen
> When government or big business gets out of hand, the
> people's voice is heard through strikes (which the media
> loves--juicy bad news), demonstrations, and law suits, all
> protected by laws, which are protected by our vote. Yes,
> someone could just try to take control, but it hasn't
> happened in over two-hundred years, something to be
> said for our checks-and-balances.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes. Checks and balances do make these United States
safe for American business interests.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Can you imagine putting in a good day's work and then
> having to come home and decide the distribution of
> rubber to jelly-shoe versus tire factories or some other
> trivial government task. Socialism demands some
> authority to decide where and how things are distributed,
> and unless you give that authority to some group of
> people, then everyone has to take the role. Not everyone
> has time to weigh all issues, so they may make mistakes.
Ron Allen answers:
What socialists recommend is that we extend direct
democratic decision making as much as possible to the
people. We do not yet know what this extent is. We will
find this ought as we experiment with extending direct
democracy. But socialists also assume that there are
limits to direct democracy, and we think those limits can
be discovered as we make honest attempts to expand direct
democracy. The limits of direct democracy can then be
addressed by making representative institutions directly
answerable to the collective and overall dictates of the
people. Representatives can be made subject to the
popular will. Elected delegates can be made to serve the
public will as direct agents of that general will.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> So we establish an association, department, or agency to
> handle it. But they now control something, and control
> means more authority than the rest of us.
Ron Allen answers:
The problem is that state agencies serve the command and
the control projects and plans of the political state.
State agencies carry the authority of the bourgeois
authoritarian state. Federal and state agencies are
agencies of the federal and state governments. When
government is made subservient to the will of the people,
when statist government is replaced with self government
and social government, that is when agencies will serve
the democratic will of the people. When the means of
government are communized and democratized, that is
when the agencies of government will be truly socialized
and truly representative.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> They can wield it as a tool to get what they need or want.
> And thus corruption begins, and we have the downfall of
> socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
It is all too natural for state agencies to serve the
state, and to be so corrupted that they do not serve the
people. But how would a social agency be able to serve
anything other than society? And how would a social
agency be corrupted by despotic powers if every social
agency is made wholly subservient to the direct democratic
powers of the people? We the people can even create
independent associations to audit and review public
agencies, examine them, verify that their every action is
truly and fully responsive to the democratic dictates of
the people, and only to those democratic dictates.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Of course this is true in capitalism as well. We have
> division of governance.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes. We do have divisions of powers in the bourgeois
state, but we have only one power state, and the three
branches of this political state always have a very
strong tendency to perpetuate the authority of, and to
serve the interests of, the authoritarian bourgeois
state. Democratic centralism is not good socialism, but
those who defend the capitalist power state have no
problem with the kind of democratic centralism that is
essential to the plutocratic bourgeois police state --
whether that state be a minimal laissez-faire state, or
whether it be a big brother liberal welfare state.
<><><><><><><>
"To study the abnormal is the best way of understanding
the normal."
-- William James
"To study capitalism in crisis, in its bust cycles, is
truly the best way of gaining valuable insights into
capitalism per se. Nominal capitalism, or normal and
untroubled capitalism, capitalism in its boom cycles,
is not the optimal time to probe the essential problems
and the inner contradictions of capitalism."
-- Ron Allen
Ron Allen
> But in a capitalist system the government is held in check
> by money.
Ron Allen answers:
Is that supposed to be good? Is this supposed to
recommend for our consideration such a corruptible system
of government?
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> If the people want something the government does not
> supply, they can buy it.
Ron Allen answers:
But, do not forget this, that whatever the federal or
state
government supplies, we the people have bought by paying
our taxes.
their actions as being responsive to the democratic
dictates
of the people.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Of course this is true in capitalism as well. We have
> division of governance.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes. We do have divisions of powers in the bourgeois
state, but we have only one power state, and the three
branches of this political state always have a very strong
tendency to perpetuate the authority of, and to serve the
interests of, the authoritarian bourgeois state.
Democratic
centralism is not good socialism, but those who defend the
capitalist power state have no problem with the kind of
democratic centralism that is essential to the bourgeois
police state -- whether that state be a minimal
laissez-faire
state or whether it be a big brother liberal welfare
state.
<><><><><><><><>
"Historic continuity with the past is not a duty, it is
only a necessity."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Charlie Kester
and still talking to you about this,
but here goes:
In article <39E8C653...@bellsouth.net>,
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > ...and thank you, Ron Allen, for also illustrating my
> > point. I knew I could count on you.
>
> > :)
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> You are welcome, anytime you feel inclined to do so, to
> engage in free discussion with me on both the pros and
> the cons of either capitalism or communism.
>
> ------------
>
> T I Russell wrote:
> > What are the basic criticisms of Marx's ideology?
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > Well, as you can see from the followup, your question is
> > a dangerous one: any answer is sure to touch off a
> > firestorm of protest from those who wish to defend Marx.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > It suits you just fine for someone to ask about the
> > criticisms of Marx; but it seems to get your goat if
> > someone seeks to defend Marx. What would your reply
> > have been, had T I Russell asked a different question:
> > What are the basic commendatory opinions expressed in
> > Marx's ideology?
>
> > As to the "firestorm of protest", why must you interpret
> > a critique of your criticism as being a "firestorm"?
> > This is a philosophy debate newsgroup. What we are
> > supposed to be engaged in here is debate. If you post
> > a message on this newsgroup, do you actually expect it
> > not to attract some debate? If you post a controversial
> > message, do you really look for no controversy?
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > I don't think there's any controversy in saying that
> > Voegelin, Mises and Popper have offered criticisms of
> > Marxist ideology. I answered the question that was asked.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I think not. The question asked was: "What are the basic
> criticisms of Marx's ideology?" The question was not:
> Who are the best critics of Marxist ideology?
...and I never attempted to answer the question about
who were the *best* critics! When I mentioned Voegelin
I said his analysis is the one that is "my current favorite".
That's more an expression of taste and other interests than
it is an endorsement of Voegelin as the *best* critic,
whatever "best" might mean.
> But even more to the point, my response is that Voegelin,
> Mises, and Popper do not offer a valid criticism of
> marxist ideology per se, but only a valid criticism of
> the orthodox ideology of what is usually called by the
> name "Marxism-Leninism".
Yes, one of the defensive statagems used by Marxists is
to say that what its opponents have criticized is not
the "real" Marxism. But if T I Russell wanted to learn
what criticisms have been made, the answer will have to include
criticisms of those variants.
If you want to say those criticisms don't touch what you see
as "marxist ideology per se", that's fine. It just means that
the answer is incomplete. Someone (if my case, someone else)
will have to tell what criticisms have been made of Marxism
as you understand it.
> You are a christian, as I recall you saying in one of
> your posts. Surely you understand the big difference
> between a valid criticism of establishment christianity
> and a dubious criticism of emancipative christianity.
> If an anti-christian critic simply and uncritically
> decides to lump every possible version of christianity
> under the very same tyrannical version of christianity
> that we have all come to know from history books, then
> you would very likely jump in and engage that inept
> critic, making sure that the difference between an
> emancipative christianity and an establishment
> christianity is made as clear as possible.
Yes. But I never denied your right to draw those distinctions.
I think it's very proper for you to try to steer us toward
what you think is a correct understanding of Marxism.
I just don't think it was proper for you and Tim
to jump on me and call me an "irrationalist" if I
declined to get into a detailed, academic debate on
the issue. I think telling me I'm not allowed to
make an observation if I'm not willing to commit to
that kind of debate is a very chilling form of censorship.
> So also, I
> have jumped in to engage your opinion that the likes
> of Voegelin, Mises, and Popper have given us the final
> and finest word on the subject of socialism, that their
> criticism is generally and universally accepted as the
> last word by the best authorities on the topic of
> socialism.
I don't believe I ever said that any of these writers
have given us "the final and finest word on the subject
of socialism" or that their criticisms are "generally and
universally accepted". I've merely said that among the
authors who have written on this topic, Voegelin is *my*
current favorite. As for Mises and Popper, I made no
recommendation beyond suggesting that their books are
pertinent. Each of these authors still has some followers,
so I think anyone who wishes to become familiar with
anti-Marxist opinion would do well to read them.
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > The ensuing polemics don't interest me.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Fine. But surely we can be forgiven for having made the
> mistake of thinking the matter did interest you, seeing
> as you did post a response to T I Russell's initial
> question. We assumed you had thrown down the gauntlet,
> that you were either making a case or a challenge.
In that case, please forgive me for misleading you.
The matter *does* interest me. The debate does not.
A while back you quoted Wittgenstein in your sig,
to the effect that a philosopher who doesn't participate
in the debate is no philosopher. I hadn't seen that
quote before. But I think it's odd that Wittgenstein,
whose debt to Schopenhauer has been documented by Bryan Magee
and others, would say this --- given Schopenhauer's well-known
disdain for the intellectual squabbles of his day. I forget
the exact quote, but S. said he felt no more inclination to
get involved in those squabbles than he did to join the
fistfight on the street below his window. My attitude is
the same.
Ron Allen
> I don't think there's any controversy in saying that
> Voegelin, Mises and Popper have offered criticisms of
> Marxist ideology. I answered the question that was
> asked.
Ron Allen answers:
It is controversial to cite authors of controversial
opinions as if their opinions were the last, or the
most, that could be said or need be said about the
controversial criticisms of Marx and of marxism.
You may not care about this, but Karl Marx himself said
something very important about marxism when he wrote
these almost prophetic words: "I, I am not a Marxist."
Charlie Kester wrote:
> The ensuing polemics don't interest me.
Ron Allen answers:
Apparently differences of opinion do not interest you.
Tom Wetzel wrote:
> Your [i.e., Charlie Kester] statements here strike me
> as disingenuous.
> The pointers you provided were to authors whose polemics
> were directed against Stalinism, not against the actual
> social theory of Marx.
Ron Allen answers:
This needs to be made very clear: Marx was not a Leninist.
Marx was not a bolshevik. Marx was not a Stalinist.
Tom Wetzel wrote:
> Or, in other words, they, like you, make statements that
> are highly biased in that they do not acknowledge that
> there are different interpretations and uses of Marx's
> theory other than its vulgarization by Stalinist regimes.
> Now for Ron and I to point this out is quite relevant.
Ron Allen answers:
I agree. It is very relevant that any and every
controversial criticism of Marx be criticized as a
questionable criticism, as a debatable criticism.
<><><><><><><>
"The weapon of criticism obviously cannot replace the
criticism of weapons. Material force must be overthrown
by material force. But theory also becomes a material
force once it has gripped the masses."
-- Karl Marx
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sd2io$ufv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
[..]
>> But even more to the point, my response is that Voegelin,
>> Mises, and Popper do not offer a valid criticism of
>> marxist ideology per se, but only a valid criticism of
>> the orthodox ideology of what is usually called by the
>> name "Marxism-Leninism".
>
>Yes, one of the defensive statagems used by Marxists is
>to say that what its opponents have criticized is not
>the "real" Marxism.
Begs the question by suggesting that the Stalinist
distortion of Marx's theory is the real thing. In other
words, who are you referring to by "Marxists"? The only
people sympathetic to Marx's social theory who
use this "stratagem" are those who do not
agree with the Stalinist regimes and their apologists,
and who do not see it as legitimated by Marx's theory.
Aren't you assuming this is not a legitimate or valid
position? Calling it a "stratagem" implies some
dishonesty or illegitimacy. Hence you're begging
the question, that is, the question of whether
such critics are in fact critics of Marxism per se,
rather than critics only of Stalinism.
Furthermore, your entire discussion avoids the
fundamental distinction between Marx's social
theory and Marxist politics. Marx's social theory,
qua social theory, is an attempt to explain and
account for how social formations evolve and emerge,
and what the basic laws of motion of the capitalist
formation in particular are. "Marxism" doesn't
refer just to this theory but to a political movement.
Any given political organization can claim to be
"Marxist", that is, inspired by and making use of
Marx's social theory. But since the social theory
is science/philosophy, their politics is not
accounted for solely by reference to the social
theory.
>But if T I Russell wanted to learn
>what criticisms have been made, the answer will have to include
>criticisms of those variants.
But by referring only to critics who confuse Marxism with
Stalinism, you implicitly agree with that conflation. So it is
relevant to point out the mistake in making that conflation.
>
>If you want to say those criticisms don't touch what you see
>as "marxist ideology per se", that's fine. It just means that
>the answer is incomplete. Someone (if my case, someone else)
>will have to tell what criticisms have been made of Marxism
>as you understand it.
>
>> You are a christian, as I recall you saying in one of
>> your posts. Surely you understand the big difference
>> between a valid criticism of establishment christianity
>> and a dubious criticism of emancipative christianity.
>> If an anti-christian critic simply and uncritically
>> decides to lump every possible version of christianity
>> under the very same tyrannical version of christianity
>> that we have all come to know from history books, then
>> you would very likely jump in and engage that inept
>> critic, making sure that the difference between an
>> emancipative christianity and an establishment
>> christianity is made as clear as possible.
>
>Yes. But I never denied your right to draw those distinctions.
>I think it's very proper for you to try to steer us toward
>what you think is a correct understanding of Marxism.
But what is relevant is that you implied that the
conflation of Marxism with Stalinism was correct.
Ron and I responded to correct that impression.
>
>I just don't think it was proper for you and Tim
>to jump on me and call me an "irrationalist" if I
>declined to get into a detailed, academic debate on
>the issue. I think telling me I'm not allowed to
>make an observation if I'm not willing to commit to
>that kind of debate is a very chilling form of censorship.
Your last remark is hypocritical, given the long and
nasty history, especially in the US, of smearing
every form of radicalism as just Stalinist totalitarianism
in disguise. *That* is surely a "chilling form of
censorship."
You'll have to pardon Ron and I for assuming that
you were contributing to that "chilling form of
censorship."
[..]
>> > The ensuing polemics don't interest me.
>>
>> Ron Allen answers:
>> Fine. But surely we can be forgiven for having made the
>> mistake of thinking the matter did interest you, seeing
>> as you did post a response to T I Russell's initial
>> question. We assumed you had thrown down the gauntlet,
>> that you were either making a case or a challenge.
>
>In that case, please forgive me for misleading you.
>
>The matter *does* interest me. The debate does not.
>A while back you quoted Wittgenstein in your sig,
>to the effect that a philosopher who doesn't participate
>in the debate is no philosopher. I hadn't seen that
>quote before. But I think it's odd that Wittgenstein,
>whose debt to Schopenhauer has been documented by Bryan Magee
>and others, would say this --- given Schopenhauer's well-known
>disdain for the intellectual squabbles of his day. I forget
>the exact quote, but S. said he felt no more inclination to
>get involved in those squabbles than he did to join the
>fistfight on the street below his window. My attitude is
>the same.
>
Philosophy is necessarily based on the practice of giving
reasons, as is science generally. That is because that
is the principle way we have of working together to get a more
accurate picture of what reality is like.
Philosophy is by its nature dialectical. Philosopher A advances
position P on some area and gives reasons X, Y, Z in its
defense, that is, as *reasons* for others to think P a warranted
a view. To count as reasons for others, X, Y, Z must be
premises that others can ascertain to be the case or not.
Another philosopher B may question reason X, and may give
reasons R, S, T for thinking X is not the case. And A may respond to
that argument, and so on. Historically what has happened is
that the viewpoints that survive are sharpened from being
subjected to this process, the obvious fallacies or mistakes
get dropped. Differences of view remain, but they are
improved through the process. And it is a dialectical process
of giving reasons and countering those arguments, which
generates progress in philosophy and science. The result
is that the views that remain have a better chance of providing
a closer approximation to the way things really are.
It seems that above you are denying this dialectical process,
based on the practice of giving reasons, you are proposing
to opt out of it in some way.
Tom Wetzel
Ron Allen
> I honestly don't know why I am still here and still
> talking to you about this, but here goes:
> I never attempted to answer the question about who were
> the *best* critics! When I mentioned Voegelin I said
> his analysis is the one that is "my current favorite".
Ron Allen answers:
Have you actually read Eric Voegelin? If so, then what
did he write that you believe is so valuable as a potent
criticism of Marx or marxism? That is what we keep
asking you to tell us. We are asking you to take full
and free responsibility for what you posted as a valid
criticism of Marx or marxism -- even if what you
posted was only a recommended reading list. I have
read Eric Voegelin. And I can agree with you that his
was a valuable criticism of Stalinism and Hitlerism.
But I would like to know why it is that you believe
Voegelin's criticism has any validity as a criticism of
Marx, or of a more libertarian version of marxism. I
am asking you to think, and to share with us your
thoughts. Just as you have asked T I Russell to read
Eric Voegelin, and to think about his criticisms of Marx
and or marxism. Why should anyone reading your
recommended reading list respect your advice as to
what one ought to read, if you yourself refuse to show
this newsgroup that you can think for yourself, even
while under fire?
By the by, I do also recommend Eric Voegelin's books.
But I also make an effort to read Voegelin with a
critical intelligence. I recommend that those who
read Voegelin's critique of Marx actually take the
time to read Marx himself. It is not enough to read the
writings of marxists. One must read the works of Marx
himself.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> That's more an expression of taste and other interests
> than it is an endorsement of Voegelin as the *best*
> critic, whatever "best" might mean.
Ron Allen answers:
Since you limited your recommended reading list to
Voegelin, Mises and Popper I just reasonably assumed
that these authors were what you regard as the best
critics of Marx and of marxism. I judged that you
would recommend what you regard as the best critics --
no more and no less.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Even more to the point, my response is that Voegelin,
> Mises, and Popper do not offer a valid criticism of
> marxist ideology per se, but only a valid criticism of
> the orthodox ideology of what is usually called by the
> name "Marxism-Leninism".
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Yes, one of the defensive statagems used by Marxists is
> to say that what its opponents have criticized is not
> the "real" Marxism.
Ron Allen answers:
Then how do you or I determine first of all what is the
"real" marxism? How do you determine this? If we can
be accused of shifting "real" marxism for the purpose of
debate, then please feel free to tell us what you judge
to be the real thing, and why. We can certainly go on
from there. A discussion of valid criticisms of marxism
ought to begin first of all with a vigilant and vigorous
critique of the alternative marxisms.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> If T I Russell wanted to learn what criticisms have been
> made, the answer will have to include criticisms of those
> variants.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes. A good answer ought to include a criticism of the
variants of marxism. But your answer did not recommend
such a balanced reading list. I have read Voegelin and
Mises, and they criticize only a bolshevik and stalinist
version of marxism. I agree completely with their
criticisms of totalitarian state socialism. But I do
not agree that their criticism can be expanded to include
a valid criticism of libertarian democratic socialism.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> If you want to say those criticisms don't touch what you
> see as "marxist ideology per se", that's fine.
Ron Allen answers:
Thank you. And that is exactly what I do wish to say.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> It just means that the answer is incomplete.
Ron Allen answers:
Perhaps. But your original answer was also just as
incomplete, which is precisely what induced my initial
answer to your original answer to T I Russell's opening
question.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Someone (if my case, someone else) will have to tell what
> criticisms have been made of Marxism as you understand it.
Ron Allen answers:
That is one reason I write and post messages on this
newsgroup -- so that people can freely criticize my
version of marxism, and my vision of a libertarian
social democratic commonwealth.
<><><><><><><><>
"Find the grain of truth in criticism -- chew it and
swallow it."
-- D. Sutten
Ron Allen
> You are a christian, as I recall you saying in one of
> your posts. Surely you understand the big difference
> between a valid criticism of establishment christianity
> and a dubious criticism of emancipative christianity.
> If an anti-christian critic simply and uncritically
> decides to lump every possible version of christianity
> under the very same tyrannical version of christianity
> that we have all come to know from history books, then
> you would very likely jump in and engage that inept
> critic, making sure that the difference between an
> emancipative christianity and an establishment
> christianity is made as clear as possible.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Yes. But I never denied your right to draw those
> distinctions.
Ron Allen answers:
In a way you have denied this. You have recommended
some very specific authors are being some commendable
critics of Marx and of marxism. But when I take you
to task for this recommended reading list, you promptly
wish to avoid the very kind of debate that would allow
for a better distinction to be drawn between the
marxism criticized by Voegelin, Mises and Popper, and
the kind of marxism these critics of marxism did not
touch upon whatsoever. By giving your initial advice,
but withdrawing from further clarification or debate
about your advice, you have essentially withdrawn my
ability to use your borrowed critique as a springboard
to making some very important distinctions. You wanted
to just jump in, and then just jump out. You did not
intend to be responsible for your advice. You did not
mean to be held accountable for your message. There is
apparently no sense of responsibility for what you elect
to write, no burden of obligation for what you decide to
post. A rebuttal is a call to responsibility. You have
expressed a lot of dissatisfaction at being taken to task
for your recommended reading list, and for your very
meager initial remarks. If your words are written with
no sense of personal accountability, then how can we see
your words? How do your own words escape being of no
account whatsoever?
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I think it's very proper for you to try to steer us
> toward what you think is a correct understanding of
> Marxism.
Ron Allen answers:
Thank you. And I think it is just as proper for you,
as a christian, to make every valid attempt to conduct
debate about christianity in such a way as to correct
what you know to be gross misunderstandings of authentic
christianity, both in its principles and in its practices.
You are a witness for your faith in the divine. I am a
witness for my faith in humanity.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I just don't think it was proper for you and Tim to jump
> on me and call me an "irrationalist" if I declined to get
> into a detailed, academic debate on the issue.
Ron Allen answers:
I cannot be held responsible for what Mr. Wetzel write.
I did not call you "irrational". But I am calling you
irresponsible. If this is improper on my part, then let
me say that I meant you no offense, no insult, and no
disrespect. I regret it, that what I wrote could be
interpreted as a personal affront to you, or as a
rude discourtesy on my part.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I think telling me I'm not allowed to make an observation
> if I'm not willing to commit to that kind of debate is a
> very chilling form of censorship.
Ron Allen answers:
I'm not engaged in censorship. I'm just trying to
establish some newsgroup protocol, some form of
etiquette as concerns posting controversial messages
on a debate newsgroup. It's very simple, and also
very fair: If you post a controversial message on a
debate newsgroup, a newsgroup forum devoted to debate,
then you ought to fully expect to be called to task, to
be called upon to responsibly make good what you have
freely started. I am not censoring your message. I am
challenging your advice. I am protesting your implied
stand. I am asking you to abandon the art of propaganda,
and to adopt and cultivate in yourself the art of doing
philosophy.
<><><><><><><><>
"Look at all the sentences which seem true and question
them."
-- David Riesman
Ron Allen
> I have jumped in to engage your opinion that the likes
> of Voegelin, Mises, and Popper have given us the final
> and finest word on the subject of socialism, that their
> criticism is generally and universally accepted as the
> last word by the best authorities on the topic of
> socialism.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I don't believe I ever said that any of these writers
> have given us "the final and finest word on the subject
> of socialism" or that their criticisms are "generally and
> universally accepted".
Ron Allen answers:
Since you limited your recommended reading list to these
three authors, I supposed it to be entailed in your very
limited recommendation that these three are regarded by
you as the last and the most that can be, or need be,
said on the contentious subject of socialism.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I've merely said that among the authors who have written
> on this topic, Voegelin is *my* current favorite. As
> for Mises and Popper, I made no recommendation beyond
> suggesting that their books are pertinent.
Ron Allen answers:
Have you actually read these authors? Or were these
authors recommended to you by someone else whose opinions
you happen to respect? I hope that you will indulge my
curiosity on this point, and that you will not interpret
my enquiry as intended to be an impudent attack against
your person. I simply like to ask first questions first.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Each of these authors still has some followers, so I think
> anyone who wishes to become familiar with anti-Marxist
> opinion would do well to read them.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not dispute this sage advice. All I ever demanded
from you was that you justify your own favorable opinion
of these authors. You have made it very clear that you
do not wish to take any responsibility for your initial
posted message, that you do not want to engage the
pro-marxists on this newsgroup in a debate about either
the criticisms of marxism, or the criteria as to what
constitutes an authentic marxism -- or a libertarian
and democratic alternative marxism that is wholly
different from bolshevism.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> The ensuing polemics don't interest me.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Fine. But surely we can be forgiven for having made the
> mistake of thinking the matter did interest you, seeing
> as you did post a response to T I Russell's initial
> question. We assumed you had thrown down the gauntlet,
> that you were either making a case or a challenge.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> In that case, please forgive me for misleading you.
Ron Allen answers:
I am sure your intent was not to mislead. I am very
willing to make allowances for your mistake, since you
seem also willing to make allowances for my mistake.
We can think no more of it once we have ended our
seemingly endless repartees and regrets.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> The matter *does* interest me. The debate does not.
> A while back you quoted Wittgenstein in your sig, to
> the effect that a philosopher who doesn't participate
> in the debate is no philosopher. I hadn't seen that
> quote before. But I think it's odd that Wittgenstein,
> whose debt to Schopenhauer has been documented by Bryan
> Magee and others, would say this --- given Schopenhauer's
> well-known disdain for the intellectual squabbles of
> his day.
Ron Allen answers:
Disciples of philosopher, if they are also philosophers,
do often depart from their philosopher mentors. I call
myself a marxist, but I do depart from Marx on some few
points. My departure, unlike Lenin's, is more in the
direction of a more libertarian and democratic version of
marxism. I suppose you could call my marxism a kind of
"marxism-allenism", as opposed to the marxism-leninism I
reject as a dictatorial and totalitarian practice of
marxist philosophy and principles. Of course, I say
this knowing full well that Marx did not dictate what
ought to be the detailed principles or the specific
practices of a possible future socialist or communist
society.
Charlie Kester wrote:
> I forget the exact quote, but Schopenhauer said he felt
> no more inclination to get involved in those squabbles
> than he did to join the fistfight on the street below
> his window. My attitude is the same.
Ron Allen answers:
True to that principle of non-involvement, Schopenhauer
wrote his magnum opus. And ironically others ignored
him until late in his life. I happen to be a very
ardent admirer of Schopenhauer's philosophy. But
unlike the master, I prefer to be fully engaged in the
public debate, at least as much as I can afford to be
thus engaged.
<><><><><><><>
"It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the
analysis of the obvious."
-- Alfred North Whitehead
Ron Allen
> "Labor" wants better working conditions and decent
> pay... not sovereign authority.
Ron Allen answers:
The direct producers do not want sovereign and democratic
authority because they are taught by bourgeois propaganda
that such an arrangement is not possible, that such an
organization is not preferable or permissible, that such
an objective is wholly out of reach.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Just getting people to vote in our system has proven hard
> enough.
Ron Allen answers:
That may be because there is some undefined cognizance
on the part of most people that the alternative political
parties are really nothing more than one bourgeois
political party with two wings. The formal alternatives
people are being given are really and factually nothing
but fictional alternatives. As long as there are no
other real alternatives offered to the people for their
consideration and choice, people will simply see the
two-party options as chimerical illusions.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> When government or big business gets out of hand, the
> people's voice is heard through strikes (which the media
> loves--juicy bad news), demonstrations, and law suits, all
> protected by laws, which are protected by our vote. Yes,
> someone could just try to take control, but it hasn't
> happened in over two-hundred years, something to be
> said for our checks-and-balances.
Ron Allen answers:
The bourgeois political state is itself a very natural
product of a bourgeois political economy. The bourgeois
state is a necessary progeny of the bourgeois society
which has created and constituted it. It is always in
the interest of business proprietors that there be checks
and balances in the economic realm, and so the state is
established to bring this about. And since the bourgeois
state is a product of bourgeois society with its many
competing interest, it is very natural that the bourgeois
state also embody the principle of opposed interests and
contending powers. The bourgeois state simply embodies
the economic and commercial conflicts of bourgeois
society at the level of competing politics.
<><><><><><><><>
"I don't know how democracy will end, but it cannot end
in a quiet old age."
-- Clemens von Metternich
Ron Allen
> On the problem of division of government:
> Can you imagine putting in a good day's work and then
> having to come home and decide the distribution of
> rubber to jelly-shoe versus tire factories or some other
> trivial government task. Socialism demands some
> authority to decide where and how things are distributed,
> and unless you give that authority to some group of
> people, then everyone has to take the role. Not everyone
> has time to weigh all issues, so they may make mistakes.
Ron Allen answers:
Only a state socialism demands some centralized authority
to decide distribution issues. Libertarian and democratic
socialists believe we ought to expand direct democracy as
far as it is possible and functional. We also believe
that knowledgeable representatives and consultants can be
made to more directly serve the general dictates of the
people. The representatives can decide issues of method
and means, but the people represented can decide issues
of public purposes and political ends.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> So we establish an association, department, or agency to
> handle it. But they now control something, and control
> means more authority than the rest of us.
Ron allen answers:
But aren't you transporting the character and the
attributes of the empirical bourgeois political state
into a possible future democratic socialist society --
a society in which the political state passes away
precisely as the means of government come increasingly
under the democratic command and control of civil
society?
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> They can wield it as a tool to get what they need or want.
Ron Allen answers:
Agencies of the bourgeois political state do wield a lot
of power, and that is so specifically because these state
agencies are the direct agents of state authority and
power.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> And thus corruption begins, and we have the downfall of
> socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
What you have described would be the downfall of both
state capitalism and state socialism -- two names for
what is essentially the very same thing. I see no
sufficient difference between a monopoly form of class
capitalism and a monopoly form of party socialism.
Bolshevism is not very different from fascism.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Of course this is true in capitalism as well. We have
> division of governance. But in a capitalist system the
> government is held in check by money. If the people
> want something the government does not supply, they
> can buy it. In socialism, this cannot exist, because
> multiple sources necessitate competition. (Of course, you
> can have more than one "source" in socialism, but they
> must be controlled together.)
Ron Allen answers:
Central command and central control are an attribute of
totalitarian state socialism, but they are not an aspect
of libertarian democratic socialism.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> How would you propose this be handled in pure
> socialism?
Ron allen answers:
I am not clear on what exactly "this" is. You seem to be
transposing some attribute of big brother capitalism, or
big brother socialism onto a libertarian and decentralized
socialism, a federalist and democratic socialism.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> What's to keep the grain controller from withholding
> grain in order to get more tractor parts?
Ron Allen answers:
What makes you think this problem could arise in a
decentralized and democratic socialist commonwealth, in
which the administrative agencies are mediations of
society, rather than bureaus of the state?
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> What's to keep the tractor parts controller from giving
> extra parts to the transportation authority in exchange for
> a priority access to trucking?
Ron Allen answers:
This assumes private proprietorship of a trucking concern,
which would not happen in a socialist mode of economy.
A socialist context will remove the opportunistic features
which are so prevalent in a capitalist context.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Division of labor necessitates trade, whether directed or
> free-market. Is there a third choice?
Ron Allen answers:
Trade, in a socialist context, would entail trade between
productive cooperatives, not for private profit, but for
public provisions.
Within a socialist context, trade would have the character
of "from each person according to personal ability" in
exchange for "to each person according to personal need".
<><><><><><><><><><>
"I respect faith but doubt is what gets you an education."
-- Wilson Mizner
Ron Allen
> On Marxists historical fallacies:
> There NEVER existed at the dawn of time an era when
> all humans were equal.
Ron Allen answers:
I was not there; I cannot say much about human social
arrangements and relations "at the dawn of time" with any
authority.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Even a small scale social structure of families or tribes
> has a hierarchy.
Ron Allen answers:
It is very likely that our simian ancestors, the primitive
proto-humans, lived in simian-like tribes with simian-like
social structures.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Just because it is social convention instead of divine or
> corporate doesn't make it less of a bureaucracy.
> Hierarchy is both a natural outcome of large group social
> interaction and necessary for human advancement.
Ron Allen answers:
Hierarchy may have served a survival function in primitive
times. But I am not convinced we still need hierarchy in
our modern industrial and technological times. I for one
am very willing to wager that we the people can live and
work together, love and play together, as a prudent and
productive species, without a need for some sort of caste
or class hierarchy.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Hunting large herds, irrigating fields, and building
> shelters require the direction of many by a few or one,
> "the man with the plan."
Ron Allen answers:
We no longer hunt large herds; we have domesticated these
herd animals. And we do not need an élitist minority, or
a divine right monarch, to direct and dictate residential
and industrial construction.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> To assume that human society can be so simply described
> in the stages of feudalism and capitalism and then
> communism ignores the complexities of real life.
Ron Allen answers:
It is possible that Marx exaggerated his history of human
social development.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> During the Roman era there were merchants and a middle
> class. What about Greek and Roman republics?
Ron Allen answers:
Marx did not deny this.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> What about the meritocracy that existed in China after
> Confucius' influence (I wish I could remember the years.)
> The change from feudalism to capitalism was not a
> revolution.
Ron Allen answers:
I suppose Marx would agree that the bourgeois revolutions
were not revolutionary enough.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Marx's history was colored by the shock of the French
> revolution. Feudalism gave way to capitalism slowly,
> with the growth in mercantilism and a strong middle class
> based on trade and craftsmanship. The problem for
> Russia was the small size and weak political power of
> their middle class.
Ron Allen answers:
I have no disagreement with you on this.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> And finally (whew, and I thought Mr. Allen was long-
> winded) some personal thoughts:
> We should not argue pure socialism versus pure
> capitalism. Anybody with a half-decent education (there
> aren't as many as there should be out there) knows that
> either, in their pure form, is both unrealistic and has
> numerous flaws.
Ron Allen answers:
The ideal may be unrealistic and unrealizable, but we
cannot know for sure until we give it a true and honest
attempt. We do not know how closely we can approximate
the ideal until we give the dream a real try.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> A proper discussion places them at two ends of a scale,
> and attempts to find the proper balance between them.
> As has been stated, American capitalism requires some
> socialist hindrances in order to make it a viable and
> stable system. I don't think any good capitalist would
> dispute that.
Ron Allen answers:
I do not know if they are "good capitalists", but there
are many defenders of laissez-faire capitalism who have
disputed, and will dispute, what you have just written
in the above pericope.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Discuss specifics! That's why the "founding fathers" took
> so long to make the American system.
Ron Allen answers:
But we are only discussing here on this newsgroup; we are
not making a political reality on this newsgroup.
In fact, the legislators and the justices are still
making "the American system". It is not yet a finished
product. We the people have yet to have an explicit and
express voice in the conception, constitution and
construction of our American system.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> How would you propose, in a much more socialist
> system, the issues of division of labor, distribution of
> products and services, and governance take place?
Ron Allen answers:
I propose no more division of labor based upon class,
race or gender. If there is to be some kind of division
of labor, I propose that the division be both blurred
and according to personal abilities.
I propose a distribution of products and services
according to personal need and public utility.
I propose that the means of government be democratized,
just as the means of production and distribution ought
to be democratized.
Nathan Kendrick wrote:
> Don't leave it to better minds... they're too busy trying to
> make a buck to live on.
Nathan Kendrick quotes:
> "Authority and responsibility must be equal--else a
> balancing takes place as surely as current flows between
> points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible
> authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for
> anything he does not control is to behave with blind
> idiocy."
> -- Heinlein, "Starship Troopers"
> (the book, not the bastard corruption of James Cameron)
Ron Allen answers:
I agree that authority and responsibility ought to be
equal -- and by that I mean they ought to be shared
by each and every person equally. I do not know what
Mr. Heinlein meant to say.
<><><><><><><><>
"Those in power want only to perpetuate it."
-- William O. Douglas
Charlie Kester
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > I honestly don't know why I am still here and still
> > talking to you about this, but here goes:
>
> > the *best* critics! When I mentioned Voegelin I said
> > his analysis is the one that is "my current favorite".
>
> Have you actually read Eric Voegelin?
Yes, I have.
To be accurate, I should say I am currently
reading Voegelin. I would not claim to have
finished reading or to have completely understood
his work.
Specifically, I am currently reading his
unpublished article "The Eclipse of Reality"
in vol 28 of his collected works.
I've also read "The New Science of Politics",
"Science, Politics and Gnosticism", "Hitler and the
Germans", and portions of "Order and History".
I own, but haven't yet read "Anamnesis".
> If so, then what
> did he write that you believe is so valuable as a potent
> criticism of Marx or marxism?
For Voegelin's specific criticism of Marx, see the
final chapter of "History of Political Ideas: Crisis and
the Apocalypse of Man", vol 26 of the collected works.
(I hope I've got that right. I'm writing this at work
and don't have the book in front of me. I'm using
Amazon to aid my recollection of the titles.)
I believe the analysis in that chapter is concerned with
Marx himself and not with any of his epigones. I could be
wrong about this, but I don't believe that what Voegelin
is talking about is Leninism or Stalinism or any other
derivative from Marx's thought.
What I find valuable in Voegelin's critique is what I said
at the outset: the characterization of Marx's thought as a
form of gnosticism. Specifically, the rejection of the world
as it is, *including transcendent reality*, and the desire
to replace this with a world of man's own making.
<snip>
> By the by, I do also recommend Eric Voegelin's books.
> But I also make an effort to read Voegelin with a
> critical intelligence. I recommend that those who
> read Voegelin's critique of Marx actually take the
> time to read Marx himself. It is not enough to read the
> writings of marxists. One must read the works of Marx
> himself.
Guess what? I agree, completely.
I would also recommend that one shouldn't allow too much
of one's time to be consumed trying to follow or participate in
the second-rate discussions in these newsgroups.
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > That's more an expression of taste and other interests
> > than it is an endorsement of Voegelin as the *best*
> > critic, whatever "best" might mean.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Since you limited your recommended reading list to
> Voegelin, Mises and Popper I just reasonably assumed
> that these authors were what you regard as the best
> critics of Marx and of marxism. I judged that you
> would recommend what you regard as the best critics --
> no more and no less.
Not at all. They're just the ones I'm familiar with
and who came to mind. I made no claim to be offering
an exhaustive reading list. If someone else would like
to add to my list, I would have no objection.
But I do claim that Voegelin, Mises and Popper are in
the first rank of Marx's critics. As I said, anyone who
wants to become familiar with anti-Marxist opinion would
do well to read them.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > Even more to the point, my response is that Voegelin,
> > Mises, and Popper do not offer a valid criticism of
> > marxist ideology per se, but only a valid criticism of
> > the orthodox ideology of what is usually called by the
> > name "Marxism-Leninism".
Please note my comments above, about the subject matter of
Voegelin's specific criticism of Marx. What you say here
might be true of Mises and Popper, but I think Voegelin has
Marx in his sights, not "Marxism-Leninism".
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > Yes, one of the defensive statagems used by Marxists is
> > to say that what its opponents have criticized is not
> > the "real" Marxism.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Then how do you or I determine first of all what is the
> "real" marxism? How do you determine this? If we can
> be accused of shifting "real" marxism for the purpose of
> debate, then please feel free to tell us what you judge
> to be the real thing, and why.
Well, that's just it. I use the term "marxist" in a much
looser sense than you do. I think my usage is the same as
most people's. You are the one who wants to make it a
stricter, more technical term, and then use your definition
as a reason for denying what we say.
Frankly, I'm less concerned to define what "real" Marxism is
than I am to point out the relevance of what Voegelin calls
"pneumopathology".
> We can certainly go on
> from there. A discussion of valid criticisms of marxism
> ought to begin first of all with a vigilant and vigorous
> critique of the alternative marxisms.
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > If T I Russell wanted to learn what criticisms have been
> > made, the answer will have to include criticisms of those
> > variants.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Yes. A good answer ought to include a criticism of the
> variants of marxism. But your answer did not recommend
> such a balanced reading list. I have read Voegelin and
> Mises, and they criticize only a bolshevik and stalinist
> version of marxism.
Again, I haven't finished reading Voegelin, but I don't think
this is an accurate characterization of his critique.
It's been a while since I read Mises, so I won't
venture an opinion about the accuracy of your characterization
of him.
I am somewhat suspicious of your characterization of Popper,
however, since your initial reaction was to dismiss him
as a "positivist". As anyone who has ever read Popper knows,
that's a label he strenuously rejected, and with some reason.
I think it's odd that you would be so meticulous in Marx's case,
but so sloppy in Popper's. I also thought it odd that you should
mention that positivism is no longer fashionable --- as if that had
anything to do with the validity of Popper's critique.
> I agree completely with their
> criticisms of totalitarian state socialism. But I do
> not agree that their criticism can be expanded to include
> a valid criticism of libertarian democratic socialism.
I think Voegelin's "pneumopathology" can be found there as well.
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > If you want to say those criticisms don't touch what you
> > see as "marxist ideology per se", that's fine.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Thank you. And that is exactly what I do wish to say.
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > It just means that the answer is incomplete.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Perhaps. But your original answer was also just as
> incomplete, which is precisely what induced my initial
> answer to your original answer to T I Russell's opening
> question.
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> > Someone (if my case, someone else) will have to tell what
> > criticisms have been made of Marxism as you understand it.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> That is one reason I write and post messages on this
> newsgroup -- so that people can freely criticize my
> version of marxism, and my vision of a libertarian
> social democratic commonwealth.
Frankly, Ron, you strike me more as a rather quaint,
old-fashioned sort of duellist. Quick to take offense
and demand satisfaction, and apparently believing that
the truth of your opinions is somehow established by
your fencing skills.
charlie
twe...@beasys.com
I've not read Voegelin, but based on your remarks
this in itself is evidence that Voegelin isn't well-informed
about what Marx was doing. Marx is regarded, along with
Weber, as one of the fathers of sociology. Marx's
PhD dissertation was on philosophy of science, specifically
on the differences between the Greek materialists (Epicurus,
Democritus, Aristotle). Marx aimed to apply scientific
method to the understanding of how human social formations
evolve and change.
Voegelin's characterization isn't consistent with the
corpus of Marx's work, which generally is aimed at
understanding the "laws" of social development.
From the fact that he has a philosophy of practice,
as foundation, it doesn't follow that "apocalyptic"
is an accurate picture of what he was about.
"A world of one's own making" is ambiguous between "a world
in which humans can realize their potential as autonomous
beings" versus "a world in which X imposes his will on
everyone else." The latter is the totalitarian smear.
If by "transcendent reality", you mean an alleged reality
that transcends the natural world, then the rejection
of such alleged reality is implicit in
the basic thrust of the scientific tradition, going back
to Epicurus. For the basic thrust of that
tradition is naturalist, and has no reason to
posit any divine intervention in the natural world or any
extra-natural reality at all.
To describe this as a "revolt against God" is of course
a question-begging description since it assumes there is
some reason to posit such an entity. And as a description
it would be as true of, say, Darwin, or the basic thrust
of science, as of Marx.
[..]
>
> I am somewhat suspicious of your characterization of Popper,
> however, since your initial reaction was to dismiss him
> as a "positivist".
I was the one who offered this characterization.
>As anyone who has ever read Popper knows,
> that's a label he strenuously rejected, and with some reason.
I was using the term loosely. Popper was in close
collaboration with the Vienna Circle and shared many
of their assumptions.
I could have used the vaguer term "logical empiricism", I
suppose. Like Russell, who also insisted he wasn't a
"positivist", Popper shared many assumptions in common
with the positivists.
> I think it's odd that you would be so meticulous in Marx's case,
> but so sloppy in Popper's. I also thought it odd that you should
> mention that positivism is no longer fashionable --- as if that had
> anything to do with the validity of Popper's critique.
It's not just that positivism isn't "fashionable." It's rather that
there is a pretty wide consensus in philosophy that logical
postivism, in ever so many ways, has been discredited. From
the attack on foundationalism to the collapse of the
analytic-synthetic distinction to the collapse of behaviorism.
Nobody in linguistics or the philosophy of language takes
seriously the "verificationist theory of meaning."
I could also have mentioned that Popper makes a number of
major blunders in his critique of Marx. For example, he
argues that Marx's theory is not "scientific" because,
says Popper, Marx makes categorical predictions "E will occur"
rather than hypothetical predictions "If conditions C
occur, E will occur."
This is simply wrong. As I mentioned above, Marx was
interested in undercovering the "laws of motion" of the
capitalist social formation, and more generally,
of the evolution of social structure. When for example
he posits a "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" this
is not an absolute prediction "the rate of profit will fall".
There is a long history of smearing all radical viewpoints
as totalitarian, which is used to legitimate repression
in the interests of the prevailing power structure, and
Popper is a contributor to that tradition, as is Mises.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
twe...@beasys.com wrote:
> I've not read Voegelin, but based on your remarks
> this in itself is evidence that Voegelin isn't well-informed
> about what Marx was doing.
Well, I guess you'll have to read him yourself
to see if this is true.
I don't claim to be the best person to expound
Voegelin's views. I only claim to have found some
useful insights in his writing.
I guess I owe Ron an apology for thinking he was the
one who made the remark about Popper being a positivist.
I have a hard time keeping the two of you apart in my
mind, since you seem to be tag-teaming me. :)
FWIW, I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy
and spent most of those years (long ago now) studying
Popper and the philosophers related to him. So I'm
familiar with his weaknesses, and I have no wish to defend
him in every particular. I just thought it odd to see
him lumped together and dismissed with the positivists,
with no mention of his frequent protests against that
treatment --- especially when the person doing the lumping
is making such a ruckus about seeing Marx lumped together
with others with whom it is alleged he does not belong.
charlie
Charlie Kester
> a question-begging description since it assumes there is
> some reason to posit such an entity. And as a description
> it would be as true of, say, Darwin, or the basic thrust
> of science, as of Marx.
Is it question-begging or simply an observation from the
standpoint of a different metaphysics? If what you mean is
that the choice between those different metaphysics is not
a matter of deduction from some other principles, I agree
wholeheartedly. I've tried to say as much at several points
in this thread. *I don't believe this is a matter than can
be settled by intellectual argument, one way or the other.*
(But that's not to say it's an arbitrary choice! Once again,
I would remind you of the role "prudence" played in classical
philosophy...)
As for whether the "revolt" occurs in other places than
Marx's thought, Voegelin's answer would be a definite yes.
He describes it as the essence of modernism (although he may
not use those exact words.) Insofar as modern science is
modern --- that is, developed in deliberate isolation from the
transcendent, or in denial of it --- it shares the disease
Voegelin finds in Marx.
twe...@my-deja.com
Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8sfrmk$5os$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> twe...@beasys.com wrote:
> > I've not read Voegelin, but based on your remarks
> > this in itself is evidence that Voegelin isn't well-informed
> > about what Marx was doing.
>
> FWIW, I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy
> and spent most of those years (long ago now) studying
> Popper and the philosophers related to him. So I'm
> familiar with his weaknesses, and I have no wish to defend
> him in every particular. I just thought it odd to see
> him lumped together and dismissed with the positivists,
> with no mention of his frequent protests against that
> treatment --- especially when the person doing the lumping
> is making such a ruckus about seeing Marx lumped together
> with others with whom it is alleged he does not belong.
>
There's a little difference: people weren't imprisoned
for such a failure to adhere to such academic
precision as you demand. I've acknowledged that
Popper eschews the "positivist" label. You've not
mentioned what earth-shaking consequences hinge on
failure to recognize it.
Smearing all forms of radicalism as
implicitly totalitarian has a bit nastier implication.
It's moral blindess to fail to see the difference.
Either you agree with the smear or not. If you disagree
with such smear tactics, you could have simply stated
so, rather than evade the issue.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sgaff$i7l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8sg2qr$bur$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> twe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <8sftim$7eb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > In article <8sfrmk$5os$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > twe...@beasys.com wrote:
>> > > I've not read Voegelin, but based on your remarks
>> > > this in itself is evidence that Voegelin isn't well-informed
>> > > about what Marx was doing.
>> >
>> > FWIW, I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy
>> > and spent most of those years (long ago now) studying
>> > Popper and the philosophers related to him. So I'm
>> > familiar with his weaknesses, and I have no wish to defend
>> > him in every particular. I just thought it odd to see
>> > him lumped together and dismissed with the positivists,
>> > with no mention of his frequent protests against that
>> > treatment --- especially when the person doing the lumping
>> > is making such a ruckus about seeing Marx lumped together
>> > with others with whom it is alleged he does not belong.
>> >
>>
>> There's a little difference: people weren't imprisoned
>> for such a failure to adhere to such academic
>> precision as you demand. I've acknowledged that
>> Popper eschews the "positivist" label. You've not
>> mentioned what earth-shaking consequences hinge on
>> failure to recognize it.
>
>I merely noted it a bit of odd behavior on your part.
>I made no demands. In fact, I think it's odd that you read it as
>a demand. Perhaps that tells us more about you than it
>does about me?
You used it by way of defending your failure to recognize
that there are forms of Marxism that are not Stalinist, that
are democratic. If not, why mention it?
The implication is that if I object to your failure to recognize
this distinction, then you are justified in failing to recognize
the distinction between democratic and Stalinist views
derived from Marx's ideas.
This implies that if I wish to lodge a criticism of your failure,
you can lodge a criticism of my failure. If that was not your
point, why mention it?
>
>> Smearing all forms of radicalism as
>> implicitly totalitarian has a bit nastier implication.
>> It's moral blindess to fail to see the difference.
>
>Well, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "radicalism"
>or "totalitarian", so I hesitate to comment on this.
>But if the terms mean what I think they do, then yes,
>I do think all radicalism is implicitly totalitarian.
>(I think that is what Voegelin is saying too, fwiw.)
I.e., there is no difference between libertarian socialism
or social democracy -- two democratic forms of
radical viewpoint inspired to varying degrees by Marx --
and Stalinism. That is just a smear since it has
no rational foundation. It is quite obvious that
there are various tendencies in the radical movement,
from social-democratic Marxism to libertarian
socialism, that have been firmly anti-totalitarian.
>
>I don't think that's a smear, I think it's the simple truth.
No reasons provided of course.
>What's more, I don't see anything nasty or morally blind
>in acknowledging that truth. If you think there is, then
>I suggest that you're imputing motives to me that I simply
>do not have, and you're implying a willingness on my part
>to use tactics I abhor. Again, this may tell us more about
>you than it does about me.
You just implied that smear tactics are fine by you.
>
>> Either you agree with the smear or not. If you disagree
>> with such smear tactics, you could have simply stated
>> so, rather than evade the issue.
>
>OK, for the record, I deplore smear tactics,
>no matter who is the target. I also deplore having
>people thrown in jail for their beliefs. I deplore
>having them shot for their beliefs. In short,
>I deplore tyrannies of both the right and the left.
>
>Satisfied?
No. You disavow the end but endorse one of the
means.
>
>But I don't think Popper is guilty of any of those things.
Not personally. But his books on Marx and Marxism were in fact
poorly argued attempts to identify Marx with Stalinism.
To so argue is a kind of protacted fallacy of false dichotomy
since there are other traditions that have been inspired
by Marx's ideas. A fallacy that you endorse.
Tom Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sg0im$a1q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...[..]
>As for whether the "revolt" occurs in other places than
>Marx's thought, Voegelin's answer would be a definite yes.
>He describes it as the essence of modernism (although he may
>not use those exact words.) Insofar as modern science is
>modern --- that is, developed in deliberate isolation from the
>transcendent, or in denial of it --- it shares the disease
>Voegelin finds in Marx.
Then by implication, the whole of modern science is committed
to political totalitarianism? That seems to be the implication:
(1) A revolt against God means that you are trying to take over and dominate
everything, that is, you have totalitarian ends
(2) The whole of modern science is based on a metaphysics that is a revolt
against God
(3) So the whole of modern science has totalitarian ends.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
> Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8sfrmk$5os$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > twe...@beasys.com wrote:
> > > I've not read Voegelin, but based on your remarks
> > > this in itself is evidence that Voegelin isn't well-informed
> > > about what Marx was doing.
> >
> > FWIW, I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy
> > and spent most of those years (long ago now) studying
> > Popper and the philosophers related to him. So I'm
> > familiar with his weaknesses, and I have no wish to defend
> > him in every particular. I just thought it odd to see
> > him lumped together and dismissed with the positivists,
> > with no mention of his frequent protests against that
> > treatment --- especially when the person doing the lumping
> > is making such a ruckus about seeing Marx lumped together
> > with others with whom it is alleged he does not belong.
> >
>
> There's a little difference: people weren't imprisoned
> for such a failure to adhere to such academic
> precision as you demand. I've acknowledged that
> Popper eschews the "positivist" label. You've not
> mentioned what earth-shaking consequences hinge on
> failure to recognize it.
I never said anything "earth-shaking" hung on the issue.
I merely noted it a bit of odd behavior on your part.
I made no demands. In fact, I think it's odd that you read it as
a demand. Perhaps that tells us more about you than it
does about me?
> Smearing all forms of radicalism as
> implicitly totalitarian has a bit nastier implication.
> It's moral blindess to fail to see the difference.
Well, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "radicalism"
or "totalitarian", so I hesitate to comment on this.
But if the terms mean what I think they do, then yes,
I do think all radicalism is implicitly totalitarian.
(I think that is what Voegelin is saying too, fwiw.)
I don't think that's a smear, I think it's the simple truth.
What's more, I don't see anything nasty or morally blind
in acknowledging that truth. If you think there is, then
I suggest that you're imputing motives to me that I simply
do not have, and you're implying a willingness on my part
to use tactics I abhor. Again, this may tell us more about
you than it does about me.
> Either you agree with the smear or not. If you disagree
> with such smear tactics, you could have simply stated
> so, rather than evade the issue.
OK, for the record, I deplore smear tactics,
no matter who is the target. I also deplore having
people thrown in jail for their beliefs. I deplore
having them shot for their beliefs. In short,
I deplore tyrannies of both the right and the left.
Satisfied?
But I don't think Popper is guilty of any of those things.
Mark....@reading.ac.uk
"Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
> > Agreed, we should have a system that pays even the sweepers good
> money.
> > If they are forced to seek work under the thumb of bosses, they will
still
> > be exploited.
> They would not exploited if they worked short hours and made
really
> good money. They could also try to go into busisness themselves if
they
> don't want a boss. Authority is necessary and good.
They cannot choose how long they work and how much money they make,
and without having money already they can't go into business themselves.
The classic problem is that under a capitalism it is invariably a BAD
idea to make a product that society actually NEEDS. Because if everyone
needs it, everyone needs to afford it. If everyone needs to afford it,
then they will set the prices of their own goods to enable them to
afford your product and have money left over. Ergo, no matter how much
money you charge for your product, every other product in the economy
will cost more, and you'll find yourself getting very little real
profit.
Capitalism is, it seems, notoriously bad at rewarding people who
produce stuff we need, and notoriously good at rewarding people who
produce stuff that nobody needs but that happens to be rare. Compare
the earnings of farmers and popstars, sweepers and scriptwriters, miners
and presenters, etc. Then ask which one society could do without.
> >Why should owners qua owners receive anything?
> Because they started the business. Without them civilization would
> collapse.
Why not give them a one-off payment for starting the business? Why
should they be paid continuously for a single risk (which in fact wasn't
a risk after all), while others have to work continuously for continuous
money?
> What
> > is the justification for income derivable solely from ownership of
> > productive assets?
> I am opposed to people making money in the stock market, but
people
> who do actual work should be rewarded and people who start businesses
should
> get money then people who do less effective things.
Except for one thing: starting a business is only "effective" BECAUSE
other people do "less effective things". If EVERYONE decided to start a
business, none of the businesses would be effective since they would all
be single-employee sole-traders - nobody wants to work for another
person's business, they're too busy running their own!
If there were no workers, there would be no entrepreneurs. Since
being an entrepreneur carries a greater reward than being a worker,
logically everyone capable of being an entrepreneur should become one.
Since entrepreneurs work for themselves, nobody can explicitly set
requirements or qualifications for being one; they can, however, jack up
the cost of entry to keep people out.
Every entrepreneur is going to require a number of workers in their
business, meaning that for the system to work, for every entrepreneur
there must be a number of people unable to become entrepreneurs
(otherwise they would do so, and would not be workers, and would not
work for the first entrepreneur, in which case he wouldn't be an
entrepreneur). Even if we say that each entrepreneur in the economy
needs only 1 employee, that still means that 50% of society must be
locked out of the ability to start their own business!
Charlie Kester
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sg0im$a1q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >As for whether the "revolt" occurs in other places than
> >Marx's thought, Voegelin's answer would be a definite yes.
> >He describes it as the essence of modernism (although he may
> >not use those exact words.) Insofar as modern science is
> >modern --- that is, developed in deliberate isolation from the
> >transcendent, or in denial of it --- it shares the disease
> >Voegelin finds in Marx.
>
> Then by implication, the whole of modern science is committed
> to political totalitarianism? That seems to be the implication:
>
> (1) A revolt against God means that you are trying to take over and
dominate
> everything, that is, you have totalitarian ends
> (2) The whole of modern science is based on a metaphysics that is a
revolt
> against God
No, I didn't say that, and neither did Voegelin. Do you
understand the use of the phrase "insofar as"?
> (3) So the whole of modern science has totalitarian ends.
>
Charlie Kester
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sgaff$i7l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> that there are forms of Marxism that are not Stalinist, that
> are democratic. If not, why mention it?
Huh? When did I deny that there were different forms
of Marxism than the Stalinist variety?
I also don't see that my pointing out your lumping Popper
together with the positivist is a "defense" of my alleged
failure to make distinctions between Marxists. I certainly
didn't intend it as such. I only meant to point out an
inconsistency in *your* approach.
> The implication is that if I object to your failure to recognize
> this distinction, then you are justified in failing to recognize
> the distinction between democratic and Stalinist views
> derived from Marx's ideas.
I deny that I have failed to recognize the distinction you
are referring to.
>
> This implies that if I wish to lodge a criticism of your failure,
> you can lodge a criticism of my failure. If that was not your
> point, why mention it?
>
> >
> >> Smearing all forms of radicalism as
> >> implicitly totalitarian has a bit nastier implication.
> >> It's moral blindess to fail to see the difference.
> >
> >Well, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "radicalism"
> >or "totalitarian", so I hesitate to comment on this.
> >But if the terms mean what I think they do, then yes,
> >I do think all radicalism is implicitly totalitarian.
> >(I think that is what Voegelin is saying too, fwiw.)
>
> I.e., there is no difference between libertarian socialism
> or social democracy -- two democratic forms of
> radical viewpoint inspired to varying degrees by Marx --
> and Stalinism.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth.
I'm not saying any such thing, and neither is Voegelin.
>That is just a smear since it has
> no rational foundation. It is quite obvious that
> there are various tendencies in the radical movement,
> from social-democratic Marxism to libertarian
> socialism, that have been firmly anti-totalitarian.
Depends on the meaning of the words, and also on
whether or not we believe the propaganda put out
by groups that are not yet in power.
> >
> >I don't think that's a smear, I think it's the simple truth.
>
> No reasons provided of course.
That's right. I don't think it's necessary to give reasons
for simple truths.
> >What's more, I don't see anything nasty or morally blind
> >in acknowledging that truth. If you think there is, then
> >I suggest that you're imputing motives to me that I simply
> >do not have, and you're implying a willingness on my part
> >to use tactics I abhor. Again, this may tell us more about
> >you than it does about me.
>
> You just implied that smear tactics are fine by you.
Clearly, what you see as a smear tactic I do not.
What I see as totalitarian you do not.
We're not communicating very well, are we?
>
> >
> >> Either you agree with the smear or not. If you disagree
> >> with such smear tactics, you could have simply stated
> >> so, rather than evade the issue.
> >
> >OK, for the record, I deplore smear tactics,
> >no matter who is the target. I also deplore having
> >people thrown in jail for their beliefs. I deplore
> >having them shot for their beliefs. In short,
> >I deplore tyrannies of both the right and the left.
> >
> >Satisfied?
>
> No. You disavow the end but endorse one of the
> means.
Huh?
> >
> >But I don't think Popper is guilty of any of those things.
>
> Not personally. But his books on Marx and Marxism were in fact
> poorly argued attempts to identify Marx with Stalinism.
> To so argue is a kind of protacted fallacy of false dichotomy
> since there are other traditions that have been inspired
> by Marx's ideas. A fallacy that you endorse.
Oh, now I get it. My sin is that I recommmended
to someone that they read a book you would like to
have suppressed.
FWIW, I don't think Popper is guilty of confusing
Marx with Stalin or Marxism with Stalinism. I don't
think his analysis is as profound as Voegelin's, but
it is based on a reading of Marx's own works.
Tell you what, why don't you get a copy of the
"Open Society and Its Enemies" yourself, and walk
us through the errors in its discussion of Marx?
twe...@my-deja.com
You say below that all forms of radical politics
that are derived from or inspired by Marx's ideas
are "totalitarian". Unless you have some idiosyncratic
meaning of "totalitarian", that is the implication
since "Stalinism" refers to the type of regime
run by "Marxist-Leinist" parties. That is the
referent for "totalitarian" when speaking of
leftwing variants thereof.
>
> I also don't see that my pointing out your lumping Popper
> together with the positivist is a "defense" of my alleged
> failure to make distinctions between Marxists. I certainly
> didn't intend it as such. I only meant to point out an
> inconsistency in *your* approach.
What was your *point* in so doing, if not as self-justification?
To not see the distinction between a smear of a political
movement versus a loose categorization of an abstract
academic philosophical position is moral blindness.
>
> > The implication is that if I object to your failure to recognize
> > this distinction, then you are justified in failing to recognize
> > the distinction between democratic and Stalinist views
> > derived from Marx's ideas.
>
> I deny that I have failed to recognize the distinction you
> are referring to.
Then you need to explain your sweeping generaliation of
all such viewpoints as "totalitarian." See my comment above.
>
> >
> > This implies that if I wish to lodge a criticism of your failure,
> > you can lodge a criticism of my failure. If that was not your
> > point, why mention it?
> >
> > >
> > >> Smearing all forms of radicalism as
> > >> implicitly totalitarian has a bit nastier implication.
> > >> It's moral blindess to fail to see the difference.
> > >
> > >Well, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "radicalism"
> > >or "totalitarian", so I hesitate to comment on this.
> > >But if the terms mean what I think they do, then yes,
> > >I do think all radicalism is implicitly totalitarian.
> > >(I think that is what Voegelin is saying too, fwiw.)
> >
> > I.e., there is no difference between libertarian socialism
> > or social democracy -- two democratic forms of
> > radical viewpoint inspired to varying degrees by Marx --
> > and Stalinism.
>
> There you go again, putting words in my mouth.
> I'm not saying any such thing, and neither is Voegelin.
Then why do you categorize them all as "totalitarian"?
>
> >That is just a smear since it has
> > no rational foundation. It is quite obvious that
> > there are various tendencies in the radical movement,
> > from social-democratic Marxism to libertarian
> > socialism, that have been firmly anti-totalitarian.
>
> Depends on the meaning of the words, and also on
> whether or not we believe the propaganda put out
> by groups that are not yet in power.
Why assume that these are groups that aim at taking power?
That in itself is a biased misconstrual of many such
viewpoints. It begs the question to refer to their
views as "propaganda." In effect you're saying you
don't have to respond to their *arguments* because
"Hey, they don't really mean what they say anyway."
>
> > >
> > >I don't think that's a smear, I think it's the simple truth.
> >
> > No reasons provided of course.
>
> That's right. I don't think it's necessary to give reasons
> for simple truths.
It may appear as a "simple truth" to a mental simpleton,
but since these viewpoints have articulated positions
precisely as *anti-totalitarian*, *anti-bureaucratic*,
and democratic, your characterization is merely an
unfounded slander.
You can perhaps *argue* that the consequences of their
views are other than what they say, but it requires
argument to be a warranted assertion.
>
> > >What's more, I don't see anything nasty or morally blind
> > >in acknowledging that truth. If you think there is, then
> > >I suggest that you're imputing motives to me that I simply
> > >do not have, and you're implying a willingness on my part
> > >to use tactics I abhor. Again, this may tell us more about
> > >you than it does about me.
> >
> > You just implied that smear tactics are fine by you.
>
> Clearly, what you see as a smear tactic I do not.
> What I see as totalitarian you do not.
> We're not communicating very well, are we?
Now I wonder why?
> >
> > >
> > >> Either you agree with the smear or not. If you disagree
> > >> with such smear tactics, you could have simply stated
> > >> so, rather than evade the issue.
> > >
> > >OK, for the record, I deplore smear tactics,
> > >no matter who is the target. I also deplore having
> > >people thrown in jail for their beliefs. I deplore
> > >having them shot for their beliefs. In short,
> > >I deplore tyrannies of both the right and the left.
> > >
> > >Satisfied?
> >
> > No. You disavow the end but endorse one of the
> > means.
>
> Huh?
Slander and disinformation is a method of manipulation.
It is implicitly authoritarian.
>
> > >
> > >But I don't think Popper is guilty of any of those things.
> >
> > Not personally. But his books on Marx and Marxism were in fact
> > poorly argued attempts to identify Marx with Stalinism.
> > To so argue is a kind of protacted fallacy of false dichotomy
> > since there are other traditions that have been inspired
> > by Marx's ideas. A fallacy that you endorse.
>
> Oh, now I get it. My sin is that I recommmended
> to someone that they read a book you would like to
> have suppressed.
When did I say or imply that it should be suppressed?
What I have been arguing is that you need to provide
reasons and allow that things you seem to thing are
obvious -- "simple truths" you say -- are not so simple
and are in need of reasons being provided to warrant
the assertions. Science and democracy are precisely
built on the practice of giving reasons.
You complain that I have put words in your mouth but you
have no problem attributing to others authoritarian
intentions without reason.
You attribute totalitarianism to anyone who would "revolt"
against your god. The reality of the history of
organized religion, from the Spanish inquisition to the
current regime in Tehran, is that the God vision has
all too often been used as the rationle for totalitarianism.
The "revolt against God" in the Enlighenment was
in part a revolt against authoritarianism.
Tom Wetzel
twe...@beasys.com
Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8sgm64$a11$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sg0im$a1q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > >As for whether the "revolt" occurs in other places than
> > >Marx's thought, Voegelin's answer would be a definite yes.
> > >He describes it as the essence of modernism (although he may
> > >not use those exact words.) Insofar as modern science is
> > >modern --- that is, developed in deliberate isolation from the
> > >transcendent, or in denial of it --- it shares the disease
> > >Voegelin finds in Marx.
> >
> > Then by implication, the whole of modern science is committed
> > to political totalitarianism? That seems to be the implication:
> >
> > (1) A revolt against God means that you are trying to take over and
> dominate
> > everything, that is, you have totalitarian ends
> > (2) The whole of modern science is based on a metaphysics that is a
> revolt
> > against God
>
> No, I didn't say that, and neither did Voegelin. Do you
> understand the use of the phrase "insofar as"?
>
> > (3) So the whole of modern science has totalitarian ends.
> >
> > Tom Wetzel
> >
You say above that "insofar as modern science has been
developed in isolation from" the "transcendent" it shares
the same disease as Marxism.
Your language is quite vague, but insofar as I can make
any sense out of it, it seems to imply that a worldview
that avoids commitment to your privileged "trasncendent"
realm (i.e. God) has "totalitarian" implications. Since
science is based on a naturalist view that DOES avoid
that commitment, how does it not have the same alleged
"totalitarian" implications as Marxism? It seems that
what bugs Voegelin, based on your gloss, is its naturalism.
That is implicit in modern science.
Charlie Kester
>> FWIW, I don't think Popper is guilty of confusing
>> Marx with Stalin or Marxism with Stalinism. I don't
>> think his analysis is as profound as Voegelin's, but
>> it is based on a reading of Marx's own works.
>> Tell you what, why don't you get a copy of the
>> "Open Society and Its Enemies" yourself, and walk
>> us through the errors in its discussion of Marx?
What happened to intellectual honesty and being prepared
to back up your claims, hmm?
Ron Allen
> You [Charlie Kester] say above that "insofar as modern
> "transcendent" it shares the same disease as Marxism.
> Your language is quite vague, but insofar as I can make
> any sense out of it, it seems to imply that a worldview
> that avoids commitment to your privileged "trasncendent"
> realm (i.e. God) has "totalitarian" implications. Since
> science is based on a naturalist view that DOES avoid
> that commitment, how does it not have the same alleged
> "totalitarian" implications as Marxism? It seems that
> what bugs Voegelin, based on your gloss, is its naturalism.
> That is implicit in modern science.
Ron Allen answers:
I have an intuitive hunch that political totalitarianism
is more an offspring of philosophical monotheism than of
philosophical atheism.
I am no trying to say that every religious monotheist is
also a political totalitarian.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"One leader, one people, signifies one master and millions
of slaves."
-- Albert Camus
Ron Allen
> I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy . . . .
Ron Allen answers:
Did you study Marx or marxism?
Why do you come across as seeming to think so poorly of
gnosticism? I mean, if marxism is some kind of
gnosticism,
as Voegelin says, then why is that supposed to be a smear
against marxism?
<><><><><><><><><>
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence."
-- Charles De Gaulle
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the
thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority
of the bootmaker."
-- Mikhail Bakunin
Ron Allen
> Tell you what, why don't you [Tom Wetzel] get a copy of
> through the errors in its discussion of Marx?
Ron Allen answers:
I could do that with Mises and Voegelin, because I have
the books and have read them; but I do not have Popper's
book, and I have not read that book.
Perhaps you could share with us where you think Popper is
right on in his discussion of Marx.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8simbu$hi0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Curious deletion on your part, Tom:
>
>>> Marx with Stalin or Marxism with Stalinism. I don't
>>> think his analysis is as profound as Voegelin's, but
>>> it is based on a reading of Marx's own works.
>>> Tell you what, why don't you get a copy of the
>>> "Open Society and Its Enemies" yourself, and walk
>>> us through the errors in its discussion of Marx?
>
>to back up your claims, hmm?
Curious deletion on your part....i.e. my entire message. What
happened to intellectual honesty and being prepared to back
up your claims?
You claimed that all radical viewpoints derived from Marx's
social theory are totalitarian. That is (a) a sweeping generalization
covering
millions of people and (b) you saw fit to provide no evidence.
In fact this is an obvious smear that says more about your
own prejudices than anything else.
I already made a comment on some of Popper's claims
in re Marx, which you saw fit to not reply to. If you want to
discuss Popper's critique of Marx's "historicism" I am prepared
to do so.
I didn't respond specifically to your suggestion we discuss
that particular book because I have not had time yet to consult
it. I didn't say I was unwilling to discuss it.
Tom Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sisca$mb5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <39ECE78A...@bellsouth.net>,>> > Tell you what, why don't you [Tom Wetzel] get a copy of
>> > the "Open Society and Its Enemies" yourself, and walk us
>> > through the errors in its discussion of Marx?
>>
>> I could do that with Mises and Voegelin, because I have
>> the books and have read them; but I do not have Popper's
>> book, and I have not read that book.
>>
>> Perhaps you could share with us where you think Popper is
>> right on in his discussion of Marx.
>
>
>Tom was the one who made a claim about Popper
>smearing Marx and Marxists as Stalinist totalitarians.
>I think he should live up to his own stated principles
>and give us his critical analysis of Popper's book.
>
By parity of reasoning, you should back up your claim
that all viewpoints derived from or inspired by Marx's ideas are
totalitarian.
Tom Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8simbu$hi0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Curious deletion on your part, Tom:
>
>>> Marx with Stalin or Marxism with Stalinism. I don't
>>> think his analysis is as profound as Voegelin's, but
>>> it is based on a reading of Marx's own works.
>>> Tell you what, why don't you get a copy of the
>>> "Open Society and Its Enemies" yourself, and walk
>>> us through the errors in its discussion of Marx?
>
>to back up your claims, hmm?
What is dishonest about not responding to everything in your message?
If you want to discuss Popper's critique of Marxism, we can do so.
It was Ron who claimed that Popper's critique was directed
at Stalinism. You seem to confuse the two of us. If you think
that Ron was mistaken, you could provide evidence he was
wrong. I went along with Ron because that is vaguely
my impression also, tho it's been a long time since
I looked at "The Open Society and Its Enemies." If you
contest that characterization, we can look at the text.
But Ron's point was that you offered critics of Marx
who were directed only at Stalinist or Leninist
politics, i.e. "enemies of the open society", in Popper's
phrase.
von Mises identifies socialism with centralized, top-down
state planning, in the Soviet model, so it is quite clear
in his case.
It's been awhile since I read Popper's critique
of Marx's "historicism", which was clearly based
on distortions. This was in "The Poverty of Historicism"
and he repeats the same critique in "Conjectures and
Refutations." The claim was that Marx's theory involved
"absolute historical prophecies." This is simply
mistaken. To take the example that I gave, the "tendency
of the rate of profit to fall" is not a categorical prediction
that the rate of profit will fall, but is the positing of an
underlying tendency of the capitalist social formation,
just as the tendency of things dropped
from a roof to accelerate towards the earth according
to an inverse square law is a "tendency" also.
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
> > the "Open Society and Its Enemies" yourself, and walk us
> > through the errors in its discussion of Marx?
>
> I could do that with Mises and Voegelin, because I have
> the books and have read them; but I do not have Popper's
> book, and I have not read that book.
>
> Perhaps you could share with us where you think Popper is
> right on in his discussion of Marx.
Nope. I asked first.
Tom was the one who made a claim about Popper
smearing Marx and Marxists as Stalinist totalitarians.
I think he should live up to his own stated principles
and give us his critical analysis of Popper's book.
Otherwise, he should drop the club he's been beating me with.
Charlie Kester
Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I have an intuitive hunch that political totalitarianism
> is more an offspring of philosophical monotheism than of
> philosophical atheism.
Yes, when the god in question is Man.
(Or are you going to tell me that Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot,
for example, believed in some other god?)
The attempted deification of Man is precisely Voegelin's point.
You claim to have read his books. Surely you can't have
missed that?
> I am no trying to say that every religious monotheist is
> also a political totalitarian.
I didn't think you were, Ron.
Charlie Kester
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Did you study Marx or marxism?
Only briefly, and years ago. I never claimed to be an
expert in the subject.
As I said before, I spent most of my undergraduate years
reading Popper and philosophers related to him. Mostly
the philosophy of science stuff, however. I didn't get
interested in politics until much later, long after I
had left college.
>
> Why do you come across as seeming to think so poorly of
> gnosticism? I mean, if marxism is some kind of
> gnosticism,
> as Voegelin says, then why is that supposed to be a smear
> against marxism?
Well, now you're using Tom's "smear" word too. I don't
think Voegelin's characterization of Marxism as a form of
gnosticism is a smear. That would mean I thought it wasn't
true, that Voegelin knew it wasn't true, and that he said it
anyway. But I think that it is true, that Voegelin was trying to
say the truth to the best of his ability, and that he was
unusually careful to say only what he believed to be the truth.
Can you honestly tell me that you've read Voegelin's description
of what he calls gnosticism and that you still think it's something
admirable?
What books by Voegelin have *you* read?
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8simbu$hi0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Curious deletion on your part, Tom:
>
>>> Marx with Stalin or Marxism with Stalinism. I don't
>>> think his analysis is as profound as Voegelin's, but
>>> it is based on a reading of Marx's own works.
>>> Tell you what, why don't you get a copy of the
>>> "Open Society and Its Enemies" yourself, and walk
>>> us through the errors in its discussion of Marx?
>
>to back up your claims, hmm?
It's necessary, first of all, to distinguish a social theory,
which as you know is developed by a body of researchers,
and a political movement. Political movements have aims
and the type of rhetoric which
they use, and which they may be warranted in using, is
often tailored to those aims. For example, it is often
aimed to inspire, to promote confidence in the movement,
to emphasize the their arguments against the opposing
views. There is in itself nothing authoritarian or undemocratic
in this per se, movements can be differentiated as they
are authoritarian or democratic by a variety of
criteria.
Here I am only concerned that we agree in the distinction
that I am making here. The way in which theory is "used"
in scientific communities is not the way it is "used"
in politics. This is so quite irrespective of where that
political movement is on the range from libertarian
to authoritarian.
Secondly, the body of ideas comprising the ideology or
worldview or justification of a given political movement
may claim to be inspired by the work of some particular
theorist or activist or organizer in virtue of that person's
alleged virtues, that is, various things about what that
person has said or did may be the reasons for the
prominent place assigned to that person in the pantheon
of that political movement. In the case of Marx it may
be his role as the pre-eminent theorist borne by the
19th century socialist movement.
That does not mean that particular movement has
correctly or accurately interpreted that person's
work, considered as a body of theory. Or, more to
the point, there may be different interpretations, and
we may perhaps explain these different interpretations
by how they fit in with the aims of that particular
movement.
In the case of Stalinism, it had a characteristic
interpretation of Marx's theory, a particular slant on it.
Now, in what follows I'll show how one way I think
that it misinterpreted Marx's theory. And then I'll show
how one of Popper's key criticicisms of Marxism is
directed at that Stalinist interpretation.
So, let me lay this out by explaining two different ways
to interpret "historical materialism". First, I'll explain
briefly what I think this means. Then I'll show how
this is incompatible with both Stalinism and Popper's
interpretation.
First, I need a basic distinction of what I view as
essential components in an explanation. If I scratch a
match on the sole of my shoe, and it bursts into flame,
we'd ordinarily say that
E1: The striking of the match on the sole of the shoe at T1
caused
E2: The match bursting into flame at T2
But of course, E1 would not have resulted in E2 without various
more or less persisting susceptibilities, propensities, capacities,
tendencies -- dispostional properties, in other words -- that we
would posit in the entities in the framework in which E1 and E2
occured. If there wasn't oxygen surrounding the match, it would
not have burst into flame (e.g. if i were scratching it in outer space
near the moon). If the match were wet, it probably would not have
burst into flame. If the match stick were as flexible as a wet noodle,
I'd not have been able to get enough friction to get it to light. If there
weren't the right chemical stuff on the matchhead, it wouldn't have
burst into flame. And so on. So, I'll call these the dispositional
or structural elements in the explanation.
Thus, on the view I'm explaining here, any explanation requires two
things: (1) the stimulus or occasioning cause, such as E1 above, and
(2) the more or less persisting dispositional or structural aspects of
the context or framework.
Now, I can characterize "historical materialism" as the view that
in social events -- the sort of events that sociologists and historians
wish to explain -- the structural or dispositional aspect of the
explanation must always be economic in nature. That is, the
economic structure, the economic powers and capacities present
in the situation, are the structural or dispositional components in
explanations of social events.
Now it is important to make this distinction for two reasons.
First, it follows from this definition that "historical materialism"
is not committed to "economic determinism." That's because
economic determinism says that social events always have
economic causes. But that doesn't follow from my explication
of "historical materialism". That's because historical materialism
allows that the stimulus event may be non-economic in nature -- a
religious movement for example.
Now, how is this relevant to Stalinism? In the following way. It was
historically characteristic of Stalinism to define a viewpoint as
a "bourgeois" viewpoint or a "proletarian" viewpoint, so as to
enable them to claim that their viewpoint, by definition, was
the "proletarian" viewpoint, quite without any regard to what
workers might want or say or do.
But class is a structural aspect of society. As such, a person's
class is a dispositional aspect of the situation in which they
act and acquire beliefs. As such, it cannot be a sufficient cause
of any belief or viewpoint in itself.
As with dispositions generally, the class faultlines in a society
are only revealed through conflict, just as the capacities of
objects are revealed through observation of how they in fact
behave under various circumstances.
Now, this point is relevant to one of Popper's criticisms of Marxism,
i.e. that it is committed to what he calls the "conspiracy theory
of society." He describes this as the "view that whatever happens
in society -- including things which people as a rule dislike such
as war, unemployment, poverty, shortages -- are the results of
the direct design by some powerful individuals or groups."
Marx was well aware, as any reader of "Capital", can attest that
any given capitalist is as controlled by the capitalist social
formation as any given worker (tho their personal wealth may
give them some greater personal room for maneuver). To hold
that there is such a thing as a capitalist or dominant class is not
to hold that the society is run by a conspiracy of guys in a backroom
(tho there are conspiracies of course, they're called "business
deals"). To suppose that Marx is proposing a "conspiracy theory
of society" is a pretty crude strawman fallacy.
A loose and popular interpretation of what it means for
this country to be a class society may lead to talk of the ruling class
or the venture capitalists "doing such and such", and there is
no doubt enough truth in this to justify this practice for such political
purposes. But talking about the man-or-woman-in-the-street rhetoric
of a political movement is not the same thing as looking at a social theory.
Popper is committed to methodological individualism and Marx is
not, but that distinction can't be profitably discussed at the crude
level of polemic we find in "Conjectures and Refutations" (which
conveniently cites no texts). I think it is literally true that a class
may be said to have certain capacities. For example, that the power
of the American working class, in relation to capital, has been
weakened through globalization, movement of manufacturing overseas,
etc. since the '70s, and that this is reflected in a collapse in the
level of strikes, stagnation of income, etc. I think it is no more
true that social entities such as the American state or the
working class are reducible to "interactions of invididuals" than
that the capacities of a cat are literally reducible to nothing but
physics-level features of its microparticles. I.e., if a cat is real,
so is the state, so is the working class.
Further, it is necessary to differentiate historical materialism, as
I've explicated it here, from the "idea of progress", which was
characteristic of the 19th century, and which sometimes influenced
things Marx said. I think there is nothing essential to
historical materialism per se
that entails a commitment to a notion of "inevitable progress."
Nor is Marx's theory committed to it, as can be seen in remarks
about the Dark Ages that he sometimes makes, as a period
of relapse in civilization that lasted for a long time.
On the other hand, it is no doubt true that socialists often talked
of the "inevitable victory" of socialism. This is quite understandable
political rhetoric. To be timid and lack confidence, in a political
movement, can be self-defeating.
But there is no reason to suppose that Marx's theory is committed
to any such notion. Now this is relevant to assessing what seems
to be one of Popper's main criticisms:
"The elimination of the historicist doctrine destroys Marxism completely
as far as its scientific pretensions go." (Conjectures and Refutations, p.
343)
By the "historicist doctrine" he means the view that it is the aim of
science to make unconditional predictions of what will occur.
(See Popper's summary on p. 338 of "Conjectures and Refutations".
I'm using the Harper Torchbook edition.)
Now, in fact it is simply false that this was Marx's view of the role of
the social sciences. Popper does correctly indicate that Marx
thought the "task of the social sciences is fundamentally the same
as that of the natural sciences". (Actually he should have said "physical
sciences" -- human society is an aspect of nature as much as
the movement of light.)
But he attributes to Marx the view that the task of science is to
generate "unconditional historical prophesy." This is simply not true,
as a characterization of Marx's view as social theorist.
Marx was well aware that "laws" posit tendencies in things, that they
are not unconditional.
Now, Popper says that Marx holds that revolutions can be predicted,
and he means in an absolute or categorical sense of prediction.
But it's hard to see what justification there is for that attribution.
Marx's view is that we make history, it is crucially up to us
to shape how the society will change, but within the limits
of what is possible for us at a given point in time. He was
interested in examining the conditions that shape or delimit
that possibility.
Marx does say, in a famous passage, that a "period of revolution"
tends to ensue when the economic structure ("the social relations
of production") "fetter" the "further development of the forces of
production." But note that this is not categorical in nature. It says
that IF the development of the forces of production are fettered by
the social relations of production, there *tends* to ensue a "period
of revolution", that is, destabilizing conflict in which a new social
force may arise that develops sufficient strength to restructure
social relations, i.e. that would be a "revolution" in the relevant
sense. This has the sort of hypothetical structure that
Popper says is characteristic of scientific hypotheses.
The collapse of the state-centralist mode of production (a type of "social
relations of production") in the Soviet Union in 1989 may be taken
as a confirming instance of this theory. The state-centralist mode of
production tends to hoard labor, and this tendency was masked
during the Stalin period by mechanization of agriculture and movement
of people off the land into industry and by the introduction of women into
the labor force, which greatly expanded the supply of labor. But by
the '60s and '70s these stratagems had pretty much run their course
and by the '80s the USSR was mired in a deepening and seemingly
permanent economic decline. In short, the social relations of production
were fettering the further development of the productive forces.
And a revolution occurred.
Actually, there is a difference of opinion amongst Marxists about the
meaning of "forces of production" -- does it refer to the people
and their needs and skills?, or does it refer to technological
capacity alone?
But we need not tarry over this point. My discussion
thus far should be sufficient to indicate why I think Popper was
wrong about his characterization of Marx's theory.
The point here is to show how it is relevant to the
assessment of Popper's critique that there are in
fact different interpretations of Marx's theory.
Moreover, there were exponents of such alternative interpretations
around in the '40s when Popper was active and writing. An example
would be G.D.H. Cole's "The Meaning of Marxism." I mention
Cole because he is a radical democratic, anti-totalitarian
socialist and was quite well-known in that era.
I've not quoted from "The Open Society and Its Enemies" here
because I've not been able to locate my copy yet. But I think
my comments on "Conjectures and Refutations" is a stab
at expressing at least some of the weaknesses of Popper's
critique of Marxism.
Tom Wetzel
jesse l nowells
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Tom Wetzel wrote:
> Now, how is this relevant to Stalinism? In the following way. It was
> historically characteristic of Stalinism to define a viewpoint as
> a "bourgeois" viewpoint or a "proletarian" viewpoint, so as to
> enable them to claim that their viewpoint, by definition, was
> the "proletarian" viewpoint, quite without any regard to what
> workers might want or say or do.
One can say that there are bourgeois & proletarian viewpoints, in the
sense that a viewpoint can reflect a particular class interest. A worker
does not necessarily have a proletarian outlook just because they are a
worker. One can define a proletarian viewpoint as being a view that is
supportive to the best interests of *all* working people & society in
general. A bourgeois outlook can be defined as being a view that is
concerned *primarily* with the advancement of ones self, group and/or
class alone. Depending on one's class position, that manifests
itself in different ways. Just look at all the people who are dependent on
selling their labor, who call themselves middle class, (to distinguish
themselves from being considered a laboring class), who have antagonism to
less privileged working people, (& even see them as more of a threat than
the people on top of them), & who generally align themselves to the agenda
of the ruling class. On the other hand, a person born in privilege can
nonetheless come to take on an outlook that does support working people &
the interest of the disenfranchised. In actuality, a person can have
conflicting viewpoints & interests in this regard.
Charlie Kester
"Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> It was Ron who claimed that Popper's critique was directed
> at Stalinism. You seem to confuse the two of us. If you think
> that Ron was mistaken, you could provide evidence he was
> wrong. I went along with Ron because that is vaguely
> my impression also, tho it's been a long time since
> I looked at "The Open Society and Its Enemies." If you
> contest that characterization, we can look at the text.
Well, Tom, now you're simply lying. This was your response
to the post in which I first mentioned Popper:
"Popper's critique is directed against some
vulgar stalinist conception of Communist ideology.
Besides, Popper's critique is based on logical
postivist ideology which is generally viewed
as discredited in philosophy these days."
Deja is a threaded newsreader, and it's easy to see
that you posted your comments on Popper BEFORE Ron
said anything about him.
In fact, Ron's first comment was that he hadn't read
"The Open Society and its Enemies". Therefore he quite
correctly declined to offer an opinion.
I've printed out your lengthy critique posted today
and hope to post a reply tomorrow or the day after,
once I've had a chance to compare it to Popper's actual text.
At first glance, however, I'm having a hard time finding
much of the real Popper in your description of him...
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sm35h$aim$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8sj366$dlb$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> It was Ron who claimed that Popper's critique was directed
>> at Stalinism. You seem to confuse the two of us. If you think
>> that Ron was mistaken, you could provide evidence he was
>> wrong. I went along with Ron because that is vaguely
>> my impression also, tho it's been a long time since
>> I looked at "The Open Society and Its Enemies." If you
>> contest that characterization, we can look at the text.
>
>Well, Tom, now you're simply lying. This was your response
>to the post in which I first mentioned Popper:
No, not lying, misremembering perhaps. Ron's point
was that the people you cited tended to conflate
Marx's views with the practice of the Communist
regimes. For example, Ron said:
Re Mises:
>It's criticism is of state
>socialism, just as many of his other books are a
>criticism of state capitalism.
And on Voegelin:
>But you were responding to a post which asked very
>pointedly: "What are the basic criticisms of Marx's
>ideology?" You are now telling us that you are answering
>that very conspicuous question about criticism with a
>re-directed consideration of perspective, rather than
>criticism. And you are offering us this perspective,
>rather than a criticism, by using an anti-marxist like
>Voegelin? Voegelin's perspective on marxism is about
>like Robert H. W. Welch, Jr.'s perspective on marxism.
>Mr. Welch was the founder of the John Birch Society, and
>like Eric Voegelin, Mr. Welch has vouchsafed us with a
>"perspective" on marxism.
In general, it is a strawman to offer critics whose criticisms
are directed at Leninism/Stalinism when there are other
radical views derived from, or inspired by, Marx.
I pointed out some ways in which Popper's critique was
directed against a crude (mis)interpretation of
Marxism, derived also from the Stalinist variant.
So I think that my point, even if not clearly stated, stands.
I.e., that it is a kind of strawman to offer only critics
directed against the state-centralist, authoritarian
politics of Communism. Whether Popper can be
characterized as offering this sort of strawman
argument or not can be determined by looking
at what he says. I've already offered some evidence
from "Conjectures and Refutations" that Popper's
critique is based on a crude misinterpretation.
Tom Wetzel
twe...@my-deja.com
Charlie Kester <cke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8sj366$dlb$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Tom Wetzel" <tlwe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
You still haven't answered my following point:
You claimed that all radical viewpoints derived from Marx's
social theory are totalitarian. That is
(a) a sweeping generalization covering
millions of people and
(b) you saw fit to provide no evidence.
To claim that all radical viewpoints derived from Marx's
social theory are totalitarian is a smear. Or, to put
it in more genteel academic parlance, a strawman fallacy.
At first you said you didn't need to
provide any reasons in defense of your statements,
now you flip around and are all hot to defend Popper.
As I said, I'm quite willing to discuss Popper, and
to back up my claim that Popper's criticisms
are directed against a distored strawman that
ignores other interpretations of Marx.
Tom Wetzel
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester wrote in message <8sof8n$90n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>You know what? This isn't dialogue, this
>is Marxist harangue.
Hardly, since I'm not a "Marxist".
You know what? You never expressed any sincere interest in
dialogue.
I expressed a willingness to discuss
"The Open Society and Its Enemies" but you prefer
to make accusations and then run off.
>NB: I did not cite "Conjectures & Refutations" or
>"Poverty of Historicism" because these are NOT
>the place where Popper made his most detailed, lengthy
>analysis/critique of Marx.
It's noteworthy that in "Conjectures and Refutations"
Popper attributes the "Conspiracy Theory of Society" to
Marx whereas in "The Open Society" he attributes
this to Vulgar Marxism, and notes correctly that Vulgar
Marxism does not follow from Marx's theory.
>You can't properly interpret the
>stray remarks he makes in the other books if you are
>unfamiliar with what he says in "Open Society".
I said I was prepared to discuss "The Open Society
and Its Enemies". Having finally found my copy, I was
about to provide some commentary on it. But you
didn't want to wait around. You demanded that I
discuss "The Open Society" and then you run off.
>
>You'll find, among other things, that Popper is quite
>aware of the distinction between Vulgar Marxists, Marxists
>and Marx himself. He knows the difference between Leninists,
>Stalinists, Trotskyites and Social Democrats.
His discussion is quite dated and shows no awareness at all
of non-statist traditions such as the syndicalist, guild socialist,
or councilist views, and a quite inadequate discussion
of social-democracy. This is rather odd since he acknowledges,
and even sympathizes, with Marx's anti-statism.
The only distinction I could find in "The Open
Society" is between "moderate" Marxists (social democrats)
and "radicals" (who he identifies with Leninism). Neither Trotsky
nor Trotskyism are listed in the index. Nor are Antonio Gramsci
or Rosa Luxemburg. He has no discussion of Kautsky (cited
only as an editor of Marx's works or as someone attacked by Lenin).
He argues that the social-democratic view, that it is worthwhile
to work for changes in the context of the existing social order,
is inconsistent with Marx's premises. His argument for this
is quite poor.
Stalinism and Trotskyism are the two forms of Leininism,
Leninism isn't something distinct from them. As I pointed
out originally, it is Leninism, not Marx's ideas per se,
that are the key components of the ideology used to
justify the development of the Communist regimes. Lenin's
theory of the "vanguard party" plays a key role here. This
was foreign to Marx.
>
>Guess what? He actually has many *complimentary* things
>to say about Marx --- including a recognition of Marx's
>contributions to social science.
Yes this is true. He especially sympathizes with Marx's naturalistic
approach to the social sciences, his personal humanitarianism,
and his distaste for moralizing.
Popper was not of the type of crude
right wing ideologue. He was a philosopher with
a liberal, but pro-capitalist, viewpoint. But his views
fit in with "Cold War liberalism" of the '40s/'50s era.
>
>Many of the things Tom claims Popper is attributing to Marx,
>Popper is actually attributing to Marxists, as his choice of
>words and the context makes clear. For example, the "conspiracy
>theory of society."
In "Conjectures & Refutation" he does not make any such
distinction. In "The Open Society" he does attribute "The
conspiracy theory of society" to Vulgar Marxism, not
to Marx. But that is the only critique of Popper that
I mentioned of which this is true.
>
>The book was written during WW2, and Popper called it his
>"war effort". His concern was primarily to explain and critique
>what he saw as the philosophical underpinnings of Nazism. But
>he was also concerned by the threat Stalinism posed in the
>immediate postwar era. This is why "Marxist" in his book
>usually refers to Stalin's apologists, and why he went to
>such lengths to expose the errors of Stalinism. It was, at
>the time, the dominant form of Marxism.
Then you concede the original point of this discussion, that
"The Open Society and Its Enemies" was an attempt to
identify Marx with Leninist/Stalinist totalitarianism. He says
that his aim was to account for the basis or "modern
totalitarianism".
I think his argument to derive authoritarian
or totalitarian implications in Marx is quite poor. He seems
to hinge a lot on his idea that Marx was making categorical
"prophesies" in his theory. It is true that Marx was interested
in theory from the practical point of view of someone
seeking social change. But what Marx was interested in
was the question of social agency. He saw the working class
as having a revolutionary potential. But a potentiality is
not an inevitability.
>
>Historical materialism is actually somewhat favorably described
>in the "Open Society and its Enemies".
Yes, and much of Popper's discussion of this is accurate enough, but
a basic error, as I pointed out, is his attribution of prophesy,
or categorical foretelling of the future, as essential to Marx's
theory and method. I've already given my reasons for
thinking this is a fundamental misinterpretation.
>
>Yes, Popper's methodological individualism is not Marx's (or Tom's).
>But that just goes to show that Popper's critique is based on something
>more than the simple-minded anti-Stalinist smear Tom says it is.
Now where did I say that, hmm? If I were to act like you,
I'd say you were "lying". This is what I said (quoted by you):
"Popper's critique is directed against some
vulgar stalinist conception of Communist ideology."
My statement here is a bit inaccurate, I concede, due
to having not read "The Open Society" in a long time,
but I was well enough aware of Popper's academic
approach to know it was not a "simple-minded smear" nor did I
say so.
It's true that he acknowledges there were social-democratic
forms of Marxist politics, but he is mainly interested
in trying to show how Leninist practice was somehow
the outgrowth of Marx's ideas.
>Popper does fault Marx for his historical predictions. He provides
>citations to show that Marx did indeed make those claims. Those
>predictions were proven false by events.
Nope. Popper often misinterprets the statements in question. For example,
he attributes to Marx the "prediction" that the situation of
the working class will get worse -- what is called the thesis
of "absolute immiseration" of the working class. Students of
Marx have discussed this criticism and argue
that this is a misinterpretation, and
that Marx's claim was that there is *tendency* in capitalism
towards towards increasing polarization of classes in terms
of their economic conditions. This a tendency that can
be counteracted by other tendencies. This is sometimes
called the "relative immiseration" thesis, as distinguished
from the claim of "absolute immiseration". Since Marx
discusses at length how capitalism generates increases
in productivity, which can be the basis for an increase
in material welfare, it would be inconsistent to argue
for "absolute immiseration".
Also, Marx's social theory does not claim that the emergence of
socialism is "inevitable" for example, yet this is a "prophesy"
that is, according to Popper, absolutely central to Marx's
theory.
>
>Read the book. Follow the citations and read Marx. Decide for
>yourself whether Popper was right to say that those claims were
>central to Marx's ideas. Or decide that Tom is right and all that
>historical prophesy and moral futurism is just an unfortunate
>distraction from the *real* theory. I'm sure you'll find it a
>fascinating study --- or at least one where there is ample room
>for cogent views on both sides of the question.
>
>Popper was aware of the many different interpretations of Marx.
No he was not.
>In fact, if you check the footnotes to the "Open Society" ---
>I've always thought that's where the most fascinating stuff
>is going on in that book --- you'll find references to the same
>G.D.H. Cole of whom Tom suggests Popper was ignorant.
I could find no citations to works where Cole develops his
own views, only to Cole's Introduction to an edition of "Capital".
Moreover, Popper attributes to Marx the view that prices
correlate with labor time, which is in fact a view of Ricardo
that Marx rejects. Cole pointed this out in the Introduction
to "Capital" that Popper cites, but Popper cites this only to
disagree -- yet Cole's point is common knowledge amongst
Marxist economists.
A problem with Popper's discussion is that
he doesn't clearly distinguish Marx's social theory, as a theory,
from the political movements called "Marxist". In other words,
his discussion is ambiguous between trying to be a critique
of the theory of Marx versus trying to be a critique of actual
political movements. He doesn't succeed in doing either
very well. To discuss Marxism as a politial movement, it is
necessary to look at the actual history of the threads of that movement,
not just selected quotes from Marx (with a few dashes of
Lenin thrown in for good measure).
[..]
Tom Wetzel
Charlie Kester
in listening to any more of it. It's exactly
the kind of interminable argument I predicted.
To any lurkers who may have been reading this thread:
do read "The Open Society and its Enemies" for yourself.
Take Ron's advice and go to the sources yourself,
rather than relying on the discussion here.
NB: I did not cite "Conjectures & Refutations" or
"Poverty of Historicism" because these are NOT
the place where Popper made his most detailed, lengthy
analysis/critique of Marx. You can't properly interpret the
stray remarks he makes in the other books if you are
unfamiliar with what he says in "Open Society".
You'll find, among other things, that Popper is quite
aware of the distinction between Vulgar Marxists, Marxists
and Marx himself. He knows the difference between Leninists,
Stalinists, Trotskyites and Social Democrats.
Guess what? He actually has many *complimentary* things
to say about Marx --- including a recognition of Marx's
contributions to social science.
Many of the things Tom claims Popper is attributing to Marx,
Popper is actually attributing to Marxists, as his choice of
words and the context makes clear. For example, the "conspiracy
theory of society."
The book was written during WW2, and Popper called it his
"war effort". His concern was primarily to explain and critique
what he saw as the philosophical underpinnings of Nazism. But
he was also concerned by the threat Stalinism posed in the
immediate postwar era. This is why "Marxist" in his book
usually refers to Stalin's apologists, and why he went to
such lengths to expose the errors of Stalinism. It was, at
the time, the dominant form of Marxism.
Historical materialism is actually somewhat favorably described
in the "Open Society and its Enemies".
Yes, Popper's methodological individualism is not Marx's (or Tom's).
But that just goes to show that Popper's critique is based on something
more than the simple-minded anti-Stalinist smear Tom says it is.
Popper does fault Marx for his historical predictions. He provides
citations to show that Marx did indeed make those claims. Those
predictions were proven false by events.
Read the book. Follow the citations and read Marx. Decide for
yourself whether Popper was right to say that those claims were
central to Marx's ideas. Or decide that Tom is right and all that
historical prophesy and moral futurism is just an unfortunate
distraction from the *real* theory. I'm sure you'll find it a
fascinating study --- or at least one where there is ample room
for cogent views on both sides of the question.
Popper was aware of the many different interpretations of Marx.
In fact, if you check the footnotes to the "Open Society" ---
I've always thought that's where the most fascinating stuff
is going on in that book --- you'll find references to the same
G.D.H. Cole of whom Tom suggests Popper was ignorant.
When you've done your reading, come back here and tell the folks
what you think. I'm sure Tom and Ron will be waiting to tell you
you are wrong...
But not me. I'm outta here.