Marxism, good, bad, both?

Original post by Harmonic Minor

Communism wasn't just about collectivizing the means of production. It was about the abolition of private property altogether (since private property can always be used to acquire unequal wealth and status in the interest of the individual). This meant that nobody could really 'own' anything, and so in practice were completely dependent on the Communist party and their bureaus/bureaucrats.

If the government came on down to your town/neighbourhood, took away all the property deeds from the residents/landlords, and then said it was now all 'collectively owned', who allocates it? Who gets it? And the government is supposed to allocate/run it more in your interest than yourself? Collective ownership of all property/means of production makes no sense. It's a contradiction in terms.In practice it is submitting yourself to the government and trusting them to run things 'for the common good'.

You're confusing property in the Marxist sense (productive property) with personal possessions.

You also seem fixated on government's taking stuff away.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 262

Original post by Harmonic Minor

There's still a division of labour, a structural hierarchy, and an unequal stake in the business. Co-operatives can never lead to the total abolition of capitalist practices and the end of inequality.

No, they can't. I didn't say they did.

You seem fixated on the government owning things. Odd.

Reply 263

HermesTrismegistus

8

Original post by Kibalchich

You haven't stated why Marx is irrelevant.

There may be some rigorous, analytic scholarship going on, just as there is for Averroes and Hobbes, and there may be some interesting material for reinterpreting modern problems through the perspective of Marxism. But that's mostly of historical interest and limited to a small part of scholarship. It's not like with Descartes, who still has arguments that can be relevantly summoned to contribute to current problems, as those in modality and philosophy of mind. Or Hume on scepticism and causation. Marxism is so obviously wrong for the two points I mentioned above that it could hardly have a voice of itself in contemporary debates. Active scholarship is not relevance to current problems.

Or a shorter answer: admittedly it's not my area of interest, but I would be surprised to find out that, e.g. Geuss, Nozick, MacIntyre, etc. had any interest in Marx.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 264

johnaulich

Original post by HermesTrismegistus

Or a shorter answer: admittedly it's not my area of interest, but I would be surprised to find out that, e.g. Geuss, Nozick, MacIntyre, etc. had any interest in Marx.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Geuss co-edited a collection of Marx essay's.
Nozick is a libertarian philosopher. Why would he have anything to say about Marx?
MacIntyre has written multiple books on Marxism.

Reply 265

Original post by HermesTrismegistus

There may be some rigorous, analytic scholarship going on, just as there is for Averroes and Hobbes, and there may be some interesting material for reinterpreting modern problems through the perspective of Marxism. But that's mostly of historical interest and limited to a small part of scholarship. It's not like with Descartes, who still has arguments that can be relevantly summoned to contribute to current problems, as those in modality and philosophy of mind. Or Hume on scepticism and causation. Marxism is so obviously wrong for the two points I mentioned above that it could hardly have a voice of itself in contemporary debates. Active scholarship is not relevance to current problems.

Or a shorter answer: admittedly it's not my area of interest, but I would be surprised to find out that, e.g. Geuss, Nozick, MacIntyre, etc. had any interest in Marx.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

You haven't actually said anything about why you think Marx is irrelevant. All you've done is re-stated it and thrown in some other names.

Reply 266

Original post by Harmonic Minor

Communism wasn't just about collectivizing the means of production. It was about the abolition of private property altogether (since private property can always be used to acquire unequal wealth and status in the interest of the individual). This meant that nobody could really 'own' anything, and so in practice were completely dependent on the Communist party and their bureaus/bureaucrats.

Communism means 'a classless, stateless, moneyless society', based on the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Strangely enough, it doesn't technically require worker ownership of the means of production (socialism), though in practice of course all communists are socialists.

If you think by 'private property', that socialists and communists mean anything owned, then you quite clearly don't understand what you're arguing against.

If the government came on down to your town/neighbourhood, took away all the property deeds from the residents/landlords, and then said it was now all 'collectively owned', who allocates it? Who gets it? And the government is supposed to allocate/run it more in your interest than yourself? Collective ownership of all property/means of production makes no sense. It's a contradiction in terms.In practice it is submitting yourself to the government and trusting them to run things 'for the common good'.

Means of production, not everything (well, probably other methods of usury too). But no, the government can't do it because the government is a private interest, not an independent power. And that's the fundamental flaw of Marxism - it wants to destroy the state by means of the state.

Reply 267

johnaulich

Original post by anarchism101

Communism means 'a classless, stateless, moneyless society', based on the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Strangely enough, it doesn't technically require worker ownership of the means of production (socialism), though in practice of course all communists are socialists.

Marxist Communism absolutely does. The long term goal of Marxism is to give ownership of the means of production to the workers. Marx never really advocated state ownership as a long term goal.

Reply 268

Original post by anarchism101

Communism means 'a classless, stateless, moneyless society', based on the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Strangely enough, it doesn't technically require worker ownership of the means of production (socialism), though in practice of course all communists are socialists.

If you think by 'private property', that socialists and communists mean anything owned, then you quite clearly don't understand what you're arguing against.

Means of production, not everything (well, probably other methods of usury too). But no, the government can't do it because the government is a private interest, not an independent power. And that's the fundamental flaw of Marxism - it wants to destroy the state by means of the state.

In practice the Communist states assumed control of virtually everything, from the means of production (whether it be factories or farms) to blocks of housing. Private property can always be used to generate personal profit and wealth on the market, and in Communist states the market is outlawed completely. Most housing and personal property has to be controlled in order to allocate it on the basis of equality.

Reply 269

Original post by Kibalchich

You seem fixated on the government owning things. Odd.

It isn't odd at all. Because in a Communist state the government assumes almost total power in order to achieve the abolition of private property, destroying all distinctions between the public and private sphere, between political and economic power. The Communists had to assume complete legal power in order to overthrow capitalism, since capitalism involves protected property rights leading to independent loci of power. By destroying private property, which can only be done by a unitary force with legal powers, almost all independent loci of political and economic power are also destroyed. Communism in practice is tyranny by the state.

See Leszek Kolakowski and Martin Malia for more on this.

Reply 270

You're fixated on "the state". The communist ideal is stateless, or at the very least, a state consisting of an grass roots and upwardly directed power structure. A federation of workplaces, or unions and communities.

You'd be better off looking at the examples I've pointed you towards, rather than directing me towards people critiquing the former USSR.

Reply 271

Original post by johnaulich

Marxist Communism absolutely does. The long term goal of Marxism is to give ownership of the means of production to the workers. Marx never really advocated state ownership as a long term goal.

Yes, but Marxism isn't the only school of communism, and HM seemed to be talking about communism in general.

Reply 272

Original post by Harmonic Minor

In practice the Communist states assumed control of virtually everything, from the means of production (whether it be factories or farms) to blocks of housing. Private property can always be used to generate personal profit and wealth on the market, and in Communist states the market is outlawed completely. Most housing and personal property has to be controlled in order to allocate it on the basis of equality.

The term 'communist state' is an oxymoron since communism is by definition necessarily a stateless society. If there's a state then it's not communism.

Reply 273

johnaulich

Original post by anarchism101

Yes, but Marxism isn't the only school of communism, and HM seemed to be talking about communism in general.

Ah okay, true.

Reply 274

Original post by anarchism101

The term 'communist state' is an oxymoron since communism is by definition necessarily a stateless society. If there's a state then it's not communism.

I think it would be more accurate to say that stateless communism is an oxymoron, or contradiction in terms, since communism, in practice, is all about the state. As soon as you remove the power of the state capitalism will immediately reemerge; how can you make everybody agree to not engage in personal, market relations? How can you stop them unless such relations are policed and dissolved (as they were in the Soviet Union and other communist countries)? And again, how can the means production be run 'collectively' unless there is a central power directing it?

Haven't you noticed that libertarians, who believe in laissez faire, advocate smaller government and less government intervention (as well as less taxes), giving more freedom to independent business practice? Whereas socialists, on the other end of the continuum, have to advocate all manner of government welfare programs and regulations? The further you move away from laissez faire economics, the more you require the government to intervene to correct the deficiencies/abuses of the capitalist free market. Communism is the most extreme manifestation of this practice. It can be no other way. And in attempting to correct the abuses of the free market through total state intervention, Communism creates a whole host of unintended, unpleasant side affects, such as tyranny, inefficiency, and poverty. This is the answer to the Communist conundrum in a nutshell.

A completely stateless society will never exist; and if it did, it would look more like the American wild west than some kind of classless utopia.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 275

Observatory

20

Original post by Kibalchich

Apart from how you should understand something before attempting to critique it of course.

Out of interest, can you name a single person who in your opinion -

1. Understands Marxism

2. Fundamentally disagrees with it

3. Makes a compelling case against it (obviously you don't have to agree with the case, but that it made you stop and think at least)

Can be a poster on here, op ed writer, or an academic, I don't mind about that.

Because I am thinking that the only True Marxist you will accept is one who agrees with Marx.

Reply 276

Original post by Harmonic Minor

I think it would be more accurate to say that stateless communism is an oxymoron, or contradiction in terms, since communism, in practice, is all about the state. As soon as you remove the power of the state capitalism will immediately reemerge; how can you make everybody agree to not engage in personal, market relations? How can you stop them unless such relations are policed and dissolved (as they were in the Soviet Union and other communist countries)? And again, how can the means production be run 'collectively' unless there is a central power directing it?

Haven't you noticed that libertarians, who believe in laissez faire, advocate smaller government and less government intervention (as well as less taxes), giving more freedom to independent business practice? Whereas socialists, on the other end of the continuum, have to advocate all manner of government welfare programs and regulations? The further you move away from laissez faire economics, the more you require the government to intervene to correct the deficiencies/abuses of the capitalist free market. Communism is the most extreme manifestation of this practice. It can be no other way. And in attempting to correct the abuses of the free market through total state intervention, Communism creates a whole host of unintended, unpleasant side affects, such as tyranny, inefficiency, and poverty. This is the answer to the Communist conundrum in a nutshell.

A completely stateless society will never exist; and if it did, it would look more like the American wild west than some kind of classless utopia.

Communism in practice, has never been wholly realised. The closest experiments have been Spain in 1936, or the Paris Commune, or autogestion in Europe or South America.

You assert that if you remove the state, then capitalism will emerge. What makes you say this? Capitalism requires the state to function, and capitalism only emerged a few hundred years ago!

"Libertarians" that you mention are capitalists. The term libertarian originally referred to anarchist communists, its only very recently that the term has come to mean free market capitalists.

Why your insistence on central power? Have a look at the work of Kropotkin, or more recently the parecon stuff, or have a read of this on direct democracy.

Reply 277

Original post by Observatory

Out of interest, can you name a single person who in your opinion -

1. Understands Marxism

2. Fundamentally disagrees with it

3. Makes a compelling case against it (obviously you don't have to agree with the case, but that it made you stop and think at least)

Can be a poster on here, op ed writer, or an academic, I don't mind about that.

Because I am thinking that the only True Marxist you will accept is one who agrees with Marx.

There are people who have made critiques on problems within Marxism such as the transformation problem. These arguments are usually made by people who have at least understood what Marx was saying about the LTV. You have to be able to know what someone said before being able to critique it, I'd have thought that was obvious!

Reply 278

Original post by Harmonic Minor

I think it would be more accurate to say that stateless communism is an oxymoron, or contradiction in terms, since communism, in practice, is all about the state.

'Stateless communism' is a tautology. You're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to argue that a term which is a stateless society by definition 'in practice' includes a state. Not even the Stalinist regimes called themselves 'communist states'.

As soon as you remove the power of the state capitalism will immediately reemerge

On the contrary, capitalism requires the state to exist. There are heaps of documented stateless societies through history, but not one stateless capitalist society.

how can you make everybody agree to not engage in personal, market relations?

In what world are market relations 'personal'? Markets are an extremely impersonal mode of socio-economic relations.

Also, markets and capitalism are not the same thing. You can, at least in theory, have markets without capitalism.

That said, the historical record shows that market relations are a state thing. Stateless societies tend not to have markets and the ones that do start moving away from them almost straight away (some cases are quicker than others).

And again, how can the means production be run 'collectively' unless there is a central power directing it?

Workers' councils, direct democracy, co-ops, etc. They had all this in the Russian Revolution before the Bolsheviks took it all apart.

Haven't you noticed that libertarians, who believe in laissez faire, advocate smaller government and less government intervention (as well as less taxes), giving more freedom to independent business practice?

Did you know that until about the 1960s, the term 'libertarian' always referred to a type of socialist?

The idea that there is such a thing as 'small government' is based upon a total misunderstanding of power relations - the Friedman-Hayek 'libertarians' think the state can be an independent power within society, which it can't - it always has been and always will be the tool of the wealthy, which is why their imaginary 'free market economy' with a 'minimal state' never has and never will exist.

Whereas socialists, on the other end of the continuum, have to advocate all manner of government welfare programs and regulations?

You're talking about concessions by power. Yes, socialists usually campaign for concessions (there are some that don't as they consider them distracting), but don't confuse that with socialism itself.

A completely stateless society will never exist

It already has done quite often.

and if it did, it would look more like the American wild west than some kind of classless utopia.

What's the problem with the Old West (the idea that it was 'wild' is largely a myth)? Afaik it wasn't a class society.

Reply 279