[johnaulich]

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
But the premier socialist state of the 20th century was the Soviet Union. But most people like to 'discount' that as a true Communism, not because it didn't come closest to socialism (it did in fact achieve non-capitalism), but because they don't like Soviet tyranny being associated with Marxism or communism.

No we discount it because they were Marxist by association only. North Korea formal name has the word 'Democratic' in it. Would you believe that? The USSR confiscated the means of production from everybody by means of nationalization (not advocated by Marx) in order to force (not advocated by Marx) a classless society. It continued wage-slavery (not advocated by Marx) and the production of commodities (not advocated by Marx). It was run by an elite vanguard party (not advocated by Marx). They functioned like a Capitalist country (with all the power and wealth differences, etc) but where everything was state owned. If you make the mistake of thinking the USSR reflected Marxist thought, you can't possibly be too clued up on what he said.

[Harmonic Minor]

(Original post by anarchism101)
'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'.

What would you prefer me to say? Socialism in practice? The Stalinist regimes called themselves socialist. Either way, the only way to even attempt to achieve Communism practically is through state power.

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

Yes but not absolute state power, since capitalism allows independent loci of economic and political power to exist - indeed, capitalism runs optimally in conjunction with democratic politics.

We are talking about a modern state though. Of course there have been technically 'stateless' societies which were not capitalist in the past, because capitalism by definition operates under the technologically-conditioned industry of modern society. And all modern societies have some form of state with a rule of law (in fact I think virtually every modern industrial society is capitalist without exception). But when I say 'remove the state' I mean remove the state's power over the economy. Once this is done, capitalist practices are the norm. Hence why after the collapse of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the states automatically reverted to capitalist practices.

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

You're quibbling over terms. Free relations would be a better way of putting it. In a capitalist society you're free to buy and sell as you choose (within the law), whether it be between individuals on eBay or between individuals and independent stores, businesses, companies and so forth. These market relations, which are inherently inequal, are illegal in communist states because they yield profit. A communist state seeks to allocate resources through central planning. Market relations are supposed to be abolished.

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

Not a free market.

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).

See what I said above. Capitalism is the mode of production for modern societies and modern societies all have a state to some degree or other.

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

But this would not yield full socialism (as noncapitalism) or full equality. And would you really take pre-revolutionary Russia as the model example of an efficient industrial society?
Still, it is interesting, so if you could elaborate on how they operated and how this was socialism, that would be good.

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.

The state in modern western societies is constrained by the rule of law, and civil society (with legal and property rights and the vote) acts as a countervailing power to it.

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.

Huh? What I'm saying is that you will observe that socialistic policies require more government intervention whether it be through increased taxation, greater regulation or more social programs. The further you go along the continuum towards communism (with laissez faire on the other end) the more you require greater state power. This isn't an argument over whether the state exists or not in capitalist or socialist societies. I'm simply saying that the trend is towards absolute power in communist countries and that this is no accident, it is required if one is seeking to overthrow capitalism and institute a marketless, socialist society.

It already has done quite often.

Such as?

[Barden]

I think we should all just give up and lie on the floor until we all die.

[Harmonic Minor]

(Original post by johnaulich)
No we discount it because they were Marxist by association only. North Korea formal name has the word 'Democratic' in it. Would you believe that? The USSR confiscated the means of production from everybody by means of nationalization (not advocated by Marx) in order to force (not advocated by Marx) a classless society. It continued wage-slavery (not advocated by Marx) and the production of commodities (not advocated by Marx). It was run by an elite vanguard party (not advocated by Marx). They functioned like a Capitalist country (with all the power and wealth differences, etc) but where everything was state owned. If you make the mistake of thinking the USSR reflected Marxist thought, you can't possibly be too clued up on what he said.

Just because Marx did not advocate everything the USSR did hardly devalues its claim to being Marxist. The USSR was clearly and obviously inspired by Marx. Your argument implies that Marx is some kind of infallible source of truth and that his thought is not open to interpretation or amendment by any other individual or group. If Marx had lived to see the 20th century he may have had to amend his own views in ways we cannot imagine. Just because Marx 'didn't advocate it' is a sterile argument. Marx did not provide a detailed blueprint for how to create the future communist society - he simply provided a theoretical framework and general worldview which could be acted upon (whether 'correctly' or 'incorrectly') by later followers.

Of course the USSR deviated from the rosy view of Communism laid out by Marx. It deviated because communism in practice is very different from communism in theory, because communist theory is flawed.If it wasn't flawed we'd all be living in socialism by now.

[HermesTrismegistus]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
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.

Even if I'm wrong on the names, I have said why I think it is irrelevant: Its fundamental presuppositions are too wrong and unfounded for it be relevant to current problems. So either address this point or stop this cheap intellectual intimidation crap.


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

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
What would you prefer me to say? Socialism in practice? The Stalinist regimes called themselves socialist.

They also called themselves democratic republics yet we don't take them at their word on that.

Either way, the only way to even attempt to achieve Communism practically is through state power.

Is there any evidence for this assumption at all? Show me historical examples of communist societies created by state power? There are communist societies that weren't created by state power - on the contrary they were destroyed by state power. To suggest that you can create statelessness with the state is ridiculous.

Yes but not absolute state power, since capitalism allows independent loci of economic and political power to exist - indeed, capitalism runs optimally in conjunction with democratic politics.

What do you mean by 'absolute state power'?

On the contrary, the classical liberals' two favourite examples of 'free market capitalism' (they still weren't, but we'll ignore this for the sake of argument) - Chile and Hong Kong - were both dictatorships in the era concerned.

We are talking about a modern state though. Of course there have been technically 'stateless' societies which were not capitalist in the past, because capitalism by definition operates under the technologically-conditioned industry of modern society.

And while stateless societies in the capitalist era have been a rare occurrence, they are still not capitalistic (e.g. Spanish Revolution, Makhnovist Ukraine, Zapatistas, Argentina in the 2001 crisis, etc).

And all modern societies have some form of state with a rule of law (in fact I think virtually every modern industrial society is capitalist without exception). But when I say 'remove the state' I mean remove the state's power over the economy.

Which has never been done without removing the state completely, and if you do that then it's power to ensure private property in the means of production is gone too.

Once this is done, capitalist practices are the norm. Hence why after the collapse of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the states automatically reverted to capitalist practices.

So where during the fall of the Eastern Bloc did the state collapse? Most of them had transitional governments. I can only think of two places in the Eastern Bloc where state authority actually collapsed. The first was Romania, where the lack of state authority led to local and workplace self-management institutions and other socialist concepts like mutual aid groups being set up for the duration of the revolution. The second was Russia when they tried to introduce the neoliberal reforms, where the collapse of state authority led not to capitalism but to complete social chaos - Yeltsin first had to use the army to restore order, and then had to use the troops to attack the Russian Parliament to prevent them from overthrowing him!

You're quibbling over terms. Free relations would be a better way of putting it. In a capitalist society you're free to buy and sell as you choose (within the law), whether it be between individuals on eBay or between individuals and independent stores, businesses, companies and so forth.

Even if we ignore all other state regulation, it's easy to give an example of why that's not true. The state taxes pretty much everyone, and insists taxes are paid in pounds, as well as only guaranteeing debts that are in pounds. So we are de facto forced to use pounds in transactions. And the state controls the number of pounds in circulation.

These market relations, which are inherently inequal, are illegal in communist states because they yield profit. A communist state seeks to allocate resources through central planning. Market relations are supposed to be abolished.

We've already been through why the term 'communist state' is oxymoronic

Not a free market.

Well, non-capitalist free markets are just as imaginary as capitalist free markets for the same reason, but they exist in theory - it's called mutualism.

See what I said above. Capitalism is the mode of production for modern societies and modern societies all have a state to some degree or other.

Hence the advocacy of stateless societies for socialism....

But this would not yield full socialism (as noncapitalism)

Why not?

or full equality.

Of course it's not going to deliver exact equality. There's nothing in socialism that says it intends to.

And would you really take pre-revolutionary Russia as the model example of an efficient industrial society?

I would take a city like St. Petersburg as industrial, yes.

Still, it is interesting, so if you could elaborate on how they operated and how this was socialism, that would be good.

I'll have a look and see if I can find some better articles, but these have some good stuff:

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA5#seca54
http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQAppendix41

The state in modern western societies is constrained by the rule of law, and civil society (with legal and property rights and the vote) acts as a countervailing power to it.

These are down to a mix of concessions won through struggle (like the vote) and infighting between factions of power. Property is not a restriction on the state, on the contrary it is upheld by it.

Huh? What I'm saying is that you will observe that socialistic policies require more government intervention whether it be through increased taxation, greater regulation or more social programs.

Define 'socialistic policies'. And remembering that defining them in terms of what you've already claimed they are would be a circular argument.

The further you go along the continuum towards communism (with laissez faire on the other end) the more you require greater state power. This isn't an argument over whether the state exists or not in capitalist or socialist societies. I'm simply saying that the trend is towards absolute power in communist countries and that this is no accident, it is required if one is seeking to overthrow capitalism and institute a marketless, socialist society.

You're still missing the point. The NHS being generally supported by socialists over privatised healthcare no more makes the NHS socialist than socialists preferring tea to coffee would make tea socialist. Socialism has a meaning - worker control of the means of production.

Suppose the state declared tomorrow that it would no longer ensure capitalists' private property in the means of production - workers wanting to take over the running of their workplaces is now fine and the state will not support any effort by capitalists to prevent this from happening or efforts to try and retake control. Socialism therefore exists and the state is 'smaller' than before.

Such as?

I've outlined the stateless societies in the capitalistic era already, but statelessness is the predominant condition of humans for most of history. You could just check the wiki page for a start - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
Just because Marx did not advocate everything the USSR did hardly devalues its claim to being Marxist. The USSR was clearly and obviously inspired by Marx.

The Ku Klux Klan claim to be inspired by the Bible and Christianity. Are the Klansmen sincere in that view? Almost certainly, yes. Does that mean that their view of the Bible and Christianity is correct?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
Of course it hasn't, because it is impossible. I don't know enough about the examples you provided. But the premier socialist state of the 20th century was the Soviet Union. But most people like to 'discount' that as a true Communism, not because it didn't come closest to socialism (it did in fact achieve non-capitalism), but because they don't like Soviet tyranny being associated with Marxism or communism.

Why do you believe it is impossible?

As for the USSR, well, to understand why it turned out like it did, we have to look at what happened and why. The revolution happened while Russia was still involved in WW1. Then there was a bitter and bloody civil war, with Russia being invaded by the British and the French. Russia was also still mainly a peasant society and very rapid industrialisation took place. Then we had the Bolsheviks themselves and their centralist doctrine, where they crushed the Ukrainian anarchists and the independent soviets. Is it any wonder it became a paranoid and authoratarian regime?

Then we have to think about the fact that some people were predicting that this might be inevitable and criticising some of Marx's ideas for being authoratarian, e.g. Bakunin (who, in secret was actually somewhat of an authoratarian himself), which led to the split in the First International.

Basically, what I'm saying is there are many and varied reasons why Russia became like it did and you have to view it in context. To just say "oh it won't work", without looking at specific contexts is pointless really.

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
Well, for the reasons I gave. State intervention is required to correct the vagaries of the free market. Hence market regulations which are always state imposed. Of course, capitalism requires the state to run optimally too, but a stateless society would surely entail free market relations, albiet chaotic, but certainly nothing even closely approximating socialism, since there would be no unitary power to co-ordinate it (remember, socialism in practical terms entails central planning).

Capitalism actually requires the state to run and not just to "correct" the free market. I mean, do you really think that capitalism would have developed without state intervention to enclose the commons, without the army and navy to support trade within the empire and put down native rebellions, to rescue companies that got into trouble (East India Company being a famous example), etc etc.

You seem to think that free markets are somehow "natural" and that man in a "state of nature" is capitalist. History just does not bear this out!

And why do you think that communism or socialism would require central planning? That is one form of socialism, but not the only one. You admit to not knowing about the examples I gave, such as Spain, the Paris Commune, reclaimed Italian factories, autogestion, etc. Well, find out! Because at the moment, you're arguing from a very narrow position.

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
Remember that capitalism could only emerge at that point because it necessarily requires the technologically-conditioned industry of modern society. But one could also point out that capitalism emerged as the stranglehold of the monarch and lords was weakening, allowing ordinary urbanized citizens to engage in productive economic activity.

Capitalism emerged due to a long process of tensions and rebellions within feudalism. To divorce the development of technology from the social relations that gave rise to it and vice versa misses the point - again, this is where Marx's analysis is so powerful. Linear relationships don't really explain what happens, things are much more dynamic and inter-related, dialectic. It's not that A -> B, but that A and B created each other and led to C.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by HermesTrismegistus)
Even if I'm wrong on the names, I have said why I think it is irrelevant: Its fundamental presuppositions are too wrong and unfounded for it be relevant to current problems. So either address this point or stop this cheap intellectual intimidation crap.


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

There you go, just re-stating it again. That's not an argument. An argument would tell me which "fundamental presuppositions" are wrong and why.

[Kibalchich]

Oh and market relations are all equal? Come on, that rubbish has been dealt with many a time on here. Why do some people persist in believing it?

I have to eat. I have to pay rent (well, I have a mortgage these days, but hey). I have to pay my electric and gas bills. I do not have any power over how much I pay for these things which are necessary to keep me and my family alive, healthy and safe. Everyone needs to eat, everyone needs a roof over their heads. Landlords charge what they can, if you want a house, you have to pay it. Shops charge what they like for food. How is any of this equal? Come on!

[HermesTrismegistus]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
There you go, just re-stating it again. That's not an argument. An argument would tell me which "fundamental presuppositions" are wrong and why.

Of course it is an argument. I may not be validating my implicit claim that the premises are true, but the argument is there. Seriously, if you want to challenge the truth of my claims do it, but don't try to make me see like I'm a philosophy undergrad who doesn't know what an argument is:

P1 The fundamental presuppositions of Marxism have been shown to be wrong.
P2 Any theory whose fundamental presuppositions have been shown to be wrong has nothing to contribute to contemporary philosophical debate.
P3 Any theory that has nothing to contribute to contemporary philosophical debate is irrelevant.
C Marxism is irrelevant.

As to the first premise, an example is that Marxism works under certain assumptions of how people will behave that have no empirical backing. For instance, that the proletariat will Inevitably and spontaneously rebel against capitalism, or that communism is The inevitable destiny of history. This leads to an interpretation of reality that is subject to no possible falsification and hence meaningless. For example, the insistence Marxists in seeing in every economic crisis the signs of the fall of capitalism and the rise of the proletariat despite the fact that economic crises have been happening for over a century and there has been no worldwide revolution. The claims are unfalsifiable because no matter how many times Marxists get it wrong they can always say the revolution will eventually come, just not now.


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

[Kibalchich]

Rather selective picking and choosing there! As for the proletariat rebelling against capitalism, well, look at the history of capitalism. Look at all the trade union struggles, the struggles over the working day, the murders that went with it, violent struggles that are still happening all over the world. You think capitalism is in a good state at the moment? Its in the biggest crisis since the 1920s and it took a world war to turn that around!

So you've yet to show that your 1st proposition is true.

[Kibalchich]

Anyhow, Marx did not think that people would spontaneously rise up, that's a rather inaccurate and mechanical interpretation.

[Observatory]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
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!

Can you name someone or link to something specific.

[Kibalchich]

Have you lost the ability to use Google?

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
Just because Marx did not advocate everything the USSR did hardly devalues its claim to being Marxist. The USSR was clearly and obviously inspired by Marx. Your argument implies that Marx is some kind of infallible source of truth and that his thought is not open to interpretation or amendment by any other individual or group. If Marx had lived to see the 20th century he may have had to amend his own views in ways we cannot imagine. Just because Marx 'didn't advocate it' is a sterile argument. Marx did not provide a detailed blueprint for how to create the future communist society - he simply provided a theoretical framework and general worldview which could be acted upon (whether 'correctly' or 'incorrectly') by later followers.

Of course the USSR deviated from the rosy view of Communism laid out by Marx. It deviated because communism in practice is very different from communism in theory, because communist theory is flawed.If it wasn't flawed we'd all be living in socialism by now.

The fact it continued wage slavery is enough. That is not Marxism. It's kind of like being an ND activist but at the same time allowing... you know.. nuclear weapons. You can't have Marxism and wage slavery.

ALSO: It is open to amendment of course, but then you must recognize that it then becomes amended Marx, not Marx. Lenin so radically reinterpreted Marx we have another name for it: Marxism Leninism. I keep telling you this.

[Observatory]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Have you lost the ability to use Google?

My question is who you take seriously as a critic of Marxism, so obviously I cannot find that using google. If you mean you take everyone who is talking about the transformation problem seriously...

Most discussion of this issue seems to be from other Marxists, btw. Do you take Menger/Walras and the marginal utility theory to be serious critics, for instance?

[johnaulich]

(Original post by HermesTrismegistus)
Even if I'm wrong on the names, I have said why I think it is irrelevant: Its fundamental presuppositions are too wrong and unfounded for it be relevant to current problems. So either address this point or stop this cheap intellectual intimidation crap.


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

And what current problems would they be? You're being extremely vague.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by Observatory)
My question is who you take seriously as a critic of Marxism, so obviously I cannot find that using google. If you mean you take everyone who is talking about the transformation problem seriously...

Most discussion of this issue seems to be from other Marxists, btw. Do you take Menger/Walras and the marginal utility theory to be serious critics, for instance?

David Harvey critiques Marx and the transformation problem in Limits to Capital. I don't pretend to completely understand it though.

I've not heard of Menger/Walras. If you can summarise their critique of Marx, I'd be happy to respond.

[Observatory]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
David Harvey critiques Marx and the transformation problem in Limits to Capital. I don't pretend to completely understand it though.

Harvey is a Marxist himself.

He also, on closer look, is a geographer not an economist.

I've not heard of Menger/Walras. If you can summarise their critique of Marx, I'd be happy to respond.

I feel like if you want to defend Marxism against all the tenets of modern scientific economics it would help to first understand those.