The Marx Debate

[coheneran]

This is a thread to debate Marx, and once people get bored by that, I guess we can debate the writings of any political thinker. I just want to see Dropper and Smokey D debate it. Here's a link to the Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels:

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Here's Das Kapital on wiki, with links to the text at the bottom of the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital

Ready? Set? Go!

PS: I realise Smokey may have been pushed into this argument without consent, so sorry about that.

[Hababi]

PS: I realise Smokey may have been pushed into this argument without consent, so sorry about that.


As a mod he abjures consent :p

[Iskandar]

Thanks for setting this up, Coheneran.

I'll gladly do this if we can agree on some guidelines. I propose:

1) No members besides Smokey D and myself are allowed to post while the debate is in progress. Any other posts should be edited out by a mod. After the debate section of the thread is done, it can be opened up to other members who can discuss our points, arguments, etc.
2) A limit on posts to encourage length and quality. I propose perhaps 10 each. Each post should begin with a designation of its number to prevent confusion.
3) Posting must be done in turns.

If Smokey D agrees to do this and we can reach an agreement on rules, I'd be more than happy to take him on.:)

[Futue te Ipsum]

Is this a discussion about how astonishingly boring the book is?

[Iskandar]

Is this a discussion about how astonishingly boring the book is?
Das Kapital? I'm not going to deny that it's quite the brick as far as treatises go. I haven't read it as a whole, just parts and commentaries.

So I'll wait for a response from Smokey D and if he doesn't want to do this, somebody else is welcome to spar with me.

[Reaganista]

let's debate 'marxist' opposition to globalization
it makes no sense to me

[Futue te Ipsum]

I haven't read it as a whole, just parts and commentaries.That explains a lot.

[Iskandar]

let's debate 'marxist' opposition to globalization
it makes no sense to me
I'd gladly do it if I thought we could ever reach a synthesis on anything.
That explains a lot.
Mhmm. Are you just going to insult me, or post constructively?

[Hababi]

Mhmm. Are you just going to insult me, or post constructively?

I don't think he's ever posted constructively :p

But before Smokey gets here and (hopefully) begins a regular old debate, I'll enquire about economic growth under your ideal government. I don't know if you have the same mindset as Danish regarding government setup, but he never did answer exactly how businesses would get started, being that there would be no owners/board of directors.

[Futue te Ipsum]

hah, ok, constructive?

It's my belief that das kapital is just a long suicide note for the communist movement. I don't see how people can read it and retain a belief in the system.

This is why I will now suggest you take the time to read it.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I don't think he's ever posted constructively :pYou know i wub you, steve.

[Reaganista]

I'd gladly do it if I thought we could ever reach a synthesis on anything.
well nationalist economics is about either racism or nationalism
which are devices used be the ruling class to keep the working class from realizing its commonality
so it seems that a proper marxist should want to tear down things that promote racism and nationalism and other things that make transnational workers feel like they have different interests

[-1up!-]

I can see this turning into a Communism debate thread by the end of page 2, which would be rather sad since, say, 80% of Marx's writings (and Engels, given both of them are considered precursors of marxist theories) are critics of the capitalist system rather than theories aout the actual portrait of a communist political system. No wonder Communism seems vague and doesn't provide answers to many questions; Marx didn't go THAT much in depth about the actual details of a communist State (or absence thereof).

And no wonder communism looks stupid, impossible or dysfunctional to some; Communism, in the Marxist definition of it, has never been established. Anywhere. Sure you may rant about Stalinism, but Stalin was an authoritarian handjob and Stalinism is not a valid target for critics about marxist communism. Besides... The establishment of communism, according to Marx, can only be done in a state of advanced capitalism; USSR went commie wannabe when its economy was halfway between feodalism and capitalism...

[Smokey D]

Have at you!

Who starts?

[italic zero]

Let the best man begin!

[Hababi]

But I'm not even participating :(

[italic zero]

because you're banned lol

[Smokey D]

Am I gonna get my debate or what? Since you're arguing in the affirmative, I think it's appropriate you start.

[Iskandar]

It's my belief that das kapital is just a long suicide note for the communist movement. I don't see how people can read it and retain a belief in the system.

This is why I will now suggest you take the time to read it.
It's meant to be a suicide note for capitalism, but whatever. I will read it soon and see for myself.
Besides... The establishment of communism, according to Marx, can only be done in a state of advanced capitalism; USSR went commie wannabe when its economy was halfway between feodalism and capitalism...
Thank you. Which brings me to my first point ...
Am I gonna get my debate or what? Since you're arguing in the affirmative, I think it's appropriate you start.
I can't even debate properly, so let's keep this somewhat informal. Maximum of ten posts, okay?

[Smokey D]

Cool beans. I'll keep the thread clean.

[Iskandar]

Cool beans. I'll keep the thread clean.
Well, here goes. Let's try not to make every post as long as this one ...

Marx was essentially correct in stating that communism, as he defined it (a classless, stateless society based on collective ownership of the means of production) is historically inevitable because of the logical nature of his dialectical materialism. His dialectical analysis of history, we may be reminded, seeks to explain scientifically how societies progress to higher modes of production through class conflict. For example, the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution (the middle classes leading the peasantry against the aristocracy) that led to the abolishment of the ancien regime and monarchy, paving the way for capitalism in Europe.

Therefore, according to Marx's dialectic, the highest mode of production and therefore the last stage of society is communism because it is classless: the can be no class conflict if there are not classes but instead universal ownership by one class. But why must communism occur after a transition through socialism from capitalism? It is because of the nature of the relationship between the two-tiered class system of bourgeois and proletariat.

(Let us recall the definition of these classes: The bourgeoisie are those who own and/or control the means of production, and the proletariat are those who must sell their labour to the bourgeoisie as a commodity. The unemployed are also considered part of the proletariat because they represent a "reserve army" of the labour force, as are the self-employed because they do not employ others.)

Getting back to the opposition of these classes and their significance in the dialectic, capitalism is seen as a finite stage because of its inevitable class conflict. It is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to exploit their workers by keeping wages as low as possible before reaching the subsistence level, while the proletariat naturally rebels against the power of the bourgeoisie and demands more rights, wages and power for itself. This conflict cannot continue indefinitely because it will be seen to escalate, as all class conflicts have throughout history, leading eventually to the subjugation of one class and the passing of control to the next.

Among Marx's reasons for assuming the escalation of the class conflict are: his theory of the falling rate of profit; his belief that the capitalists would become fewer and fewer through merging (a phenomena which is occuring as we speak) and the globalization of capitalism which would lead to exploitation of poorer nations (also a process which is currently taking place). A full account of his arguments for the transience of capitalism can be found in his magnum opus, Das Kapital.

The reason the victors in the capitalist class struggle must be the proletariat is because of their sheer numbers (far more than the relatively small bourgeoisie) and their necessity (labour is essential to produce anything, but private ownership is not). For this reason Marx calls the end of capitalism the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (dictatorship being used in the classical
sense of taking power in the event of an crisis) because it is a reversal of the class structure. "Where they have been nothing, they shall be everything."

In Marxist theory the proletariat will, when the class conflict escalates enough, seize control for themselves and assume the dominant role the bourgeoisie once had; the bourgeoisie, deprived of the benefit of ownership, will have no choice but to join the proletariat leading to the abolition of class. This is similar to, once again using the example of the French Revolution, how the commoners seized control of the institutions of France during a national crisis. Marx himself predicted a spontaneous, violent revolution; the truth of this remains to be seen but remains possible. It is important to note that Marx could not have forseen the emergence of large-scale labour movements and unions, which occured after his time. In any event, proletariat control must occur through direct action on their part.(The vanguard-party theory which has been demonstrated to fail without exception is a product of Leninism, not Marxism.)

It is not possible to go into the intricate details of the next two (final) stages of history because they are posited to occur in the future; Marx himself commented little on his vision of them besides an outline of their economic structure, which can be proven through his dialectic.

The next stage of history is called by Marx socialism, which differs somewhat from the current application of the term. In this stage, class is non-existent and private ownership of the means of production has been abolished in favour of collective ownership, with the state remaining to ensure successful application of socialism can occur. The reason why privatism must inevitably disappear is because to permit private ownership of the means of production is a regression to capitalism and bourgeois domination, which would not be permitted by a class-conscious proletariat (that is, a proletariat who is aware of the need to establish and maintain self-rule).

Since in Marxist theory the state is merely an arm of the ruling class (demonstrated by the ties between state and bourgeoisie, not to mention the overwhelming ratio of bourgeois in government to genuine proletarians) the state becomes an anachronism as the proletariat begins to govern itself. As socialism, in Marx' definition, spreads internationally through a sort of domino effect (and in order to do this all nations must be both capitalist and industrially developed, meaning the stage is not set for international socialism at this time)the need for a state to protect the interests of its people from hostile nations and mediate in class conflict has disappeared, as one class emerges with a common interest - the vindication of itself.

At this point, whenever it may be, the time is right for popular abolishment of the state (gradually, and through peaceful and democratic means - true Marxism is far more democratic than widely believed) which leads into the fulfillment of history, Communism: an international continuum of classless, stateless societies based on common ownership of the means of production.

Communism is not a utopia nor a socialist fairytale; it is the inevitable final stage of history as proven logically by Marx' dialectic. Marx himself commented little on his conception of what Communism would be like because it would be absurd to attempt to predict the future beyond what can be demonstrated scientifically. Communism is not a paradise free from all conflict; it is, however, free from class conflict, and this makes all the difference in why it is considered the "end of history." In ending class struggle and alienation, work becomes, finally, the fulfillment of creative desire because it is done by the proletariat for itself instead of another class.

As is obvious, absolutely everything in this view of history depends on the truth of the dialectic to explain the progression to successive modes of production. The reason for believing its truth is its application through history, the best (and most recent) example being the transition between the feudal mode of production (not to be confused with feudal society itself) and capitalism.

[Smokey D]

First of all, time constraints and other committments make it impossible for me to write a thousand word essay each time I reply, so if you're expecting a debate on that scale, you're going to be disappointed.

However, I will attempt to grapple with the broad points of your post. As near as I could tell, these included the 'scientific logic' of the historical dialectic, the inevitability of class conflict and the precarious position of capitalism, and the final formation of socialism and capitalism.

The Historical Dialectic

The Marxist view that history universally progresses according to certain rules and in certain directions, and that these have been best manifested in Europe, is painfully Eurocentric (as demonstrated by his reference as "Asian Despotisms" a catch-all term used to describe all non-European states which ignores the signficant differences between them, both cultural and in terms of power relationships). This view that humanity inevitably moves towards a European model ignores the differences in cultural orientation, views on success and technological development.

Secondly, the idea that history progresses in a certain way according to forces outside the control of any individual assumes that society is something more than the sum of its parts, that it somehow operates independently of individual input and human agency. However, modern sociology and common sense suggests that human society is simply a complex system of self-organising, self-regulating forces, and that its dynamics cannot be understood sufficiently through the lens of far reaching historical forces. While these are certainly useful in understanding general principles, they ignore individual genius and the signficance and perculiarity of certain events.

Marx's great show piece for the Historical Dialectic, the French Revolution, in many ways defeats his argument -- while it certainly overthrew an autocratic monarchial regime, it did not install a liberal bourgueois replacement -- the Jacobin Terror and rise of Napoleon, who had far greater powers at his disposal than the Bourbons, dispel this myth. Further, the common assumption that the Revolution was led by the bourgeoisie supported by the peasantry against the aristocracy is proven false by historical records -- the vast majority of executions that took place were in the field, and amongst the peasantry. Only a minor fraction consisted of the aristocracy in Paris. What's more, it was often the peasantry that reacted most fiercely against the Revolutionary regime -- particuarly in the far west and south. Nobles tended to flee the country rather than stay and fight for it. Others even assimilated themselves into the Revolutionary government. This is hardly the picture needed to paint the revolution as one against the aristocracy by a Bourgeois-Peasant alliance.

Furthermore, the firm and fast distinction made by Marx between the bougeoisie and aristocracy is a piece of historical fiction -- it is quite clear today that many of the most fervent entrepreneurs were amongst the aristocracy themselves. Using the funds gained from their estates, it was extremely profitable for the nobility to back commercial ventures.


Class Conflict

While I would not be so bold as to suggest class conflict is non-existent, I think it's quite clear that it has not developed in the way envisaged by Marx and his supporters. Far from depressing wages to increase profitability, it has been a world-wide trend since the 19th century for wages to grow. Perhaps this is in accordance with a capitalist scheme where profits are increased by the greater liquidity in the market as a result of higher wages, or perhaps it is a mere consequence, as modern economic research suggests, greater capital distribution. Whatever the reason, however, it fatally undermines Marx's necessary proximate cause for a proletarian revolution. Indeed, it seems that the more money there is available in an economy, the richer everybody is and the less substantive the difference between the classes becomes. With so many 'mom and pop' investment operations supporting such a large sector of the economy, it seems that maybe the move towards a classless society has already begun, but is going in the other direction than predicted by Marx -- we are not all becoming proletarians, but members of the bourgeoisie.

If anything, it seems that capitalism as a world system has become more entrenched and more powerful than at the time of Marx. While it was certainly confronted by a series of crises, the most important being the Great Depression, these have been overcome with overwhelming success -- pain in the short term has been replaced by more flexible and dynamic economic structures in the long term which have given rise to a period of prosperity unseen ever before.

Socialism and Communism

Given that the ingredients Marx viewed as necessary to the formation of a socialist state have been thouroughly undermined by social and technological development entirely unforseen at the time of his writing, I think it is highly ambitious to place too much stock in his predictions. Further, history and economics have demostrated that collectivised labour as proposed in a socialist system is highly inefficient when compared to the more privatised structures of a capitalist economy. While I think it would be hubristic to suggest that there is no room for improvement in a capitalist system, or even that the state should not play a role, the forces Marx viewed as necessary in revolutionising the working class seem far more likely in a socialist model than in a modern capitalist one.

[Iskandar]

The Historical Dialectic

(Response to your first paragraph)

Marx's Eurocentricism can be forgiven not because of his being a European himself, but because he saw Europe-more specifically, its industrialized nations-as the future cradle of socialism, for the reason that they had reached the highest stage of his dialectic to date. Non-European states are not crucial to his analysis for two reasons: first of all, that the Western bourgeoisie would bring their development patterns to the rest of the world via globalisation, a process which is indisputably occuring as we speak; secondly, that the Western proletariat would instigate a large-scale socialist movement that would influence all other civilizations over time providing they had developed the economic base for socialism. In short, the West, because of its role as the politically and economically dominant civilization of modern times, would bring all other nations to its pattern.

Therefore every nation in the world experiences the dialectic, broadly interpreted; and in many cases without outside influence: primitive egalitarian societies settle to agriculture which eventually leads to the feudal mode of production, which leads to capitalism under Western influence and thence to socialism and communism once their capitalist development is complete.

(Second, I think)

Marx's analysis of history does not claim to prove class conflict is the cause of all historical events. Rather, it seeks to explain how, and only how societies progress to higher modes of production through internal conflict. It ignores events such as warfare, art and morals (which are important outside of the dialectic) because to Marx, a society's economic structure is its defining element-hence his devotion to the study of economic systems. He famously claims that the consciousness of a society's people is the result of its economic system. Therefore, it is no surprise that art championing individualism or business dogma advising profit-seeking should result from a capitalist society. In a truly socialist society, build on the principle of common good, its art might have fellowship as its subject. So to return to my point, it is the stage of history that ultimately determines all other factors by creating the consciousness of the people who live during it.

(Third?)

Marx did not ever state that the transition between modes of production is, will be or has been easy or simple. On the contrary, he believed it must necessarily be difficult and even violent. The French Revolution was not the transition itself but the beginning of the transition-it ultimately accomplished its goal as evidenced by the fact that Europe today consists of bourgeois-democratic nations. As to the belief that it was a bourgeois-led revolution, is it not true that even if the bourgeois did not directly lead the peasantry to revolt, they were a key agitating factor, indirectly inspiring this popular revolt? As to your comment that some of the peasantry reacted against the Revolution, this is merely dictated by probability-it is extremely unlikely that every single member of the peasantry would have reacted favourably to such an unheaval in their difficult but stable lives. This is true for any major historical event. Also, your mentioning of nobles fleeing the country or assimilating with the Revolutionary government actually correlates with Marxist belief that the upper class who is overthrown naturally dispels itself-he did not want mass murder of the bourgeoisie in the socialist transition, after all.

(Fourth)

And today many workers hold stock. What determines class is not one's economic ventures, but relation to the means of production. The conflict between bourgeoisie and aristocracy (and likewise proletariat and bourgeoisie in modern times) is not simply because of their positions as different respective classes, but rather because of oppository interests in the means of production-the bourgeoisie wanted more ability to own land and property for its own development, while the aristocracy, of course, desired to retain their ownership of such things. A similar structure is seen today as the proletariat desire control of the factories, machines and technology which they use daily, but the bourgeoisie of course try to retain their grip on the position which allows their own enrichment by exploitation.

Class Conflict

(Response to your first two paragraphs)

Marx could not have predicted the increase in standards of living under capitalism because he could not have known about several factors: the rise of the union-labour movement, to whom most benefits in working conditions and wages we owe; incredible technological progress, which he did predict but not to such a degree as we know it today with personal computers for proletarian use and the like; and perhaps most importantly, the shifting of the worst burdens of the European working class to those of underdeveloped nations. A theory on this occurence was put forth by V.I. Lenin, of all people, who suggested that capitalism is able to stablize itself by penetrating lesser-developed nations and exploiting them (which Marx had actually predicted)and providing the worst jobs and working conditions under which the European proletariat refused to labour. However, this is not a sustainable solution because eventually the arrival of capitalism will allow the underdeveloped nations to reach the level of their Western exploiters despite their subjugate condition, and at that point there will be a crisis as there is no submissive work force to take on the burden of extremely undesirable jobs and conditions.

As for your postulating a move toward a society consisting only of bourgeois, I have already explained why such a thing is impossible. It is impossible to have bosses without employees to perform labour and produce good, services and intellectual property.

Socialism and Communism

First of all, it is important to note that no society to date has entered even the socialist mode of production, let alone the communist; and in the cases of most "Marxist" states serious attempts have not even been made. Therefore basing a criticism of Marxism on current and historical "socialist" nations (which have been variously Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, etc.) is invalid.

The ingredients for the formation of a socialist state exist despite technological and social progress because capitalism is still our predominant mode of production. Capitalism and the two-tier class system are inseperable; when one disappears, so must the other.

Finally, your assumption that privatised systems are by default more efficient than collectivised systems is based on selected application (usually private vs. forced collectivism, not voluntary like true Marxism) rather than theory. The reason why Marx and countless other socialists of every stripe have faith in collectivism is because they believe, quite rightly, that true validation of work is the only true incentive. The reason capitalist labour is not as efficient as it could be is pure, stark alienation: the fruits of the labour of the proletariat are taken from them in the form of superprofit to be handed back piecemeal as wages, and it is all coordinated by a workplace dictatorship.

But just as capitalism with workers' rights is more efficient than slavery, voluntary collectivism should be more efficient than capitalism because it is a class working by itself for itself. Marx described a true socialist society with the statement, "[t]he condition for the free development of one is the condition for the free development of all."

[Smokey D]

First of all, sorry this has taken me so long to get back to. Assignments piled up over the last two weeks and I was unable to answer in a way that would do this thread justice.

Secondly, I propose we try and shorten post lengths, because 1000 words each time is a little ridiculous.


Debate

Eurocentrism: Marx's dialectic model fails as a philosophy of history because it is unable to accept that not all societies have the same orientation or measure of success. Just as any other Eurocentric view can be dismissed for ignoring the vast complexity of the world outside a small peninsula on the western end of Asia, we cannot regard the European experience as a model for all societies. The imposition of European influence has led to a wide adoption of broadly capitalist ideas, but it is absolutely riduclous to disregard the local perculiarities that mark different communities throughtout the world, and Marx's lack of historical or anthropological depth shows through in his assumption that Europe's experience will guide the world.

Economic Basis of Society: While it is broadly correct to say that societies are governed by economic principles and realities, the view must be tempered with caveats for every example we use. Japan, for example, jumped from feudal to post industrial society in the space of 40 years, and did so not with the rising power of the bourgeoisie that overbore the lords, but by imposition of royal authority. Economics, in complex societies, form a vital, but limited role in the shape of that society.

French Revolution: Marx's analysis of the French Revolution has been discounted as inaccurate and incomplete by subsequent historians. His view of it being a bougeiois peasant revolt against the aristocracy has been dismissed by the fact that it was the peasants who suffered the most violence at the hands of the new, so called bourgeois government while the aristocracy largely assimilated themselves into the new regime. High profile examples like the King and his ministers make it tempting to give it a simplicity it lacks, and Marx's desire to fit history to a theory rather than a theory to history has jeapordised the accuracy of his account.


And today many workers hold stock. What determines class is not one's economic ventures, but relation to the means of production. The conflict between bourgeoisie and aristocracy (and likewise proletariat and bourgeoisie in modern times) is not simply because of their positions as different respective classes, but rather because of oppository interests in the means of production-the bourgeoisie wanted more ability to own land and property for its own development, while the aristocracy, of course, desired to retain their ownership of such things. A similar structure is seen today as the proletariat desire control of the factories, machines and technology which they use daily, but the bourgeoisie of course try to retain their grip on the position which allows their own enrichment by exploitation.

Many workers don't want control over the capital employed in their place of work. Indeed, many jobs don't entail capital in the way Marx would have understood it. The distinction between workers and bourgeoisie has shrunk since Marx's time, and what's more it has not become a hard and fast distinction like his theory necessitates.

Imperialism as the Highest Form of Capitalism: By exporting their power and influence overseas, western nations have tapped cheap pools of labour. And yes, as wealth increases in those nations, employment costs will rise. This doesn't actually further the dialectic model -- there is no suggestion that the world population will suddenly want to stop working. The only thing that will emerge is a point of equilibrium.


As for your postulating a move toward a society consisting only of bourgeois, I have already explained why such a thing is impossible. It is impossible to have bosses without employees to perform labour and produce good, services and intellectual property.

Marx's division of the world's population into two camps, proletariat and bourgeois, is arbitary and misleading -- especially given the multiplicty of roles he identifies in his previous modes of production.

Capitalism as a Two Tier System Capitalism is not simply a two tier system, and any analysis which depends on that view will fail when confronted by the more complex facts.

Inefficiencies of Collectivisation: In a world where workers retain all the profits, there is far more short term gain to be had in taking home an increased pay packet than investing in future capital development. It takes quite far sighted management to push for investment, and if any such group emerged in the factory, it would be no different to today.

Work today is volontary, or at least as volontary as working for your living ever is. Working for your own choices will not solve the problem of alienation, and will result in a massive misallocation of resources that can only precipitate a gross decline of standard of living. I'd rather be 'oppressed' in a society where me and my family can survive in comfort than be forced to subsist in some pastoral paradise.

[Iskandar]

No problem. I propose we also cut the post limit to perhaps five each. I don't think ten posts each is necessary to develop strong arguments, or even to reach a synthesis.

Debate

Eurocentrism: In any dialectical justification of socialism's inevitability,
societies preceding capitalism hardly matter. What matters is that all societies will reach a capitalist stage through the omnipresent influence of the bourgeoisie, who tend to convert all societies (through globalization of capital) to their pattern: a two-tiered system of those who buy labour and those who sell their own.

This system is the precedent of socialism because if the upper class were to be deposed, there would be no lowest class to in turn subordinate.

Economic Basis of Society:I consider your argument perfectly valid but to be honest I didn't think it captured my original point (which is fine; it's one of Marx's most abstract theories anyway). This is consciousness, the idea that the attitudes and mindset of a people are determined by their economic system. This consciousness in turn influences (not determines, strictly speaking) all other aspects of that society indirectly.

French Revolution: The details of the Revolution are important in their own regard but not as important in terms of the dialectic. What matters here is not how much the peasants suffered or what the aristocracy chose to do with themselves, but that the essential analysis of lower classes overthrowing the ruling class of the time is correct.

(I really hope this is the end of discussing the damned Revolution.)
The distinction between workers and bourgeoisie...
While workers have much better living standards, working conditions and autonomy, society is nevertheless being polarized between two classes as the bourgeoisie continue to consolidate power amongst themselves in markets. The self-employed and small business owners (petty bourgeois) are finding themselves increasingly marginalized and squeezed out of competition by an elite of MNCs with truly staggering profit, mobility and influence unprecedented in history. This elite will only continue to lessen in number but grow in power as mergers and near-monopolies arise.

Imperialism as the Highest Form of Capitalism: The logical outcome of globalization is industrialization of all hitherto undeveloped nations and near-universal conversion to capitalism. However, when virtually all nations find themselves approaching the state of the developed West, a crisis will arise as there will be no more undeveloped nations to exploit as a source of cheap labour.

Marx's division...
His argument was that the bourgeois have simplified all previous class distinctions via the capitalist mode, which necessitates either hiring labour or selling it.

Inefficiencies of Collectivisation: At this point my only answer is that I firmly believe the proletariat is capable of managing its own affairs through collective decision. I can't imagine a better management than those who are actually involved in the daily realities of labour.

Work today is...
Couldn't resist a quick point: Work is voluntary, but working for another is
virtually unescapable and inevitably leads to a hierarchy. However, a class working for itself cannot be alienated as they are the masters of their own fate.

[coheneran]

Bump, so Smokey D won't forget.

[Smokey D]

Once again, sorry for my tardy reply. Immediately following my last response, my computer was swamped by viruses and I have been too busy to fix it until now.

In any dialectical justification of socialism's inevitability,
societies preceding capitalism hardly matter. What matters is that all societies will reach a capitalist stage through the omnipresent influence of the bourgeoisie, who tend to convert all societies (through globalization of capital) to their pattern: a two-tiered system of those who buy labour and those who sell their own.

The dialectic can be dismissed on the grounds that it disregards all other societies preceding capitalism that don't produce capitalism.

While workers have much better living standards, working conditions and autonomy, society is nevertheless being polarized between two classes as the bourgeoisie continue to consolidate power amongst themselves in markets. The self-employed and small business owners (petty bourgeois) are finding themselves increasingly marginalized and squeezed out of competition by an elite of MNCs with truly staggering profit, mobility and influence unprecedented in history. This elite will only continue to lessen in number but grow in power as mergers and near-monopolies arise.


Horizontal and vertical ownership in industry was far greater at the start of the 20th century, in the heyday of the robber barrons, than it is today.

The logical outcome of globalization is industrialization of all hitherto undeveloped nations and near-universal conversion to capitalism. However, when virtually all nations find themselves approaching the state of the developed West, a crisis will arise as there will be no more undeveloped nations to exploit as a source of cheap labour.

There will always be those who are more employable or are willing to sell their labour for less than others. This is because no matter how advanced an economic system is, it can never equally distribute wealth.

His argument was that the bourgeois have simplified all previous class distinctions via the capitalist mode, which necessitates either hiring labour or selling it.

If Marx can speak of 'patricians, knights, plebians and slaves' in ancient Rome, I can speak of factory workers, lawyers, CEOs, farmhands, teachers, doctors etc now. While it is probably accurate to say that there has always been a group that governs and a group that's governed, to say this is determined in objective relationship to economic circumstance ignores a vastly more complex web of human activity. Again, Marx is guilty of oversimplifying and fitting facts to a theory rather than a theory to the facts.

At this point my only answer is that I firmly believe the proletariat is capable of managing its own affairs through collective decision. I can't imagine a better management than those who are actually involved in the daily realities of labour.

History has demonstrated that collectivised workers with little or no management tend to fare badly in the long run.


Couldn't resist a quick point: Work is voluntary, but working for another is
virtually unescapable and inevitably leads to a hierarchy. However, a class working for itself cannot be alienated as they are the masters of their own fate.

What one works as and for whom is largely voluntary, but the actual need to work us always governed by economic circumstance. Supply and demand requires that we do and until communism comes up with a way to do away with the principles that underlie basic economics, we will never be free from so called alienation.

[Iskandar]

The dialectic can be dismissed ...
They don't need to. Europe produced an economic system with a two-tiered class structure, which has come to dominate the globe.
Horizontal and vertical ownership ...
... result from virtually unmitigated capitalist development, which is what is
occuring across the globe as we speak.
There will always be those ...
I speak not of the marginally less skilled, but of the unskilled, uneducated and
exploited labourers of the Third World. When all nations come to approximate our society,with its education, skills and benefits, whence would come the sweatshop labourers who make superprofit possible?
If Marx can speak ...
Differences of wealth and prestige matter little compared to the amount of control one has over the means of production. It is this which allows for exploitation of labour, which is the problem at hand.
History has demonstrated ...
I'm not quite sure what examples you are basing that statement on. Could you elaborate, please?
What one works as ...
Communism does not deny work at all; it seeks to revolutionize (my little joke) work. It seeks to find a better economic system, with a more logical method of producing and distributing. It is the specifics of what such a system would entail that are worth debating, since Marx hardly left a detailed blueprint.

(Remember to keep it short!)

[Smokey D]

They don't need to. Europe produced an economic system with a two-tiered class structure, which has come to dominate the globe.

First, it's not a two tiered system. Secondly, all theories of history need to consider it from an anti-European perspective. Though he generally talks about orientalism, go read Edward Said.


... result from virtually unmitigated capitalist development, which is what is
occuring across the globe as we speak.

Both broad and deep ownership has been severely limited by anti-trust legislation.


I speak not of the marginally less skilled, but of the unskilled, uneducated and
exploited labourers of the Third World. When all nations come to approximate our society,with its education, skills and benefits, whence would come the sweatshop labourers who make superprofit possible?

There will always be those less skilled or educated than others. When it becomes unprofitable to employ poor third world labourers, industry will simply employ whoever will make their enterprise profitable. If people refuse to sell their labour because they think a certain job is beneath them, they will eventually starve. The iron law of wages prevails.


Differences of wealth and prestige matter little compared to the amount of control one has over the means of production. It is this which allows for exploitation of labour, which is the problem at hand.

No it doesn't. Wealth and prestige offer far greater control over political systems than managerial control over a workplace.


I'm not quite sure what examples you are basing that statement on. Could you elaborate, please?

Every attempted workers' paradise.


Communism does not deny work at all; it seeks to revolutionize (my little joke) work. It seeks to find a better economic system, with a more logical method of producing and distributing. It is the specifics of what such a system would entail that are worth debating, since Marx hardly left a detailed blueprint.

It is never logical to produce contrary to the dictates of supply and demand, diminishing marginal utility and diminishing marginal returns. Marx never explained how communism would overcome these problems, and to my knowledge, nor has any post-Marx writer. Until they are solved, there will be no meaningful or lasting revolution.