Believe it or not: Karl Marx is making a comeback

[ksen]

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/believe_it_or_not_karl_marx_is_making_a_comeback/

We don’t know for certain what Marx would say about the modern left. Its radicals often foster a poisonous aversion to pragmatism in favor of pious purity, its politicians are guilty of wholesale abandonment of the working class, and many of its leading thinkers have succumbed to a dreadful technocratism. Marx failed to account for the adaptability of capitalism and left little in the way of alternatives. In the end, this void was filled by murderers and fools. Marx, a deeply humanistic thinker, would certainly have abhorred the violence in his name some half a century after his death. But rational people do not blame Christ for the Crusades, nor Muhammad for 9/11 nor Nietzsche for the Holocaust. The taboo of Marx has prevented the left from learning his most important lesson; in the words of Gil Scott-Heron, “the revolution will not be televised.”

A take down of the modern left (kind of) and its politicians that have all but abandoned the working class.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, Marx did say that if you give capitalism enough rope it would hang itself. Or Lenin said that. It was someone.

IIRC, unbridled capitalism was a necessary step towards the establishment of a communist state. That's also why none of the other failures of communist states can be considered valid - they weren't real communism and the theory itself remains completely unimpeachable and the only reason that someone would oppose it is because they don't understand it correctly and they need communists to pedantically explain all the little details of the theory again and again and again.

 

[untermensche]

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/believe_it_or_not_karl_marx_is_making_a_comeback/

We don’t know for certain what Marx would say about the modern left. Its radicals often foster a poisonous aversion to pragmatism in favor of pious purity, its politicians are guilty of wholesale abandonment of the working class, and many of its leading thinkers have succumbed to a dreadful technocratism. Marx failed to account for the adaptability of capitalism and left little in the way of alternatives. In the end, this void was filled by murderers and fools. Marx, a deeply humanistic thinker, would certainly have abhorred the violence in his name some half a century after his death. But rational people do not blame Christ for the Crusades, nor Muhammad for 9/11 nor Nietzsche for the Holocaust. The taboo of Marx has prevented the left from learning his most important lesson; in the words of Gil Scott-Heron, “the revolution will not be televised.”

A take down of the modern left (kind of) and its politicians that have all but abandoned the working class.

This happens every time capitalism begins to falter, as it continually does.

Unfortunately this time capitalism failed Europe started instituting these insane programs of reducing government spending that ends up in the hands of "consumers" (austerity). So they made a bad situation worse.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Believe it or not: Karl Marx is making a comeback
But there is hope... from the tough streets of Pedodelphelia Philadelphia:

Rocky VII: Adrian's Revenge

 

[dismal]

Well, Marx did say that if you give capitalism enough rope it would hang itself.

He was obviously too stupid to figure out that capitalism can always be fixed by a Central Bank printing lots of money[/conservoprogressive]

 

[untermensche]

Well, Marx did say that if you give capitalism enough rope it would hang itself.

He was obviously too stupid to figure out that capitalism can always be fixed by a Central Bank printing lots of money[/conservoprogressive]

All he knew was that it was constantly in need of fixing.

 

[Trausti]

Well, Marx did say that if you give capitalism enough rope it would hang itself.

He was obviously too stupid to figure out that capitalism can always be fixed by a Central Bank printing lots of money[/conservoprogressive]

All he knew was that it was constantly in need of fixing.

What economic system doesn't?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What economic system doesn't?

Communism. It always works perfectly. Unless you implement it wrong, in which case the fault is with you and not with the theory, which always works perfectly.

 

[dismal]

What economic system doesn't?

Communism. It always works perfectly. Unless you implement it wrong, in which case the fault is with you and not with the theory, which always works perfectly.

Communism. It's inevitable...but never *really* tried.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What economic system doesn't?

Communism. It always works perfectly. Unless you implement it wrong, in which case the fault is with you and not with the theory, which always works perfectly.

Communism. It's inevitable...but never *really* tried.

Marx just really said that this systems sucks, but no real alternative. He just expected a great miracle to happen.

 

[Sarpedon]

The fundamental flaw of communism is the implicit belief that the working class is more honest than the management class, and that getting rid of a certain class would solve all the problems.

The class system is an inescapable result of the division of labor. We will never be able to abolish it, unless we regress to a paleolithic existence, or transcend to star trek like levels of plenty.

 

[Trausti]

The fundamental flaw of communism is the implicit belief that the working class is more honest than the management class, and that getting rid of a certain class would solve all the problems.

The class system is an inescapable result of the division of labor. We will never be able to abolish it, unless we regress to a paleolithic existence, or transcend to star trek like levels of plenty.

I'd had thought the fundamental flaw was Communism's seeming rejection of the individual for the collective. People are primarily motivated by self-interest and Communism says, pretty much, that you are not allowed to do better than your neighbor you filthy capitalist pig. So why bother? A favorite example of this is that to the extent private agricultural plots in the Soviet Union were permitted, these plots out performed collective production by up to 1600%. Communism just sucks.

 

[boneyard bill]

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/believe_it_or_not_karl_marx_is_making_a_comeback/

We don’t know for certain what Marx would say about the modern left. Its radicals often foster a poisonous aversion to pragmatism in favor of pious purity, its politicians are guilty of wholesale abandonment of the working class, and many of its leading thinkers have succumbed to a dreadful technocratism. Marx failed to account for the adaptability of capitalism and left little in the way of alternatives. In the end, this void was filled by murderers and fools. Marx, a deeply humanistic thinker, would certainly have abhorred the violence in his name some half a century after his death. But rational people do not blame Christ for the Crusades, nor Muhammad for 9/11 nor Nietzsche for the Holocaust. The taboo of Marx has prevented the left from learning his most important lesson; in the words of Gil Scott-Heron, “the revolution will not be televised.”

A take down of the modern left (kind of) and its politicians that have all but abandoned the working class.

Marx definitely advocating VIOLENT revolution although I don't think he anticipated anything like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.

I think he would hate the modern left and would definitely conclude that they had abandoned the working class and would probably recognize that modern progressivism is, itself, a creature of the corporate classes.

 

[untermensche]

Well, Marx did say that if you give capitalism enough rope it would hang itself.

He was obviously too stupid to figure out that capitalism can always be fixed by a Central Bank printing lots of money[/conservoprogressive]

All he knew was that it was constantly in need of fixing.

What economic system doesn't?

Minus finding the magic solution we know there are regulations we can put in place to limit instability.

Particularly regulating capital flow in and out of countries.

But the trade off for a stable well-regulated system is that there are less chances of making a lot of money quickly. There are less chances to blackmail governments.

Those with the power want a system with massive winners and losers, not a stable system.

 

[Trausti]

 

[dismal]

Marx definitely advocating VIOLENT revolution although I don't think he anticipated anything like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.

Shockingly, when you base an economic system on forcing people to behave in a way they are not inclined to behave you tend end up with authoritarians in charge.

Marx may not have anticipated this, but anyone alive today stupid enough to be a Marxist has no excuse.

 

[lpetrich]

Trausti, that individualism argument does not explain big businesses. Where is the big business that is run like an anarchist free-for-all? Despite many Randroids' chest-thumping, many businesses strongly resemble right-wing caricatures of collectivism, especially big ones. In fact, it sometimes seems to me that many right-wingers get their caricatures of collectivism from their experiences with big businesses.

As to Karl Marx, I think that he got it right about many of the problems of capitalism. But his proposed solutions, and especially the solutions of many of his followers, were not very good. They degenerated into a system that's sometimes been criticized as capitalism where the State is the sole capitalist. George Orwell got it right in his animal allegory about Soviet Communism, Animal Farm. A new ruling class had emerged, one with as much taste for exploitation as the original one.

 

[Valjean]

A timely post. "Kapital" redux is currently the hottest read in political circles. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller

His book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, has shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Carrying it under your arm has, in certain latitudes of Manhattan, become the newest tool for making a social connection among young progressives.

If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, "dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin", says Piketty. Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice. Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable. The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

 

[boneyard bill]

Marx definitely advocating VIOLENT revolution although I don't think he anticipated anything like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.

Shockingly, when you base an economic system on forcing people to behave in a way they are not inclined to behave you tend end up with authoritarians in charge.

Marx may not have anticipated this, but anyone alive today stupid enough to be a Marxist has no excuse.

Marx was not familiar with Stalin or Pol Pot, but he wasn't unfamiliar with revolution. He might not have anticipated Mao, but he surely could, and probably did, anticipate someone like Robespierre. What he should also have been able to see, but failed to consider, is that the cure for a Robespierre was a Napoleon.

 

[boneyard bill]

Trausti, that individualism argument does not explain big businesses. Where is the big business that is run like an anarchist free-for-all? Despite many Randroids' chest-thumping, many businesses strongly resemble right-wing caricatures of collectivism, especially big ones. In fact, it sometimes seems to me that many right-wingers get their caricatures of collectivism from their experiences with big businesses.

As to Karl Marx, I think that he got it right about many of the problems of capitalism. But his proposed solutions, and especially the solutions of many of his followers, were not very good. They degenerated into a system that's sometimes been criticized as capitalism where the State is the sole capitalist. George Orwell got it right in his animal allegory about Soviet Communism, Animal Farm. A new ruling class had emerged, one with as much taste for exploitation as the original one.

Big business is a highly centralized model. Lots of businessmen like the business model and think that a modern economy should be run like a corporation. This was roughly Herbert Hoover's idea. He was not out of step with his fellow businessmen on this point and many big businesses still think that way. It is also the progressive economic model. Hoover bragged about being a progressive and condemned "laissez-faire." Modern progressivism was started by big business.

But the whole point of the science of economics, going back even before Adam Smith, is that an economy is a de-centralized way of operating. The science of economics is basically a description of how people operate in accordance with the incentives and disincentives put before them. Marx was surely aware of this, but he never came to grips with it. He never explained how the economy of a worker's government would actually function. But once you eliminate private property, you have to have a centralized system because without private property, no one has anything to buy or sell.