Marxism

[DrZoidberg]

Another fun thing on Marx is that his theories are heavily influenced by Proudhon, an anarchist. Ie, if everyone is free to do whatever they want, they will all magically have the values I want and do the things I want. He became rudely aware of this flaw in his ideas when he became one of the founding fathers of the first socialist international, and the socialists had to agree on policy. To nobody's surprise there was instantly infighting and sectarian splits. Marx was domineering and anoying. Undoubtedly a genius. But not much of a politician. Useless at building a shared platform or consensus. A position in the market Marx had completely written out of Das Kapital, as unnessary parasites.

Considering that Marx had studied the French Revolution considerably, this is pretty remarkable. Since what happened in the First International is a copy of what happened in the National Convention.

 

[No Robots]

Another fun thing on Marx is that his theories are heavily influenced by Proudhon, an anarchist. Ie, if everyone is free to do whatever they want, they will all magically have the values I want and do the things I want. He became rudely aware of this flaw in his ideas when he became one of the founding fathers of the first socialist international, and the socialists had to agree on policy. To nobody's surprise there was instantly infighting and sectarian splits. Marx was domineering and anoying. Undoubtedly a genius. But not much of a politician. Useless at building a shared platform or consensus. A position in the market Marx had completely written out of Das Kapital, as unnessary parasites.

Considering that Marx had studied the French Revolution considerably, this is pretty remarkable. Since what happened in the First International is a copy of what happened in the National Convention.

Very nice. I don't understand this: "A position in the market Marx had completely written out of Das Kapital, as unnessary parasites."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In 1948, the prevailing view of science was that very soon every major scientific discovery would have been done and the last technological innovation would have come. That Marx takes in as a premise. The rest of his theories are based on this axiom. And that makes his theories look dumb today. We often forget that Marx uniquely predicted the development of Europe, economically and socially, between 1850 to 1880 with astounding accuracy. He made his ages best analysis of social developments. That's what gave him the cache and allowed him to be as influencial as he was.

No. There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized. Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing. Which implies that it's not capable of creating large things. In the real world factories are not static things even if there is no scientific progress. Things happen. My former employer was almost destroyed in a fire. Russia is fairly safe vs natural disasters but even then had the Tunguska object fallen 7 hours earlier the world would be a different place.

Just because he did accurately describe a lot of reality doesn't make his solutions worth anything.

2) Russian communism. When Lenin took power, he had a lot of his own ideas on what Marx surely must have meant. So he massaged Marx to fit the needs of the Russian communist party. Ie, to keep them in power and to help them concentrate power. He then spent considerable influence in spreading Russian communist ideas around the world, changing what Marxism means.

Today, when people have a go at communism they sound like atheists making fun at fundie Christians because they've found a flaw in the Bible. Marx's theories have plenty of flaws. But we don't judge any of the other philosophers on not being perfect. We think Aristotelian theories on science retarded. That doesn't mean we stop using Aristotelian logic. It's like people are so desperate to find flaws in Marx they forget the good stuff. And there's lots of it.

It's not that they've found one flaw. Rather, reality has shown it to be a disaster. Communism has been a major failure in every situation larger than where people know everyone. It's also an unstable situation if there is any change.

I also think that if the world runs out of scientific discoveries and technological innovation the idea that corporations will start gobbling eachother up until there's only one left, is more than just likely. We have lots of real life examples of exactly this happening in novel markets becoming mature markets. What saves humanity is technological innovation. But without that I think Marx will be correct. And when there's only one major corporation in the world, the workers rising up to sieze the means of production seems plausible.

Disagree--we can save ourselves with anti-trust laws.

 

[bilby]

There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized.

OK.

Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing.

Wait, what?

I think you missed a few steps there.

 

[Bomb#20]

I also think that if the world runs out of scientific discoveries and technological innovation the idea that corporations will start gobbling eachother up until there's only one left, is more than just likely. We have lots of real life examples of exactly this happening in novel markets becoming mature markets. What saves humanity is technological innovation. But without that I think Marx will be correct.

That's ridiculous. Marx apologists have been preaching the boogeyman of one universal corporation owning everything for a hundred and fifty years while the number of corporations just keeps growing exponentially. In 1910 there were half a million corporations; today it's in the hundreds of millions. They don't exist because of hundreds of millions of inventions -- thousands of companies make essentially the same product using essentially the same method, for huge numbers of products. They exist because competition is a great way to find a need and fill it. Corporations gobbling each other up is a recipe for complacency and lousy service, which creates opportunity for fresh new competitors.

And when there's only one major corporation in the world, the workers rising up to sieze the means of production seems plausible.

"The workers" don't seize the means of production; some self-selected gang of revolutionaries calling itself the leadership of the workers seize them. And then they control them, and then they learn how to operate and manage them, which means they learn to supervise the workers, and then they start to think like employers instead of like workers. The difference between employers who got to be employers by building businesses from scratch and employers who got to be employers by seizing the means of production, though, is that one employer can't build all the businesses from scratch, but he can seize all the means of production. So the irony is that Marx apologists keep using the make-believe threat of a monopoly to bamboozle the workers into supporting creation of an actual monopoly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Another fun thing on Marx is that his theories are heavily influenced by Proudhon, an anarchist. Ie, if everyone is free to do whatever they want, they will all magically have the values I want and do the things I want. He became rudely aware of this flaw in his ideas when he became one of the founding fathers of the first socialist international, and the socialists had to agree on policy. To nobody's surprise there was instantly infighting and sectarian splits. Marx was domineering and anoying. Undoubtedly a genius. But not much of a politician. Useless at building a shared platform or consensus. A position in the market Marx had completely written out of Das Kapital, as unnessary parasites.

Considering that Marx had studied the French Revolution considerably, this is pretty remarkable. Since what happened in the First International is a copy of what happened in the National Convention.

Very nice. I don't understand this: "A position in the market Marx had completely written out of Das Kapital, as unnessary parasites."

In Das Kapital Marx only atributes value to those who produce. What he calls "labour power". He's a bit vague on exactly what counts. But I think it's safe to assume services that directly impact the workers quality of life, is included. Like doctors.

What is not included is admin. Or advertising. Or informing or coordinating people. That's just supposed to spontaneously work itself out in the workers paradise.

It's important to acknowledge that Marx was utopian, ie if we only solve this and that problem then we will have no more problems for ever more. For all his genius this utopian streak of his program is pretty unforgivable IMHO. But it's one of the many Christian influences on communism. He lived right in the peak of the Evangelical craze of the 19th century. Christians at the time were primed to think in utopian terms. I am convinced that he just got caught up in that way of thinking... probably.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In 1948, the prevailing view of science was that very soon every major scientific discovery would have been done and the last technological innovation would have come. That Marx takes in as a premise. The rest of his theories are based on this axiom. And that makes his theories look dumb today. We often forget that Marx uniquely predicted the development of Europe, economically and socially, between 1850 to 1880 with astounding accuracy. He made his ages best analysis of social developments. That's what gave him the cache and allowed him to be as influencial as he was.

No. There's still the fact that he said that communism had to wait until a country had industrialized. Thus it's fundamentally based on stealing. Which implies that it's not capable of creating large things. In the real world factories are not static things even if there is no scientific progress. Things happen. My former employer was almost destroyed in a fire. Russia is fairly safe vs natural disasters but even then had the Tunguska object fallen 7 hours earlier the world would be a different place.

Just because he did accurately describe a lot of reality doesn't make his solutions worth anything.

I agree. Marx was amazing at analysing the problems of capitalism. He was, in his time, spot on.

But his solutions are all garbage. It's not like we haven't given communism a fair go.

Marx, like everyone, is a product of his time. The science of psychology was not yet invented. The academic field of sociology was not yet invented. It was invented as a result of socialist thinkers. So Marx directly led to that development. But he himself, obviously, had no access to that material.

Marx just like Darwin, were mostly just theorising in their brilliant heads, and left it to others to prove or distprove the theories later. Darwin was a Lamarckian. But we don't keep going on about how rubbish Darwin was because of it.

2) Russian communism. When Lenin took power, he had a lot of his own ideas on what Marx surely must have meant. So he massaged Marx to fit the needs of the Russian communist party. Ie, to keep them in power and to help them concentrate power. He then spent considerable influence in spreading Russian communist ideas around the world, changing what Marxism means.

Today, when people have a go at communism they sound like atheists making fun at fundie Christians because they've found a flaw in the Bible. Marx's theories have plenty of flaws. But we don't judge any of the other philosophers on not being perfect. We think Aristotelian theories on science retarded. That doesn't mean we stop using Aristotelian logic. It's like people are so desperate to find flaws in Marx they forget the good stuff. And there's lots of it.

It's not that they've found one flaw. Rather, reality has shown it to be a disaster. Communism has been a major failure in every situation larger than where people know everyone. It's also an unstable situation if there is any change.

I am not arguing against you.

I also think that if the world runs out of scientific discoveries and technological innovation the idea that corporations will start gobbling eachother up until there's only one left, is more than just likely. We have lots of real life examples of exactly this happening in novel markets becoming mature markets. What saves humanity is technological innovation. But without that I think Marx will be correct. And when there's only one major corporation in the world, the workers rising up to sieze the means of production seems plausible.

Disagree--we can save ourselves with anti-trust laws.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens if this scenario plays out.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I also think that if the world runs out of scientific discoveries and technological innovation the idea that corporations will start gobbling eachother up until there's only one left, is more than just likely. We have lots of real life examples of exactly this happening in novel markets becoming mature markets. What saves humanity is technological innovation. But without that I think Marx will be correct.

That's ridiculous. Marx apologists have been preaching the boogeyman of one universal corporation owning everything for a hundred and fifty years while the number of corporations just keeps growing exponentially. In 1910 there were half a million corporations; today it's in the hundreds of millions. They don't exist because of hundreds of millions of inventions -- thousands of companies make essentially the same product using essentially the same method, for huge numbers of products. They exist because competition is a great way to find a need and fill it. Corporations gobbling each other up is a recipe for complacency and lousy service, which creates opportunity for fresh new competitors.

And when there's only one major corporation in the world, the workers rising up to sieze the means of production seems plausible.

"The workers" don't seize the means of production; some self-selected gang of revolutionaries calling itself the leadership of the workers seize them. And then they control them, and then they learn how to operate and manage them, which means they learn to supervise the workers, and then they start to think like employers instead of like workers. The difference between employers who got to be employers by building businesses from scratch and employers who got to be employers by seizing the means of production, though, is that one employer can't build all the businesses from scratch, but he can seize all the means of production. So the irony is that Marx apologists keep using the make-believe threat of a monopoly to bamboozle the workers into supporting creation of an actual monopoly.

I have a query about your numbers. But first, what is your definition of corporation? I think of a large company with 1,000 or more personnel, but your definition to be compatible with the statement that today there are hundreds of millions of corporations, would need most of them to have only 1 - 10 people. I checked the article you probably referenced which says 50 million corporations today, and it noted that many of them have one owner and no employees.