Marxists: "contradiction" as a synonym for "conflict"

[Speakpigeon]

Changing the meaning of words and developing a unique speech pattern is a common tactic among exclusive groups.

It allows for easier identification of members and exclusion of outsiders and their ideas. It may also introduce pliance in members, as they allow their speech patterns to be altered, they may also be weakening their independence of thought.

Misrepresenting what the opposite side is saying "is a common tactic among exclusive groups". What's your own group, by the way?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The "problems" or contradictions of capitalism pale into insignificance when compared to the problems or contradictions of Marxism.

I bet you've read the covers of so many good books.

I bet only the titles.

I wonder whether Bolshevik USSR or Maoist China could have possibly caused Global Warming. So, I certainly hope our book-title-reading angelo is correct, as he might.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Contradiction is maybe not literally the right term, but something stronger than conflict is needed to describe the internal problems of capitalism. The perennial example is how a society can exist that simultaneously has a population of homeless people and a sizable quantity of empty homes. This is a conflict, yes, but it's of a different stripe, a conflict that not only represents two things that are in opposition to each other, but also things that normally shouldn't exist together in the first place without some justification. I like the stronger sense of contradiction as a way of highlighting that the things we often take for granted as realities of life are actually distortions we shouldn't be okay with.

That's a good example of a conflict that's not a contradiction. A contradiction is something in the nature of an economic system (read: social+political+economic), that will inevitably brought it down. Conflicts don't necessarily do that.

Still, I'm sure Marx would have been mightily peeved to learn that capitalism managed to stay afloat and even prosper well beyond its due date. So, while there is something to the Marxist notion of contradiction, it's not quite the thing.

Now, how long this charade can last? I would say that Trump is a bad omen for capitalism. Trump is actually fulfilling the Marxist analysis. Contradictions lead inevitably to conflicts, major conflicts. Nothing like the problem of homelessness. Conflicts rather like WWI and II. Any takers?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It appears that the mixed capitalist/dictatorship models that we find in China and Russia are flourishing.

Russia is noway near flourishing. It's in the doldrums and Putin doesn't have the smarts to get out of it.

China is doing remarkably well. This can be explained at least partially by its long tradition as imperial power. However, they are already reaching levels of economic growth in the vicinity of Western countries. They also have a major problem in that they don't produce enough children, with a population ageing fast as a result of the one-child policy they had for a long while. So, I would say they need to become fast a technology superpower to increase the value added to their production of goods, in a market which is already crowded, and in a world which seems to be turn away from liberalism towards protectionism a la Trump. And the Chinese regime has its won contradictions, for example corruption. It's going to be interesting to see whether they will succeed in transforming the country without changing the political elite lording it over. The odds are fifty-fifty.
EB

 

[Sarpedon]

My group is Architecture Professionals, and do we ever have an exclusive jargon. In fact, I was in architecture school when I first noticed how language can be used to isolate groups from one another. Since then I've strove to speak as simply as possible.

It is one thing to come up with terms to describe unique or new things you are describing. It is another to use them to obscure or mystify the commonplace.

Speaking of commonplace, I never thought that anyone would find the idea that words could be used in this way controversial. By bringing it up, I was merely trying to explore an alternative explanation for the differing usage, rather than there being a subtle semantic difference between the two words.

Neither am I the only person to suggest that subtle (and not so subtle) forms of mind control are common in politics, and especially Marxism and related parties.

 

[PyramidHead]

There is a definite history of terminology being used as a group-strengthening tactic within some examples of Marxism, especially where the state/party vanguard has been embraced. Anarchism is not as jargony, although it uses some of the concepts originated by Marx, and some anarchists (myself included) are still happy to call themselves Marxists.

 

[Emily Lake]

Contradiction is maybe not literally the right term, but something stronger than conflict is needed to describe the internal problems of capitalism. The perennial example is how a society can exist that simultaneously has a population of homeless people and a sizable quantity of empty homes. This is a conflict, yes, but it's of a different stripe, a conflict that not only represents two things that are in opposition to each other, but also things that normally shouldn't exist together in the first place without some justification. I like the stronger sense of contradiction as a way of highlighting that the things we often take for granted as realities of life are actually distortions we shouldn't be okay with.

Why do you assume that they “normally” should not exist together?

For example... OMG part of the globe is so fertile that arable land goes unused, while another part of the globe has people starving because of drought! OMG that cabinet maker has so many cabinets that some are left empty, while some other guy doesn’t have enough space to store all of his collectibles! OMG Susie’s mom sent her to school with FOUR cookies, but Johnny has NONE! It’s not fair!

There’s sort of an underlying assumption that the fruits of ones own labors should be claimed by someone else. And an underlying assumption that somehow nature as a whole is supposed to be perfectly fair to everyone all the time.

I think you might need a god to make that work out the way you’re envisioning it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lpetrich]

There’s sort of an underlying assumption that the fruits of ones own labors should be claimed by someone else.

Thus agreeing with Marxists that workers ought not to be deprived of the fruits of their labors, though with a different identification of the exploiting class.

And an underlying assumption that somehow nature as a whole is supposed to be perfectly fair to everyone all the time.

So you'd enjoy being on the business end of lack of fairness? You'd enjoy being the one cheated?

 

[Harry Bosch]

There’s sort of an underlying assumption that the fruits of ones own labors should be claimed by someone else.

Thus agreeing with Marxists that workers ought not to be deprived of the fruits of their labors, though with a different identification of the exploiting class.

And an underlying assumption that somehow nature as a whole is supposed to be perfectly fair to everyone all the time.

So you'd enjoy being on the business end of lack of fairness? You'd enjoy being the one cheated?

I think that it would be great if workers got more of their fruits. However, what Marx didn't understand is who pays for the overhead? Who pays for the R&D? Who pays for the HR department? Who pays for the infrastructure that all companies need? Who will set aside some of their "fruits" in working capital to be used in the future for down times? Who repays the bank loans. Who repays the equity investors? If all the fruits go to the laborers, these items don't get paid, and the company will fail in the long term.

 

[PyramidHead]

Contradiction is maybe not literally the right term, but something stronger than conflict is needed to describe the internal problems of capitalism. The perennial example is how a society can exist that simultaneously has a population of homeless people and a sizable quantity of empty homes. This is a conflict, yes, but it's of a different stripe, a conflict that not only represents two things that are in opposition to each other, but also things that normally shouldn't exist together in the first place without some justification. I like the stronger sense of contradiction as a way of highlighting that the things we often take for granted as realities of life are actually distortions we shouldn't be okay with.

Why do you assume that they “normally” should not exist together?

For example... OMG part of the globe is so fertile that arable land goes unused, while another part of the globe has people starving because of drought! OMG that cabinet maker has so many cabinets that some are left empty, while some other guy doesn’t have enough space to store all of his collectibles! OMG Susie’s mom sent her to school with FOUR cookies, but Johnny has NONE! It’s not fair!

There’s sort of an underlying assumption that the fruits of ones own labors should be claimed by someone else. And an underlying assumption that somehow nature as a whole is supposed to be perfectly fair to everyone all the time.

I think you might need a god to make that work out the way you’re envisioning it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Centrism works great until you run out of other people's morals

 

[lpetrich]

So businesses' income is 100% from their creditors? I thought that I saw everything from capitalism apologists.

In actuality, it largely or mostly comes from the sale of the business's products and services. These are produced collectively, and that produces a certain credit-allocation problem. Capitalism apologists usually maintain at this point that only those on the top are worthy of any compensation. They often seem very grudging about compensating anyone else's labors that are responsible for a business's products and services.

I will concede that bankers and investors provide a useful service: providing big batches of capital for major purchases. But like living off of credit cards, that comes at a price, and if going into debt is bad, then it is bad for everybody. Cue a lot of weeping for the poor innocent employees of all the banks and mutual funds and brokerage houses that will go out of business.

 

[Emily Lake]

Thus agreeing with Marxists that workers ought not to be deprived of the fruits of their labors, though with a different identification of the exploiting class.

No, no difference in “class”. Merely a difference of opinion about how much of the fruit is purely attributable to the labor provided, and whether the terms of the arrangement are “unfair” by definition.

So you'd enjoy being on the business end of lack of fairness? You'd enjoy being the one cheated?

Oh sweetie, we’re all on the business end of unfairness all the time. Nature isn’t fair. Life isn’t fair. Most of us learn this in our teens. There’s no magical sky daddy up there making sure things are fair. They aren’t. And if course nobody likes it. We can endeavor to make things equitable, and strive to prevent our own actions from being unjust... but railing that it’s not fair as if that provides justification of whatever one wants it to is childish in my opinion.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

Centrism works great until you run out of other people's morals

What do you think your statement is supposed to mean? I suppose it sounds erudite and cutting... but really it’s just incomprehensible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

So businesses' income is 100% from their creditors? I thought that I saw everything from capitalism apologists.

Wow! That is a masterful demonstration of using the rule of so to introduce both a false dichotomy and a fallacious absurdity, while simultaneously getting an insult in there against your opponent!

I’m sure you intended this as an object lesson in what NOT to do when discoursing intelligently and honestly. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Speakpigeon]

My group is Architecture Professionals, and do we ever have an exclusive jargon. In fact, I was in architecture school when I first noticed how language can be used to isolate groups from one another. Since then I've strove to speak as simply as possible.

It is one thing to come up with terms to describe unique or new things you are describing. It is another to use them to obscure or mystify the commonplace.

Sure, but I'm not sure how isn't specific to "exclusive" groups. I think it's specific to human beings. It's what people do all the time, even between friends and spouses and families. It certainly becomes an organised activity for political groups, but anything important becomes an organised activity in any organisation. "Exclusive" groups couldn't excuse themselves from doing it.

Speaking of commonplace, I never thought that anyone would find the idea that words could be used in this way controversial. By bringing it up, I was merely trying to explore an alternative explanation for the differing usage, rather than there being a subtle semantic difference between the two words.

Neither am I the only person to suggest that subtle (and not so subtle) forms of mind control are common in politics, and especially Marxism and related parties.

On form, please quote people you are responding to, quote only the bit that's relevant and the whole of it.

Well, if you had done that, it would have been obvious to all that you were misrepresenting what I had said. Well, that's only to be expected, I guess.

So, to reply on substance, I didn't express any disagreement with any of the claims you made and that I quoted. I just completed your list by claiming myself that misrepresenting what the opposite side is saying is a common tactic among exclusive groups. And suggested you were yourself likely a member of such a group. Who isn't? Aren't all scientists members of an exclusive group, for example? What about attorneys and barristers? What about the French people? What about women?
EB

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And an underlying assumption that somehow nature as a whole is supposed to be perfectly fair to everyone all the time.

The natural world is not fair. HUMAN nature is to try to be fair and to try to create fair systems. Note the distinctions. Primates recognize and strive for fairness in the natural world. Humans have an advanced concept of it. Exactly what is fair in given situations may be debatable and/or ambiguous but it's really a thing. So when we discuss economic and political systems there is an overarching context of human nature (and therefore fairness) that comes into play. Arguing about the natural world is only relevant to a piece of that, such as FEMA policy or to some extent Social Security, most of the other stuff is about humans.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So businesses' income is 100% from their creditors? I thought that I saw everything from capitalism apologists.

In actuality, it largely or mostly comes from the sale of the business's products and services. These are produced collectively, and that produces a certain credit-allocation problem. Capitalism apologists usually maintain at this point that only those on the top are worthy of any compensation. They often seem very grudging about compensating anyone else's labors that are responsible for a business's products and services.

I will concede that bankers and investors provide a useful service: providing big batches of capital for major purchases. But like living off of credit cards, that comes at a price, and if going into debt is bad, then it is bad for everybody. Cue a lot of weeping for the poor innocent employees of all the banks and mutual funds and brokerage houses that will go out of business.

Ah, you don't understand the operating cycle. Please let me explain. When a customer pays for a product, most of the expenses for that product had been spent in the past. In some cases, years in the past! For example, my partners and I came up with an idea. It took us four years essentially to get the product to market. We had extensive engineering, protyping, testing, market testing, patent filing, changes, and etc. and etc. There are just a million aspects that go into product development. As an example, we found out that our product sells the best in Europe. Well, to get an Euro patent, all the Euro licenses, and then to find the right distributors took $80,000 and more than a year. Our product has an extremely long operating cycle. Our cycle is down substantially now. However, we still don't receive payment for about 92 days after it starts in production. Do you think that our workers want to wait 92 days until they are paid? How about rent? We're having some problems in the supply chain, we're actually having to purchase some raw material 40 days before production! So we're paying for raw materials, while customer cash doesn't come in for 132 days!

But again, we are shortening our operating cycle. We'll be much leaner by FYE 2019. However, a manufacturer (or really any business) can't stand pat. We always have to be innovating and thinking of new products and innovations to stay ahead of competitors. I have no problem with paying people for their labors. We try to pay the highest wages and benefits. I'll pay anything for a qualified mechanical engineer right now. We also are starting a profit sharing program and 401k.

Anyway, not sure what you are saying arguing regarding credit allocation problem and the poor innocent employees of the banks? I love our bank. We use them to cover the cash shortage caused by our operating cycle.

 

[Bomb#20]

Thus agreeing with Marxists that workers ought not to be deprived of the fruits of their labors, though with a different identification of the exploiting class.


So you'd enjoy being on the business end of lack of fairness? You'd enjoy being the one cheated?

I think that it would be great if workers got more of their fruits. However, what Marx didn't understand is who pays for the overhead? Who pays for the R&D? Who pays for the HR department? Who pays for the infrastructure that all companies need? Who will set aside some of their "fruits" in working capital to be used in the future for down times? Who repays the bank loans. Who repays the equity investors? If all the fruits go to the laborers, these items don't get paid, and the company will fail in the long term.

You're mixing up what Marxists don't understand with what Marx didn't understand.

... and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society? ...

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today. ...

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds...

- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
​

"All I know is that I am not a Marxist." - Karl Marx

 

[angelo]

There’s sort of an underlying assumption that the fruits of ones own labors should be claimed by someone else.

Thus agreeing with Marxists that workers ought not to be deprived of the fruits of their labors, though with a different identification of the exploiting class.

And an underlying assumption that somehow nature as a whole is supposed to be perfectly fair to everyone all the time.

So you'd enjoy being on the business end of lack of fairness? You'd enjoy being the one cheated?

How about a a fair day's pay for fair day's work. It's what capitalism is built on! I don't mean the sweat shops of places like Bangladesh where workers, sometimes as young as 10-12 are worked 14-16 hours a day for less than a Dollar a day. That's not capitalism, that's slavery!

 

[untermensche]

Thus agreeing with Marxists that workers ought not to be deprived of the fruits of their labors, though with a different identification of the exploiting class.

No, no difference in “class”. Merely a difference of opinion about how much of the fruit is purely attributable to the labor provided, and whether the terms of the arrangement are “unfair” by definition.

A group works as a whole to produce a profit. All the labor is necessary.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of everybody getting the same pay.

The idea that some should be paid more and others less is an arbitrary construct. There is no god demanding it be so.