- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 10,643
- Reaction score
- 2,283
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You've made a number of interesting points here, but I've chosen to focus on just the "dialectical method" for my comments.new coup for you said:The Marxist View of History:
Feudalism was overthrown by capitalism because of Class Conflict, the usurping of the means of production from the nobles by the bourgiousie.
Capitalism will be be overthorwn by socialism because of Class Conflict, the usurping of the means of production from the bourgiousie by the proletariot.
If Marx stopped here i'd have no problem with his ideology. It'd be logically sound. But he continues...
The Final Phase
After Socialism Communism will arise which will end class conflict, and will therefore be permenant. Ending dialectic progress. See the logical inconsistancy? THE DIALECTIC METHOD IS THE ONLY THING THE MAKES YOUR ****ING THEORY WORK MARX!!! YOU CAN'T ABANDON IT WHEN YOU DONT WANT IT ANYMORE!!!
The contradictions that Hegel "identified" are ideals - which is why the terms "thesis", "antithesis" and "synthesis" are used to denote them. But Marx believed the contradictions are encountered in material reality and in thought only as a consequence of that reality. Material reality continues after the final stage of the communist utopia has been achieved, so the dialectic still has the conflict resulting from human activities which involve the transformation of nature.new coup for you said:Marx believed that class conflict was the dialectic force behind societies evolution. after the means of production are under the benevolent dictatorship of the world proletariat what conflict remains? how can you have the dialectic without conflict?
When you started this thread with the intention of exposing the "fallacy" of communism, you chose to proceed by a route involving the discussion of certain abstractions and theoretical constructs that originated in the philosophy of Hegel. Later, as I believe you know, Marx "borrowed" and associated Hegel's dialectic with social and economic theories that appear to mimic the laws of natural science.new coup for you said:what would be the result of that material conflict? it it didnt act as a catalyst for further development of society then what would be its effect? and why would dialecitc conflict destroy (or evolve) feudalism, capitalism AND socialism but leave communism unchanged?
new coup for you said:the way i see it, arguments against communism break down into four groups. Philosophical and ideological inconsistencies (which we discussed), economic theory, social theory and religion.
Economic theory is the argument for or against planned economies. I'm not an economist so i don't know why planned economies fail (I'm assuming that the collapse of the USSR is evidence that they do in fact fail).
Socially i think communism denies basic human instincts. To deny people the ability to pass on a legacy to their children is poor social policy.
Also I'm Roman Catholic...so I'm not a fan of the atheist "modern society". but that's not objective.
anomaly said:Marx has proven to be wrong on many of his so-called 'predictions'. He thought, for example, that Western Europe would begin 'going' socialist not long after his death (if not before his death). We see now that this is not true. Perhaps the idea that communism is man's final goal is untrue. There is a quote I know from an anarchist (collective anarchists are communists, they simply wish to skip the 'transitional' stage of socialism) which goes something like ''I am not an anarchist because anarchism (communism) is man's final goal; I am an anarchist because there is no final goal". This apparently is in sharp contrast to Marx's thought.
If we drop dialectics (many anarchists don't much like the idea), we can say, however more abstractly, that mankind historically has bettered itself with economic transition. That is, we have become, essentially, more equal with each new economic epoch. If we consider the fall of the roam empire a dramatic stall in human development (which it was atleast for Western man), we can see that man essentially has gone from feudalism to capitalism. In feudalism, one is trapped, if you will, in their status from birht til death. For example, if I was born a serf, I shall die a serf. Capitalism has greatly increased mankind's social mobility, and, though we are still decidedly unequal financially, we have the opportunity to change this. Socialism, if we go that path, will make mankind more equal by imposing either equal wage (an idea whose popularity has dropped dramatically) or a minimum living wage for all. But socialism will still include a state, which makes equality impossible. And so, in communism, the state, along with capital, is crushed. So another way of looking at such transitions is that they will gradually better man's social existence, from completely unequal to completely equal. I admit, that is far too abstract for most, but it is anothe view.
If you do choose to stubbornly view only Marx's dialectical materialism, then I suggest read Alan's posts a few more times. Marx never said what the result of dialectical conflict in communism would be. Perhaps he felt that this would be, even for him, looking to far into the future.
I consider myself a communist, and yet I find the planning aspect of the economy most unimportant. For the rigid socialist system (which I view only as a 'lesser evil' to capitalism...I suppose I can be considered an anarchist), planning (though not central planning, as you wrongfully assume...local planning is primarily dealt with today by most socialists) is immensely important. But, in the localized system of communism, each commune produces only that which may be useful for its citizens. Since a commune is likely to be small relative to the large nation-states of capitalism, such an economy is entirely possible (I suppose you could consider that a planned economy, couldn't you). The commune's size makes relationships far more personal, so useful production will be much easier than most capitalists anticipate.Alan Ryan said:Just picking up on your reference to planned economies (or command economies):
In a nutshell we can say that a communist planned economy is "impossible" because there is no way for the central planners to acquire the vital information—"produce this, but not that"— which is needed for a coherent economy. This information emerges spontaneously in a market system from the rise and fall of prices. A "command" economic system is bound to fail precisely because it lacks such a signaling mechanism.
The economic fiasco in Soviet Russia resulted from a failure to understand that a "planned market" is an oxymoron. It's significant that China is rapidly getting rid of its centralised economic apparatus.
Whether you wish to restrict centralised planning of the economy to a local level or scale it up to a national level makes no difference to the principled objection that I tried to outline in my previous post. The questions of what to produce and how much of it remain unanswerable outside a free market system.anomaly said:I But, in the localized system of communism, each commune produces only that which may be useful for its citizens. Since a commune is likely to be small relative to the large nation-states of capitalism, such an economy is entirely possible (I suppose you could consider that a planned economy, couldn't you). The commune's size makes relationships far more personal, so useful production will be much easier than most capitalists anticipate.
Rather, we may think of the communist economy as extremely simplistic. When considering production, workers must consider primarily its use-value, not whether it will make them a profit. We won't build a house, for example, just for the sake of profit, we will only build it if citizens desire it. Can such practice really be considered planning?
new coup for you said:The European welfare state is not socialist
Christofer said:Not true. Most nations in europe are socialist. You can varify this by going to the cia world factbook and looking at the economic descriptions, most of them have governments that own the means of production.
In other words, you argue that only free market 'forces' can accurately 'predict' supply and demand? This idea presupposes centralized, impersonal planning. It cannot be used to critique localized planning which is far different. Demand is all that needs to be looked at. With localized planning, beginning at the workplace level, the sales of the previous month, for example, can easily be analysed, and tendencies can be recognized between months. Depending on these tendencies, the factory, after its lead planner meets with local and regional leaders, will alter production. Centralized planning, and the heavy bureacracy of the Soviet Union, made accurate planning nearly impossible. All planning was done by a state; planning was extremely centralized. In socialism, economic planning should be as decentralized (localized) as possible.Alan Ryan said:Whether you wish to restrict centralised planning of the economy to a local level or scale it up to a national level makes no difference to the principled objection that I tried to outline in my previous post. The questions of what to produce and how much of it remain unanswerable outside a free market system.
Monetary calculation is the indispensable mental tool for choosing the optimum among the vast array of intricately-related production plans that could be available for employing the factors of production within the framework of a social division of labor. Without recourse to calculating and comparing the benefits and costs of production using the structure of monetary prices that are determined at each moment on the market, the human mind is only capable of surveying, evaluating, and directing production processes whose scope is drastically restricted to the size of the primitive household economy.
On the market:anomaly said:In other words, you argue that only free market 'forces' can accurately 'predict' supply and demand? This idea presupposes centralized, impersonal planning. It cannot be used to critique localized planning which is far different. Demand is all that needs to be looked at. With localized planning, beginning at the workplace level, the sales of the previous month, for example, can easily be analysed, and tendencies can be recognized between months. Depending on these tendencies, the factory, after its lead planner meets with local and regional leaders, will alter production. Centralized planning, and the heavy bureacracy of the Soviet Union, made accurate planning nearly impossible. All planning was done by a state; planning was extremely centralized. In socialism, economic planning should be as decentralized (localized) as possible.
new coup for you said:Marx stated that socialist revolution would be the product of economic and industrial evolution. yet Russia was NOT industrialized and therefore NOT ready (in Marx's view) for socialist revolution.
new coup for you said:The revolution itself invalidates communism! Marx stated that socialist revolution would be the product of economic and industrial evolution. yet Russia was NOT industrialized and therefore NOT ready (in Marx's view) for socialist revolution.
Alan Ryan said:You've either misunderstood the CIA Factbook or you have some special meaning attached to the idea of "owning the means of production". Perhaps you should amplify what you have claimed, and give examples.
You only describe a very basic market. A market itself, a place in which to buy and sell goods, will exist in most any economic system. The free market, however, inevitably becomes an anarchic rush of production to gain profit (which is what the system is run by: the drive, need for profit). If we carry this through, Marx noticed a startling truth: If the capitalist gains, the worker may not do so (thanks largely to the drive or profit...if a capitalist makes a profit, he is then only concerned at either increaing or maintaining this profit...and this may be done by cutting his workforce or paying them less), but if the capitalist loses, the worker always follows him.Alan Ryan said:On the market:
The market responds to the balance between supply and demand: economists have theories that are supposed to predict how that balance will be struck in a given set of parameters. Markets not only signal where the balance of buyers and sellers lies at any particular time, they also shift money in the direction it's needed to maintain equilibrium. The price of any given commodity may not make sense to the particular individual, but the collective actions of millions of consumers via the market will determine (as a rule) the most efficient or the most intelligent price.
On planning:
To plan even a small scale localised economy, you need need information about what should be produced and in what quantity. This information is not available on an efficient basis outside the free market.
Another crucial missing element in a planned economy is not so much the lack of "information," : it is the want of the motivation to act on information.- i.e. lack of incentive because of the "bureaucratization" of economic life.
There is no truth to this statement. I highly doubt Britain's economy is' half' planned, and I know for a fact that France's government does not own all businesses. Are you telling me that France has no fast food restaurants (which would be private businesses)?Christofer said:Frances government owns all businesses. England is a half socialism. you should go thier yourself.
Originally Posted by new coup for you
The revolution itself invalidates communism! Marx stated that socialist revolution would be the product of economic and industrial evolution. yet Russia was NOT industrialized and therefore NOT ready (in Marx's view) for socialist revolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?