What is your understanding of socialism and/or communism?

brianthebard

DadaKopf wrote: »

Totally, dude.

Been reading some interesting articles recently about Marxian international relations theory. I won't bore anyone with the details, just to say that within Marxist circles, these kinds of discussions are happening constantly. It's not a calcified ideology, it's a living, breathing entity. Importantly, it notes that figures like Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Georg Lucácks and Leon Trotsky were scratching their heads about why the revolution didn't happen, why European countries turned to fascism. In other words, they were challenging the dogmatic ideas put forth by orthodox Marxists who explained everything in terms of pure, rational economics.

In other words, the theory didn't fit reality at the time, so it changed. And, today, the same open discussion is happening. This article in question seriously challenges the left's 'blood for oil' logic used to explain the invasion of Iraq. But this is dragging things off-topic.

Links please dude?

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

You suggested things were getting off topic so I’ve only answered points I thought related to the original post.

Just didn't want to detract from your thread which seemed to be a sort of poll of peoples' undestanding of socialism and communism. It's stuck frimly in this territory now so respond to whatever you want.

brianthebard wrote: »

That’s just plain wrong, Marx spent a long long time analysing the capitalist model before putting forth his ideas about what was wrong with it. Furthermore he never prescribed any specific form of government, other than communal based (if he even did that) and Marxists such as Adorno continued to analyse the capitalist system (see Culture industry again without putting forward prescriptive ideals on how to change it.

Well, that's equally unhelpful in my opinion. "I can tell you what's wrong with you but I don't have the cure".

brianthebard wrote: »

The workers are suppressed by low wages, long hours, and the force of industrialists that collaborates with each others. (as well as controlling the means of production and capital in the economy).

That's not an explanation of how it's fundamental to the model; merely an assertion of what you believe is taking place.

brianthebard wrote: »

Marxism is not a prescription (just to reiterate). Each situation is unique. For instance in Scandinavia and Iceland, there is no immediate threat to social democrat countries sovereignty. They have therefore been privileged to create a system of government which does not have to include Nationalism.

Earthhorse wrote: »

So, are the means of production in the hands of workers in Scandinavian countries or are they still following a broadly capitalist model underpinned by strong socialist leanings?

...

brianthebard wrote: »

Well you yourself suggested the invisible hand has just been reformed to be secular, so yeah you will. Please provide an example on the capitalist front then and I’ll better understand your position.

Might be more helpful to think of this in terms of the ongoing debate about language and ideology.

Kama wrote: »

Well, for example, i often hear people speak of 'whoring' themselves in reference to work, and of having to 'suck (koka-noodles)'. Sucking Satan's (koka-noodles) in Bill Hicks terms.

In my experience, such language is used in a tongue in cheek manner or by people who will use the worst language to describe every experience (the "women are insane", "men are bastards" brigade). It might not be entirely inaccurate of some people's experience, or even of some experience of all people, but at a macro level it absolutley imposes a value judgment over all of everyone's experience. You can talk about things using emotive language if you want but be prepared for a lot of the information about that experience to be lost when doing so.

Kama wrote: »

I agree, I'm not actually a proponent of full equality, I just think that the optimum level of inequality is far lower than a less regulated market supplies; which loses me points with both my socialist and capitalist friends.

You poor thing!

What I'd like to see is continual improvement of the existing model rather than a revolution of any kind because I agree that more equality can be achieved and, more importantly, that there can be a decent standard for everyone.

Kama wrote: »

Given that there is dispute A: on what constitutes quality of life and B: how one could then measure that, I don't think we have access to this 'whole picture', if it exists. Picture is a 2D metaphor, whereas my position is that what the 'picture' looks like depends on perspective, which depends on values and social position. Which to me is a generally helpful way to think about ideology, that's it's positional, rather than X has/hasn't value judgements, and accounts for people holding different views without saying 'X is wrong because he is ideological', which always begs the question...

Is there a dispute on what constitutes quality of life? I'm not so sure, though there may be a dispute about what priority the constituent parts might have. Value judgements have to be made eventually but I would rather we didn't front load them.

The data to get the whole picture is available to us now more than ever. We just have to get better at sharing it, as argued by Hans Rosling in this video (clip is around 20 mintues long and data sharing isn't the focus of it so you may wish to skip).

Kama wrote: »

I forget who (possibly Zizek, possibly someone earlier) said that saying your position is 'non-ideological' is a supremely ideological position; I'm pretty down with that. Saying 'ideology is what Marxists/Greens/whoever have' seems pretty sterile and ... um ... ideological to me.

Sounds a lot like the atheism requires as much fate as theism argument. It is not that I don't have ideology but that I'd like my model not to. Maybe I can't remove that entirely but I can try. Just like I'm prejudicial but I'd like my justice system not to be, or my view is subjective but I'd like my science not to be.

Kama wrote: »

Earthhorse, I suspect we actually have very similar positions on a practical level.

Probably. We should hang out sometime. You can bring a suppressed proletarian and I'll bring some bourgeoisie strawberries.

Kama wrote: »

Put plainly, if a capitalist system (of which there can be many variants) is generating wealth rather than appropriating it, my objections are far fewer; but historically, appropriation in a zero-sum sense (from Land Enclosure to capital markets to current IP) law seems dominant.

Well, that brings me back to my original point which is that the capitalist system can support many different things, should the actors in that system wish it. I disagree that the game is zero-sum by the way, more like zero-some-sum, and we can move it to some-sum.

I know that makes no literal sense, you get what I'm saying!

Earthhorse

DadaKopf wrote: »

Funny you should mention this. 'A rising tide lifts all boats', eh? Today, a health analyist spoke in Dublin. He's compared the links between income, inequality and health across countries. In his view, health inequality is much more strongly linked to inequality than income alone. So, in other words, inequality of income impacts the whole of society's life chances. So, as incomes rise and inequality rises, the health of many is adversely affected. That itself is a symptom of wider social factors.

Well, yeah, a rising tide but moreso the "real problem is 'not inequality but poverty'". To take an example on health from the very same article:

IMF wrote:

Take the example of Egypt. Comparing its per capita income with that of the United States, Egypt's progress has not been impressive. But it has made huge gains in life expectancy, both in absolute terms and relative to the United States. Life expectancy in Egypt was only 48 years in 1965, compared with 69 years in the United States. By 1995, Egyptian lfe expectancy had risen sharply to 66 years, only 9 years below the U.S. figure for that year.

DadaKopf wrote: »

And anyway, PPP is only relevant when comparing inequality between countries; I don't see what point you're making. PPP is simply a useful (but necessarily crude) tool for comparing real incomes across countries (as opposed to international comparative measures derived from exchange rates). PPP can reveal nothing about inequality within countries.

Nevermind. Long day, long post.

Kama wrote: »

Which from my 4 small years of economics in university, it ain't.

I feel sorrier for you with every post!

brianthebard

Earthhorse all you are doing is arguing for Capitalism, and you've put forth no understanding of Socalism. I'm just going to ask-what do you actually know about Socalism/Communism/Marxism?

Earthhorse

Like I said in my opening post I haven't read much on it, more around it.

Pretty sure I agreed with your summation of Marxism in that post too.

brianthebard

"..." signifies agreement?

Earthhorse

No. In my opening post I agreed with your summation of Marxism.

The ellipsis is only in the last post only as a breaker. Sorry if it came across as curt.

brianthebard

OK, it seemed like you weren't commenting.

brianthebard

http://www.marxists.org/index.htm

Damn I love the way socialists waive property rights! Free documents for all!

Kama

You can talk about things using emotive language if you want but be prepared for a lot of the information about that experience to be lost when doing so.

Contra, you can attempt to remove value and emotion from thought, and a lot of the information about the lived experience is lost. Your argument was that people don't naturally describe work in such terms, in my xp they do, of times. Something is lost in either case, but neither is utterly invalid imo.

What I'd like to see is continual improvement of the existing model rather than a revolution of any kind because I agree that more equality can be achieved and, more importantly, that there can be a decent standard for everyone.

That's almost a perfect definition of a meliorist socialist agenda btw
Damn I love agreeing with people!

And don't be sorry for me, I'm looking forward to those delicious strawberries...

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

http://www.marxists.org/index.htm

Damn I love the way socialists waive property rights! Free documents for all!

You're not...you're not actually suggesting I go and read up on the subject, are you? Because that sounds too much like hard work.

Kama wrote: »

That's almost a perfect definition of a meliorist socialist agenda btw
Damn I love agreeing with people!

God damnit, I ain't fer it, I'm agin it! Ah nah, I knew I was more "left wing" than my initial position may have implied. Good to know I'm a meliorist socialist though; I'll have to remember that next time I'm at the doctors.

Kama wrote: »

And don't be sorry for me, I'm looking forward to those delicious strawberries...

It's just...all that economics. I avoided economics modules as much as possible in college.

And, eh, about those strawberries...

*runs out of thread*

Rossibaby

Socialism basically is an ending of exploitation of man by man. The {power} means of production,distribution and exchange are transferred from the capitalist bourgeois class to the proletariat, or working class.In socialism, private property is seen as the root of all of societies ills, and is a fundamental in the establishment of secondary fundamentals of our society such as imperialism.

Marxism is a scientific process, analysing situations throughout history to find a scientific solution to the way society is run.To give a brief example of a societies develoments we can first take roman times,say the masters with bare-faced slavery,this then moved on and we have feudalism, and now we have employers and 'wage slaves' etc...it is impossible to get into deep details of socialist ideas in a post like this but some general points will have to suffice.

Socialists wish a complete uproot of society within capitalism,they question everything and seek justifcation for the way the world is run,they dont simply enter this world and live how they are told,they see a better system and ask why not try it?
people have huge misconceptions about socialism,in fact NO true socialist country has ever existed.cuba,the USSR etc etc were never near true socialism because the workers were not in control of the means of distribution,production and exchange.there is a contradiction within the capitalist system which leads to massive inequalities and unsustainable structures.socialists are determined to raise class conscoiusness of the workers to mobilise them to change their relationship to the means of production.marx said capitalism will inevitably collapse and socialism will be the step after[then communism].this is incorrect imo,it will only be the next step with the work of revolutionaries and mobilisation of the great majority[the workers]..marx did not live in the age of imperialism and V.Lenin did a great job on taking marxism on abit,vanguard party theory etc etc

The biggest misconception is that socialism is repressive or a regime,this is totally incorrect and faulty systems calling themselves socialist when they are clearly nothing like it has tarnished the theory[plus proUSA media etc] the very essence of socialism is that the working people will have control,doesnt sound too repressive does it?also i would just like to clear up that people like chavez[though i admire him greatly] are not socialists,cuba was not socialist,no nation has EVER been,so the excuse [socialism doesnt work] just doesnt fly in reality when it hasnt even been implemented.
you can also not be a socialist without being a communist[as communism is the next step after socialism].therefore anyone who says ''im a socialist but not a communist' isnt worth a damn,they are social democrats or reformists,they seek to take capitalism and patch it up short term for short term success.

anyways hope this post helped someone

asdasd

Marxism is a scientific process

And my ass is a giant talking tomato. Science actually produces falsifiable theories. On the other hand the cult of Marx can argue like this:

no nation has EVER been[socialist]

even though all communists, marxists and fellow travelers acknowledged the Soviet Union ( and later China) to be Marxist; even though Marxist economics( what little of it there is) demands the takeover of the "means of production" by the proletariat through the State in a "proletarian dictatorship" ( clearly there in the Communist Manifesto); and even though the different forms of Marxisms were applied all around the world from extremist China - the cultural revolution - and Cambodia, to less extremist Eastern Europe (where certain Market systems were allowed and thus these people were freer); and even though the sum total of all peoples who lived under Marxism is more than the population of the Earth when Marx was alive Marxism has not been tried.

This is no science. It is a cult.

nesf

Rossibaby wrote: »

Socialism basically is an ending of exploitation of man by man.

It's closer to a delusion that man is capable of not exploiting man, but whatever. Marxism as a science though, seriously, just no.

brianthebard wrote: »

What do people think?

Socialism is an ideal and a nice one in many ways if you overlook the practical problems of implementing it. "From those according to their ability to those according to their need" is what really sums up both the optimism and practical problems of socialism in its most basic form for me. It would be great if people actually would obey this maxim but human nature just doesn't seem to be inclined to such extremes of self sacrifice for the common good. It's an oversimplification of Marx's ideas, but it's about as good as an analysis of his system that I can give you.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote: »

So you're saying 'the market' is the best way to optimally distribute resources in a way that ensures equality.

Is there a better way to distribute resources though? Planned economies have always had serious problems with it. Is market based distribution combined with a redistribution of profits better than a centralised or planned system in modern Marxist literature? (genuine question, I'm curious about the how the literature has changed after the results of the communist experiments have come to light over the past decade).

asdasd

genuine question, I'm curious about the how the literature has changed after the results of the communist experiments have come to light over the past decade

It hasnt. You cant be a reformist Marxist, so to accept the market system at all is to be a heretical social democrat. Once a marxist reforms, and accepts market mechamisms he is expunged from the left, or the party ( if a party) splits leaving behind the marxist spliner groups.

Rossibaby

asdasd wrote: »

And my ass is a giant talking tomato. Science actually produces falsifiable theories. On the other hand the cult of Marx can argue like this:



even though all communists, marxists and fellow travelers acknowledged the Soviet Union ( and later China) to be Marxist; even though Marxist economics( what little of it there is) demands the takeover of the "means of production" by the proletariat through the State in a "proletarian dictatorship" ( clearly there in the Communist Manifesto); and even though the different forms of Marxisms were applied all around the world from extremist China - the cultural revolution - and Cambodia, to less extremist Eastern Europe (where certain Market systems were allowed and thus these people were freer); and even though the sum total of all peoples who lived under Marxism is more than the population of the Earth when Marx was alive Marxism has not been tried.

This is no science. It is a cult.

you misunderstand what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means,but dont let that get in the way of nonsense

Rossibaby

nesf wrote: »

It's closer to a delusion that man is capable of not exploiting man, but whatever. Marxism as a science though, seriously, just no.



Socialism is an ideal and a nice one in many ways if you overlook the practical problems of implementing it. "From those according to their ability to those according to their need" is what really sums up both the optimism and practical problems of socialism in its most basic form for me. It would be great if people actually would obey this maxim but human nature just doesn't seem to be inclined to such extremes of self sacrifice for the common good. It's an oversimplification of Marx's ideas, but it's about as good as an analysis of his system that I can give you.

maybe no-one will make such sacrifices in the bourgeois classes or labour aristocracy,but im sure the 100s of millions living in poverty might take that risk.and i hate that little quote there,it is used as a tool to misguide and simplify marxism to a utopian ideology,which it is not really.

and by scientific i meant his analysis was based on facts and on history.james connolly often referred to 'scientific socialism' ie.marxism,but what did james know

asdasd

and by scientific i meant his analysis was based on facts and on history

And by scientific the rest of us mean based on a falsifable theory which conforms to empirical facts. Marxism is about as scientific as Intelligent design.

you misunderstand what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means,but dont let that get in the way of nonsense

Pray, use that gian Marxist brain, and enlighten us.

but im sure the 100s of millions living in poverty might take that risk

the hundreds of millions who lived in the abject stultupying poverty of the cultural revolution took the risk of capitalism and are 500% better off for it. Nevertheless this wont falsify your "scientific" theories.

Marxism = cult.

And this is the last from me. There is only so much sloganeering as argument I can take, and getting the utopian to change his opinion is like teaching a pig to sing; not good for your blod pressure, uncomfortable for the pig , and he aint going to sing.

nesf

Rossibaby wrote: »

but im sure the 100s of millions living in poverty might take that risk.and i hate that little quote there,it is used as a tool to misguide and simplify marxism to a utopian ideology,which it is not really

But you are talking about a utopia, a magical place where man does not exploit man despite man doing so throughout the whole of known human history.

Kama

in fact NO true socialist country has ever existed.

For me, this is an unhelpful approach; it requires a perfect state of affairs to have existed, and justifies itself by the absence. Eternal regress imo.

Perhaps if take out the 'true' word its easier to examine actual systems and what happens, rather than pooh-poohing on the basis that they aren't perfect. No 'true' democracy has ever existed, no 'true' free market has ever existed, and so forth. Exact same position occurs with 'hard' free marketereers; any problems, market failure, whatever, are because it's 'not free enough', it's like God-of-the-gaps, endlessly moving target.

Talking about 'true' or 'perfect' systems I find quite boring and unhelpful, regardless of what intellectual system is being advocated. Utopian ideology eitherways.

"From those according to their ability to those according to their need" is what really sums up both the optimism and practical problems of socialism in its most basic form for me...It's closer to a delusion that man is capable of not exploiting man, but whatever.

The well-worn Russian joke comes to mind; under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, it's the exact opposite!

Eh, I occassionally suffer from the 'delusion' that people are capable of not exploting each other; even seem it in practice a few times. You're probably overstating the case on the capability; yes we are capable of exploiting each other, but we are also capable of not doing so.

As a tangent (oh noes more ideology!), we can look at the behavioural economics research showing that studying economics makes one more likely to defect in Prisoners Dilemma, and less likely to contribute to charity. Systems have reflexive effects on their participants; a world of atomized completely self-interested monad individuals chasing their utility preference is also a 'utopian ideology' imo; it doesn't correspond to reality but can cause reality to increasingly mirror it.

Much as in attempting to construct markets, how to make a system which encourages co-operation seems a worthy goal, and making systems which penalise altruism and cooperation seems equally a effort in social engineering. Modeling humans as either entirely self-interested or throroughly altruistic (to me) is inevitably a partial picture, excluding a chunk of reality eitherways.

Marxism as a science though, seriously, just no.

Well, Marxism has been kinda domesticated into capitalism and market economics by now, in a way. He got quoted approvingly for his analysis of globalization in the FT, and pretty undeniably identified many trends in economics still relevant today. If by science you mean predictive, then agree completely; but then we throw out any human science, including economics. Sccial science as analysis he was gifted at; social science as prophethood has a lousy record for everyone who's had a go at it, regardless of their ideology.

The correct comparison (to me) is with other political economy at the time imo. Marx predicted boom and bust cycles, much of his liberal contemporaries thought markets would just go up. He predicted it would hit periodic crises, such as the Great Depression, that reduced return in home territories would force expansion into new markets, and so on.

brianthebard

asdasd wrote: »

It hasnt. You cant be a reformist Marxist, so to accept the market system at all is to be a heretical social democrat. Once a marxist reforms, and accepts market mechamisms he is expunged from the left, or the party ( if a party) splits leaving behind the marxist spliner groups.

Marx was a social democrat.

nesf wrote: »

But you are talking about a utopia, a magical place where man does not exploit man despite man doing so throughout the whole of known human history.

Who is exploiting whom in Cuba for instance?

nesf

Kama wrote: »

The well-worn Russian joke comes to mind; under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, it's the exact opposite!

Eh, I occassionally suffer from the 'delusion' that people are capable of not exploting each other; even seem it in practice a few times. You're probably overstating the case on the capability; yes we are capable of exploiting each other, but we are also capable of not doing so.

It's a seductive utopia and it's a delusion that I think is noble and worth paying attention to. My argument is more that we can't expect people to do it independently, there are just too many reasons for them not to and that redistribution by the State is more effective than relying on charitable acts if you want even out incomes (though this creates a moral hazard if redistribution is too high so its a double edged sword, the more you redistribute the more you disincentivise people to maximise their effort at earning which can have nasty effects on the economy as a whole). A nice compromise (in my mind) is to make charitable donations tax deductible or some other incentive for people to donate to charity. But I'm highly sceptical of the assertion that man is inherently charitiable towards those who aren't in his close social circle (the point being that we're very good at helping out those around us but much less inclined towards helping those we've never met on average).

Kama wrote: »

As a tangent (oh noes more ideology!), we can look at the behavioural economics research showing that studying economics makes one more likely to defect in Prisoners Dilemma, and less likely to contribute to charity. Systems have reflexive effects on their participants; a world of atomized completely self-interested monad individuals chasing their utility preference is also a 'utopian ideology' imo; it doesn't correspond to reality but can cause reality to increasingly mirror it.

I don't disagree at all, I think the simplistic characterisation of man as purely self-interested in the narrow sense is false, things are more complicated than that. You can broaden this self-interest but you risk diluting the predictive power of the models to nothing if you do that, if you define it right you can make almost anything in the self interests of an individual.

Kama wrote: »

Much as in attempting to construct markets, how to make a system which encourages co-operation seems a worthy goal, and making systems which penalise altruism and cooperation seems equally a effort in social engineering. Modeling humans as either entirely self-interested or throroughly altruistic (to me) is inevitably a partial picture, excluding a chunk of reality eitherways.

I think this is really where the cutting edge of economics/political theory is. Looking at things as an absolute choice between the State or the Market (which is sometimes what traditional "left/right" debate descends to) is simply wrong. The two are completely intertwined and we should (in my view) be looking at ways where we can combine the better sides of the decentralised market with the better sides of the centralised State in order to achieve the highest levels of average/median welfare for our citizens.

Kama wrote: »

Well, Marxism has been kinda domesticated into capitalism and market economics by now, in a way. He got quoted approvingly for his analysis of globalization in the FT, and pretty undeniably identified many trends in economics still relevant today. If by science you mean predictive, then agree completely; but then we throw out any human science, including economics. Sccial science as analysis he was gifted at; social science as prophethood has a lousy record for everyone who's had a go at it, regardless of their ideology.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Marxism has never struck me as either predictive or as treating core tenets as being falsible which I'd consider as being crucial to distinguishing science from non-science.

Kama wrote: »

The correct comparison (to me) is with other political economy at the time imo. Marx predicted boom and bust cycles, much of his liberal contemporaries thought markets would just go up. He predicted it would hit periodic crises, such as the Great Depression, that reduced return in home territories would force expansion into new markets, and so on.

Marx's analysis is certainly something that shouldn't be casually tossed aside. If anything I think Marxism since Marx has helped create a culture where we ignore much of the good things Marx had to add to understanding social behaviour. The boom/bust cycle wasn't uniquely Marx though, it was, from I remember present in earlier economic work though I'd not be able to give you a reference for that.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Who is exploiting whom in Cuba for instance?

Do you honestly believe that no-one is exploiting anyone in Cuba?

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that no-one is exploiting anyone in Cuba?

I believe the people of Cuba are living exponentially better lives than they did under Batista, in spite of the US embargo, and enjoy some of the best possible education and medical services for instance. Of course you neglected to answer the question at all, and rather just went with sarcasm. Who do you think is being exploited in Cuba, and where is the evidence?

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Of course you neglected to answer the question at all, and rather just went with sarcasm. Who do you think is being exploited in Cuba, and where is the evidence?

Not really sarcasm here, I just think that of the two of us the onus is on you to show that exploitation isn't going on since its been so prevalent throughout human history (i.e. we can both probably agree that exploitation has been very common, ergo the task becomes to show systematic exceptions that have lasted over time etc). That and neutral data out of Cuba is notoriously scarce on the ground so it's hard for either of us to definitively show anything about it anyway.

asdasd

Who is exploiting whom in Cuba for instance?

The communist party and the State are exploiting the people of Cuba. They live large and the poor people of Cuba live horrible lives in their third world economy ( which it most clearly was not under Batista - living standards have plummeted).

So bad is Cuba that it has to - like most Communist States - control it's borders so the vast majority of it's citizens cannot leave.

Even then so vile is the place that it's citizens routinely risk life and limb to jump onto non-sea worthy "craft" ( sometimes just pieces of logs) to escape despite the punishment the totalitarian State meets out to the family of the people who just want to travel ( a basic human right). Of course it is a paradise compared to North Korea. When North Korea fall we will come to terms to a State that probably has killed more people than the Nazis.

One of the things I note about Stalinists is that, now that the Soviet Union has fallen, they claim that is wasn't real socialism, but routinely defended the Soviet Union in it's day; and defend Cuba now.

Second thing I notice is that there is very little emigration of Stalinists from evil capitalism to Marxist utopias. This was not the case with other revolutionary movements - the US was once revolutionary by European standards, and the colonies attracted people who wanted a shining city on a hill, or religious freedom, or a new religious colony. Off they went.

Marxists have the choice of two marvelous Marxist States. North Korea and Cuba. While people routinely leave Ireland for Australia, New Zealand, the US and the UK ( and others) there is much love for Marxist societies from our Marxist friends.

But very clearly, from a distance. So why not emigrate? My cousin who lives in Perth thinks Australia a paradise compared to Ireland ( I disagree mainly because I dont like the culture and the distance from Europe). He has acted on this and emigrated to Australia. His particular paradise.

Now why are Marxists not emigrating to Marxism?

Kama

nesf wrote:

It's a seductive utopia and it's a delusion that I think is noble and worth paying attention to.

Hmm, I was actually trying to be sarcastic with the delusional bit; to be more direct, cooperation in groups, reciprocal altruism etc are hardwired into us on an evolutionary level. We didn't get to where we are now as self-interested loners, we did it as cooperative groups. Now, you can make an argument that 'that's a delusion, it weas *really* selfish all the time' on lines like Public Choice theory, or Howard Blooms Lucifer Principle for a true longue duree and so on.

But I'm yet to be convinced that human sharing, compassion, and togetherness is just the epiphenomenon of a self-interested value maximiser. Regard that as a bit of a delusion myself. Like a conspiracy theory or religion, or doctrinaire Marxism or Dawkinsism there's a gnosis, that you know how it really works, and everyone else is 'deluded' with their 'False Consciousness'. Which reeks ideological to me.

You can broaden this self-interest but you risk diluting the predictive power of the models to nothing if you do that, if you define it right you can make almost anything in the self interests of an individual.

While kinda true in a 'well being altruistic is just part of your utility function' way, it's still a reductionism to an ontology of selfishness. To me, this is force the person to fit the model, rather than vice versa. You can flip it, as Adam Smith famously did, and say 'if you define it right, selfishness can be in the interest of the group', or talk about the utility of masochists. With moral development, we tend to see a greater proportion of people viewed as 'self' or 'like self', and treat them as such; this is the goal in much spirituality, or enlightened morality. Yes, you can reduce that and say 'well Gandhi was just selfishly trying to help everyone because that is his selfishness', or 'that inner-school teacher is just doing it because he gets off on helping angry kids' but the point, and lived reality, is lost enroute.

But I'm highly sceptical of the assertion that man is inherently charitiable towards those who aren't in his close social circle (the point being that we're very good at helping out those around us but much less inclined towards helping those we've never met on average).

Agree with this, and I think the neuro-bio and behavioural and game-theory results back it up. In one-offs, cheating is higher. With proximity and repeat play, cooperation increases. Which has an interesting reflex, that if you think of yourself as a self-interested mobile monad then cheating makes more sense to you, on both a basic-intuitive and a game-rational way, and if you have a context distancing and anonymity are high, structurally it's imo more likely.

To me, this is where the cultural element comes in; lots of historical cultures had mechanisms which extended the inclusiveness of the 'close' circle to take advantage of this 'urge to help' which evolution has fairly hardwired in co-operative mammals such as ourselves.

I think this is really where the cutting edge of economics/political theory is...we should (in my view) be looking at ways where we can combine the better sides of the decentralised market with the better sides of the centralised State in order to achieve the highest levels of average/median welfare for our citizens.

I'd agree with this, that's my general position, but have a critical point; the State has been progressively giving up these functions, as have corporations. The state function as a welfare-maximiser (in my view) has been on the way out during neoliberalism, towards a role as an opportunity-maximiser, in line with the self-interested theory 'traders' advocate. (I'm drawing a bit on Bobbitts theory of market-states here). The socialist supplement or synthesis which underlay the world economy in the core states post-war was ideologically rejected in favour of more pure market-based approach, where welfare-maximization is presumed to occur from opportunity-maximization. Perhaps this point seems pedantic, but I don't think these necessarily equate.

Welfare-maximising (to me) seems more characteristic of post-War consensus social democracy, which has been retrenched during the last quarter-century, from Reagan-Thatcher through Bush-Blair, which has emphasised opportunity but denied welfarist rights-based aproaches. When welfare rights are introduced, which don't fit in a market schema, it's called 'socialism', or that's my current naive reading. Opportunity maximising in conditions of inequality imo trends towards an aristocracy of money.

Not really sarcasm here, I just think that of the two of us the onus is on you to show that exploitation isn't going on since its been so prevalent throughout human history (i.e. we can both probably agree that exploitation has been very common, ergo the task becomes to show systematic exceptions that have lasted over time etc).

First, yes exploitation has always occurred, even in matriarchal pre-historic hippy-beloved societies, the fossil record seems to show this, but that's not exactly the issue. What's (I think) pertinent is the degree of exploitation. There have been relatively stable systems with realtively high egality, such as horticultural and other pre-agrarian societies (pre-State gangster-military in Tilly's terms), because this was a more stable equilibrium before expansion and surplus-appropriation became more feasible. If you couldn't steal and store all the local villages apples, the payoff is much lower...

So it can happen, it's not against 'human nature'. We didn't get this far purely by hunting and killing, hugs and loves were key. Overemphasising either to exclude the other seems flawed, which is what I hear when the 'it's human nature' argument is thrown around, human evolution isn't that simple a story, for all that it sounds pleasantly macho and 'realist' it's wrong.

The question (whatever ones ideology) is how in an advanced society with our human autonomy we can engineer and allow the better of our impulses, and 'disincentivise' the worse...

Ostrom

Again, back to an earlier point... Why so much argument on recovering or portraying a true Marxism? The whole point of dialectical presentation was to understand from the point of view of process not component.

The capitalism of Marx's analysis has changed beyond his initial scope, not in terms of the fundamental units, but the global economy is far more nuanced, dependencies have developed, the consequances have reached beyond human exploitation etc...

Utopian, revisionist, fundamental have all made their contributions, in their context, and of their time. In that sense, Capital is not something that should be read politically, trying to situate it is completely counter-intuitive both to the structure of the argument and the method of presentation.

And citing the communist manifesto is completely inappropriate considering both the political nature of the document, and the difference in approach (not to mention content) between that and the publication of Capital

brianthebard

Good points efla. However there are basic very wrong assumptions about what socialism is that needs to be addressed imo. People think that it means the state controls everything, or the state produces everything and you have no choice of products, and that's not necessarily the case. Definitely agree with what you say about reading Capital.