Flapjacks
Well-known member
If everyone was altruistic, any currently popular economic system would work better.
Astrology Does Not Seem To Apply To Me
- Thread starter iglooskies
- Start date
If everyone was altruistic, any currently popular economic system would work better.
Jesse Booth
Well-known member
Don't worry, Birch Dragon. Mcarthy died from alcoholism a couple decades ago. You don't have to worry about another Red Scare. For now.
Sorry if I inadvertently called someone a Marxist. I didn't feel like typing out "individual who has mentioned Marxism in a way that suggests they likely or definitely have favorable attitudes towards it."
And you're right about the Facebook page thing. You aren't really a Zuckerbergian until you've ritually sacrificed your grandparents, or if not applicable, someone else's, and given the Head Priest(me) all of your material possesions. As our religious mantra clearly states in regards to this sacreligious and illegally binding act of mindless devotion, "LOL!!! JK!!!"
Jesse Booth
Well-known member
You guys never answered my question, by the way.
Jesse Booth
Well-known member
Personally, as a very unusual someone who believes in reincarnation, I hope humanity never reaches a state of "altruism" which will render communism effective. In order for everyone to be perfectly equal, there must be no progress left to be made, no change, no problems to fix, nothing for people to have differing opinions on, no variations in personality. Just an endless, empty state of limbo, technologically and politically. Any changes or variations would upset the equilibrium required to keep such an institution in place.
As long as there is a top to get to, I'm satisfied with my life; if not where I am, then at least with my ability and option to make it better(or worse, if I want to). The instant that mankind no longer needs to change is when my very own private hell will commence.
As long as there is a top to get to, I'm satisfied with my life; if not where I am, then at least with my ability and option to make it better(or worse, if I want to). The instant that mankind no longer needs to change is when my very own private hell will commence.
Birch Dragon
Well-known member
Hey Jesse,
My post was both serious and in fun at the same time. I hope you don't think I was actually put out.
This is the common misunderstanding of how Marx envisioned communism. Which I have to qualify with two points:
A) I'm not saying Soviet or Chinese communism didn't look like this or have these tendencies. I'm saying if we're talking about Marx, this isn't at all how he seemed to envision it. Quite the opposite, actually.
B) Marx, for all how famous he is for beng the prophet of communism, said very, very little about wha he thought it would look like. There are a few short moments in his writings that give us clues, the best being about a page-long passage in the German Ideology. But for the most part he didn't think envisioning communism was the point.
That said, if I'm right (and I really may not be. Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't been paying attention) you have libertarian sympathies, correct?
If so, surprise surprise, you may actually be a lot more interested in Marx's communism than you currently realize.
It depends, I guess, just how libertarian you go. Most libertarians recognize the need for at least a minimal state to protect the rights and freedoms they believe all individuals are entitled to. Marx goes so far and to suggest there should be no state, no actual standing government, in his communism. The state "withers away" because without capitalism to serve and protect it no loner serves a purpose.
Second, Marx's view of the individual in communism was that he'd be more free than he is in capitalism. Of course, it depends what you mean by freedom. Marx thought the freedom of our liberal societies was oppressive and so thought about freedom in another way. But far from presenting individuals as essentially the same, Marx thought only in communism can we be free to explore the breadth of our diverse natures and radically pursue whatever we individually wanted to pursue. As where in capitalism, for Marx, we are largely confined to our class identity and the opportunities afforded us in our location other capitalist market (for example, "worker").
Not that I'm trying to convert you or anything.
Don't get me deported!
My post was both serious and in fun at the same time. I hope you don't think I was actually put out.
This is the common misunderstanding of how Marx envisioned communism. Which I have to qualify with two points:
A) I'm not saying Soviet or Chinese communism didn't look like this or have these tendencies. I'm saying if we're talking about Marx, this isn't at all how he seemed to envision it. Quite the opposite, actually.
B) Marx, for all how famous he is for beng the prophet of communism, said very, very little about wha he thought it would look like. There are a few short moments in his writings that give us clues, the best being about a page-long passage in the German Ideology. But for the most part he didn't think envisioning communism was the point.
That said, if I'm right (and I really may not be. Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't been paying attention) you have libertarian sympathies, correct?
If so, surprise surprise, you may actually be a lot more interested in Marx's communism than you currently realize.
It depends, I guess, just how libertarian you go. Most libertarians recognize the need for at least a minimal state to protect the rights and freedoms they believe all individuals are entitled to. Marx goes so far and to suggest there should be no state, no actual standing government, in his communism. The state "withers away" because without capitalism to serve and protect it no loner serves a purpose.
Second, Marx's view of the individual in communism was that he'd be more free than he is in capitalism. Of course, it depends what you mean by freedom. Marx thought the freedom of our liberal societies was oppressive and so thought about freedom in another way. But far from presenting individuals as essentially the same, Marx thought only in communism can we be free to explore the breadth of our diverse natures and radically pursue whatever we individually wanted to pursue. As where in capitalism, for Marx, we are largely confined to our class identity and the opportunities afforded us in our location other capitalist market (for example, "worker").
Not that I'm trying to convert you or anything.
Don't get me deported!
Birch Dragon
Well-known member
Agreed!
I
Agreed!
And this is a place where we disagree with Marx. For Marx, consciousness largely follows the material conditions. So if we got rid of capitalism - if we abolished private property - the correct consciousness for living in communism would arise. We'd all start thinking in the right way. Material conditions --> consciousness.
But we're saying the opposite. We need the consciousness first, and only then the material conditions will work.
I'm wondering if Iglooskies is on board with this.
By the way, the best chance of Mrxian communism, I think, is robots. If we flooded the world with robots and eradicated human labour because robots were doing it all, that would revolutionize how we live, including maybe creating a classless society...?!
That wasn't the point. Communism requires an enlightened populace that is not about their own competitiveness, but wants only to serve others. The other systems don't require this to work. Communism won't work at all unless this pre-requisite exists.
Last edited:
iglooskies
Member
I would call myself a Marxist. I disagree with the vulgar materialism of a lot of his followers, but I agree to a great enough extent with the materialist conception of history, the Hegelian dialectic, and his economic theories to confidently call myself an extremely heterodoxic Marxist-- which to be fair, is pretty **** common in today's academic climate, where most "marxists" are as influenced by Foucault and Heidegger as by Marx himself.
The base-superstructure model is, taken literally, extremely superficial and one-sided, but I think economic conditions play a huuuuuge role in determining the consciousness of a society. Feudal society demanded radically different organization and ideological apparatuses than are useful under capitalism. Likewise, the socialist mode of production would itself produce a different stage in human consciousness. Even Engels is quick to point out that this idea has been seized upon all too rashly and in a naively simplistic manner, but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it.
Marx demonstrated several tendencies that necessarily follow from the essence of the capitalist system. Among these are the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, the centralization and concentration of capital, the relative immiseration of the working class, etc. Capitalism is responsible for periodic crises which further proletarianize great segments of the population, leaving capital in the hands of fewer bourgeois. Not only that, but depending on the extent to which you accept Marx's Aristotelian and Hegelian tendencies, there is a great deal to be said on the effect of alienation.
The greater part of society is working class, and that relative portion is only going to grow. The capitalists will do everything in their power, using the state, schools, ideology, etc. to tighten their grip on capital. The proletariat only needs to recognize the exploitative nature of the system and turn against it, as the self-abolishing class.
The base-superstructure model is, taken literally, extremely superficial and one-sided, but I think economic conditions play a huuuuuge role in determining the consciousness of a society. Feudal society demanded radically different organization and ideological apparatuses than are useful under capitalism. Likewise, the socialist mode of production would itself produce a different stage in human consciousness. Even Engels is quick to point out that this idea has been seized upon all too rashly and in a naively simplistic manner, but that doesn't mean there's no truth to it.
Marx demonstrated several tendencies that necessarily follow from the essence of the capitalist system. Among these are the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, the centralization and concentration of capital, the relative immiseration of the working class, etc. Capitalism is responsible for periodic crises which further proletarianize great segments of the population, leaving capital in the hands of fewer bourgeois. Not only that, but depending on the extent to which you accept Marx's Aristotelian and Hegelian tendencies, there is a great deal to be said on the effect of alienation.
The greater part of society is working class, and that relative portion is only going to grow. The capitalists will do everything in their power, using the state, schools, ideology, etc. to tighten their grip on capital. The proletariat only needs to recognize the exploitative nature of the system and turn against it, as the self-abolishing class.
Last edited:
Flapjacks
Well-known member
Ooh, you might want to be careful with that one. Athenians did pretty well with slaves, but they certainly weren't classless.
There is the "robots aren't people" argument... and then the chuckle-some counter of "but robots ARE people" argument... yet mine would be that it's not just the fact that someone else may suffer from doing your work - but that you're devaluing the work - which speaks for much of the ills of slavery.
Zarathu said:
Any economic system requires an enlightened populace. Competition (are you referring to capitalism?) requires an even higher level of accountability and personal responsibility to actually work, and without altruism, would be barbaric. The point of an economy is to provide a way for humans to interact and survive as a communal species, so defining "working" as "existing" isn't enough.
Not long ago, a silo collapsed at Wilcox farms in Washington state. A man died and they lost all their grain to feed their chickens. The neighboring farms, even though competitors, stepped in to provide truckloads of grain to help Wilcox out. I heard a reporter ask, "But why would you help them? They compete with you!" and the farmer replied, "If we didn't help, thousands of chickens would die. No one wants to see that. It's just being a decent human being."
Competition doesn't necessarily mean trying to ruin everyone/thing else for your own selfish gain. At it's essence, competition should foster diversity so that when something bad happens, there are alternatives. Currently, "capitalism" in the US doesn't foster competition at all, but supports monopolies and centralization, which is another great setup for a totalitarian state.
Jesse Booth
Well-known member
Here in the US, we have this nifty thingie called "the Sherman Anti-Trust Act." It's this fancy little bit of democratic legislation made it illegal for companies to form a monopoly on a product or service, and also made agreements "in restraint of trade" illegal. We've had it since 1890, so it's kinda wierd you haven't heard of it by now.
What does support monopolies and centralization is corporate welfare and special-interest legislation. Both of which the Libertarian party opposes...
RodJM
Well-known member
Jesse Booth
Well-known member
Flapjacks
Well-known member
Um.. I have heard of it? Thanks for asking. I'm sure a lot of younger people haven't heard of it, though, considering it was the last used in the early 80s. What has happened to Standard Oil and AT&T breakups? Oh, they consolidated again, and no one is doing much about it. Other monopolies are ignored, especially on local levels, especially in the IT industry. I have only one internet service provider available to me, for example. I guess making something illegal doesn't mean it's not supported by other incentives, as you pointed out yourself. The US government is fairly hypocritical that way.