@Cheezy
To ask me again what I actually want to know is a good question. Here it is in a probably more coherent and thought-through manner:
To my understanding, what distinguishes what I will label with the vague term "far left" from what I will vaguely label as the moderate left "social democracy", is that while the moderate left seeks to soften the negative symptoms of capitalism (be it employees rights and protection, be it minimum wages, protection or legal incorporation of unions, social security and the like), the far left is not satisfied with that but seeks to engage capitalism at its core mechanisms. The extreme here being the outright abolishment of property and hence capitalism.
What I am interested in are ideas and concepts how that exactly may be done - but not from an political but economic angle. And how that is supposed to work. I ask so, because while such concepts may be easily imaginable in a fairly manageable environment, modern economies as a whole appear to be the opposite of fairly manageable. They are immensely complex, full of hardly graspable interdependencies and various inevitably conflicting individual interests. That becomes vivid when one looks at the in my perception great difficulties economists have to truly understand the economy, even though this topic is in such vogue for its obvious importance. And the reason I see that this works as it does, that it creates all the material wealth and economic life it does, is the exact same thing which in the eyes of the far left makes it so horrendous. That is: The power of the capitalist class to hierarchically direct economic life, but in contrast to a public entity to do so in a very adaptable and inventive manner through the "invisible hand". The idea of such an invisible hand surely is kind of archaic from a modern point of view, it is a gross simplification. But the principle still holds true: That is the principle of self-regulation enabled by the coercion of property.
And I wonder, how it is assumed that the base of this principle can be challenged, while keeping the economy as efficient as it is. Hence also my question, if Communism even is assumed to mean the same or even greater efficiency/productivity. This was answered with a reference to the inefficiencies property creates and I recognize and accept them. But that doesn't address the question, how a modern economy as characterized can be efficiently coordinated if tackling capitalism or even abolishing it.
I don't think I personally require much convincing that what the far left envisions sounds at least in principle pretty awesome. But about economic feasibility I am only left to wonder.
Well naturally it's not so cut and dry. I had thought that much wouldn't need to be said. But in a world of caricatures, I suppose it does. Class struggle is not what decides all of human events. But it is what gives shape to our societies and the material relations between people.
Well you have to understand this part of my post as a response to what I thought was you arguing for the feasibility of Communism with a supposed destiny of history. So I responded to what I thought to be a caricature of an argument with pointing out its caricature-like nature
Relax, I meant it as a tongue in cheek prod.
Hug time!
But if you were not riposting the points made by the video, then why did your response come off as so dismissive of their obviously flawed logic?
Ah I don't know, maybe I did directly dismiss a point, I would have to rewatch it (and don't care to
). But as I recall, the video made no direct assumptions about the role of money, but only went like "OMG look what this incredible experiment shows! It's like - Communism" and then went on to talk about soft factors increasing creativity. But well, in context of this video those experiments are IMO not that useful. Think of anxiety. It is established that a medium level of anxiety is best. The need to right now do something you have no routine in for a large amount of money may quit likely call for high anxiety though. Crippling mental capacities.
And after pointing that out, I went on to argue that those soft factors are not necessarily contradictory to capitalism, but just required smart management and that is something the video didn't actually argue against. For instance think of Google. I have heard that it is their management policy to give their employees a free space of working time for creative thinking, for persueing their own projects. Seems to be the exact thing the video talks about, but in a capitalistic frame.
I think the despotism and bifurcation of society makes socialism not merely desirable, but inevitable. People will seek escape, and in a way that is most antithetical.
[...]
I linked to those articles for a reason. You wanted to know what we had intended for the world, and also questioned our attitude of historical "inevitability." It is those two philosophical tools to which I linked that we use to estimate that. You don't have to be well-schooled in Marxist materialism to agree with socialism or communism, but if you want to know the methodology of Marxists, then you must learn them.
Maybe so, and I actually intend so. One of my areas of studies is sociology so I am no stranger to “intimidating” jargons, but I did not get around to read The Capital or other works of Marx, but eventual will.
For now, I finally did read the linked articles. I even read the majority of the German article on historical materialism (which is surprisingly superior in quality - usually German wiki is left to smell the dust of the English one + it allows me to read the original quotes of Marx and Engels).
You're using circular reasoning. Basically you've said that productivity is good...because it is. I guess that you think it's good because it leads to abundance, and abundance leads to greater material quality of life for more people?
Basically yeah. I didn't think I would need to edge out why productivity in principle is a good thing. We take so many things granted these days, but the fact is that this all is quit wondrous when compared to early stages of human societies. The key ingredient: productivity. So I think it is only reasonable to postulate, that any form of society which lacks at least a decent amount of productivity (vague I know - but I hardly can offer hard numbers) is no desirable option.
I won't argue with that. What I will argue with is the idea that economic despotism is required to achieve that productivity.
I will never be convinced that snap-of-the-fingers power over someone else's life is necessary in order for us to have an affluent society. After all, in this system we're speaking of, it's not merely autocracy we're talking about, it's exploitation. The possessors of this autocratic power utilize it to milk laborers' productive power for profit. They keep the lion's share of the wealth their workers produce for themselves.
When we look at large corporations - are the earnings of shareholders really the lion's share? Or the wages of management? I don't know, but have profound doubts. Such a business model does not appear survivable in a market of fierce price competition. I mean there certainly is a distribution of wealth that hardly can be called fair. We all know those abysmal wealth distribution charts. Income charts are better, but still highly unfair. Yet your rhetoric of exploitation - while having a core which rings true - does not seem to capture the true dynamics behind this.
And we are supposed to believe that this is necessary for modern society to function and prosper?
Maybe not. I sincerely hope not. It literally disgusts me how the current system intentionally reduces the individual to an economic factor to be used. But I also would think that the burden to demonstrate so rests with you and other proponents of an alternative way.
But as I've said before, I think the despotism and bifurcation of society makes socialism not merely desirable, but inevitable. People will seek escape, and in a way that is most antithetical.
This apparent key ingredient of Communist thought is besides the supposed merits of an abolishment of property my biggest trouble and they appear to be strongly linked. But we will get to this later on.
But we face no great crisis, there is no Fascist foe awaiting our stumble so that he may pounce.
Just wait what happens when you actually start your revolution
Though nukes will probably help...
And what is a concrete theory?
Come on, this was an illustration, not a matter of definition. But let's not quibble over this. It just would entangle us in pointless rhetorics.
Meh, a lot of philosophy is "unfalsifiable," but I think Popper's criticism is better directed at idealists, including socialist idealists (i.e., those pre-Marxist socialist thinkers), because Marxism approaches history with a blend of empiricism and rationalism; it analyzes the past and present based upon demonstrable material relations, and calls upon the present and future to use that knowledge to produce concepts that "work." Marxism isn't called "the philosophy of praxis" for nothing, you know.
[...]
Once again, we come back to this idea of "proof." What is proof?
Well in general it is the validation by empirics while excluding other potential causations which would yield different empirics in a given instance. History here poses a special problem, as it never repeats as such. So you can not actually test theories. But that already demonstrates that any theory on history has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
But according to the English wikipedia article
"Marx himself took care to indicate that he was only proposing a guideline to historical research (Leitfaden or Auffassung), and was not providing any substantive "theory of history" or "grand philosophy of history", let alone a "master-key to history"
As I understand this passage, historical materialism is only meant to highlight substantial and on the long run overriding trends in history and their essential causes. If it was limited to an observation of the mere fundamental importance of productive relations and the productive forces, I would have no problem with this. It in deed seems very plausible and useful as an insight, that the fundamental economic structure and the fundamental kind of means and yields involved shape societies to a significant degree.
However, it for me becomes problematic when the matter of class struggle enters the equation.
A quote by Marx:
The actual historical process is not predetermined but depends on the class struggle, especially the organization and consciousness of the working class.
Not predetermined? Okay, that sounds great, as this was an impression I got. If a system benefits an elite, than the ones not benefiting by it will have to challenge it to make a change. Again, that sounds sensible. Yet... what about other factors? Did the Roman empire dissolve because of slave revolts? Did English courts sneekingly introduce the concept of a right for labor (in the sense that one may choose where and what to do for a living) based on common law because of class struggle (a right giving birth to the ideology of the free citizen)? Did Japan enter industrialization because of class struggle?
Marx says he does not intend to suggest a key to all history. Yet, it appears he does: class struggle. And I wonder how empirically sound it is without engaging in intellectual acrobatics.
Well if you had read the two links I posted, then this would probably not be a question.
To be honest, after reading every word - my question was not answered at all. At least not in a way I was even remotely satisfied by. Marx does not seem to have a word on how a lack of property really could/would work out. He just uses his theory to declare it had to happen. A theory which I think (and up there tried to illustrate) poses considerable trouble when compared with actual historic development.
For further clarification, pick up The Communist Manifesto, it can be read in a day.
Ha, I actually spotted an audio book of it on audible today. Audio books are great for education on the way!
As I have said before, we can use Marx's invention of dialectical materialism to show that the result of our social disposition in capitalism, the only possible result is socialism.
Do you seriously believe that the concept of Thesis and Antithesis is a good way to understand societies or reality? Doesn't that come down to an arbitrary and artificial way of structuring one's perception of reality? I mean if done correctly I imagine one could force any number of potentially crazy theories into such a concept. But is existence really fundamentally dual in an objective way? Do we have to few everything in the realm of two extremes to truly understand it, or is it possibly just the result of a fundamental cognitive bias, as cognitive science suggests? I am really baffled why dialectical materialism enjoys support by people like you who I judge to be fairly smart.
And oh I got such a great quote on "the only possible result" by Engels from the German wiki:
... but that this struggle had reached a stage now, where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) could no longer free itself of the oppressing class (the Bourgeoisie), without at the same time abolishing the whole society of exploitation, oppression and class warfare forever - this line of thought is only and exclusive to be attributed to Marx. [translation by me]
And I think Engel distanced himself from it rightfully. Even if we accept Marx' theory on historical development depending on class struggle, this still does not suggest that the abolishment of property was actually the next step. First of all because alternatives, as Engles argues, aren't considered. Secondly, if there are none, this still does not mean the abolishment of property would work. And see, that is the reason why I dared to judge historical materialism while only knowing its prime claims. Because the idea to theorize history and to then be able to predict that history would have to lead to the adaption of a totally untested concept of relations of productions screams of hubris. Tell me you believe this and I gladly ask you questions about this believe. Tell me that you think it has to be that way and I can not help but forget the "Ask a" and go into attack mode. It just seems too obviously and inherently faith-based to me. I really don't get it why reasonable people would accept something like this.
It is no different from Newton having to invent calculus to demonstrate that his theory of gravity was valid.
But Marx does not even demonstrate anything with actual predictive power, does he? He just makes theoretic assumptions about human history (while surely useful - I like what I read) I see no reason to take at face value, goes on to assume that all material existence is the history of opposing extremes struggling with each other (where, pardon me, I see even less reason to take it at face value) and based on this philosophy proclaims that the exact opposite of the current mode of production would have to be the result: the lack of property. That to me is everything but exact science. Hell I would not even dare to call it science. As my writing style may reveal, I am having trouble to keep my temper in check here. But it just is soo horrendous! Okay, sorry for my rambling, that is not the finest or productive debating style...
So to get more substantial: Why even pick property as the thing which has to turn in its opposite? That is the lack of property. Because it is the fundamental aspect of capitalism? Why pick that? With the end of slavery the ability to own people did not end. It just turned into serfdom. You see the inconsistency here?
Just because Mr. Popper doesn't think it's proof doesn't mean it isn't.
I think it objectively isn't. It lacks all the requirements of proof. To be falsifiable being the most fundamentally one. Just like a faith in God is not accepted as prove, no matter how hard you try to rationalize it. Because it is unfalsifiable. A parallel which I think motivated Propper to call historical materialism religion-like. You may want to point out that many theories are unfalsifiable (and in deed did), bu those theories also don't prove jack. They can help to increase understanding (a lot of sociology seems to be about that) and I think historical materialism does provide such understanding, but they always can also lead you astray. Especially if you decide to accept them as dogma. Like religion.
