Ask a Red III

[Takhisis]

Skyrim is actually a pretty good potted example of how bourgeois ideology- it's meant to be a pre-modern feudal/tribal/whatever sort of set up, but everyone's a commodity-producer (everyone's basically a capitalist, petty bourgeois or wage-labourer), the major political movement are liberal nationalists, and even the jarls are more like overly-powerful mayors than medieval potentates. It's basically early 19th century England in a bearskin and spikes- because, of course, that's simply how things have always been, forever, and always will.

It's a good potted example of how bourgeois ideology… what?

 

[Traitorfish]

"Works", I think. Possibly "is applied to history"? Not sure.

 

[ace99]

So are the Thieves Guild and the Dark Brotherhood lumpenproletriat or something else? Falmer are the third world?

 

[Hygro]

Traitorfish that comment reminds me of an argument I had with gogf over the rules for a fiftychat civ4 game. He wanted this always war, no alliances, 2 city loss limit per player, and some other rules. Most of us wanted rules that could account for discussion and shifting-but-real alliances and emotional arbitrary-ness.

His argument, among others, was that it was more historically accurate, that everyone acted in a rational, numerical, cost benefit, competitive way in ye olden dayes, to keep their empires alive and thriving. I find it interesting how people apply what is a recent, fairly radical historical concept (post Machiavelli/capitalism) to how all political organizations in history ever acted, or even how people were capable of thinking without strenuous, uncomfortable, counter-intuitive effort.

 

[ParkCungHee]

His argument, among others, was that it was more historically accurate, that everyone acted in a rational, numerical, cost benefit, competitive way in ye olden dayes, to keep their empires alive and thriving.

Did this apply even when they were drunk?

 

[Hygro]

Did this apply even when they were drunk?

It also applied to the Shaker Conquest of Argentina, lead by Consul Julius Shaker.

 

[Takhisis]

Even so, today most people don't act in a rational, numerical, cost benefit, competitive way, you know.

 

[Hygro]

I think our politics pretty well proves that

 

[Mouthwash]

No such text exists. Everything and everyone has bias. This is not a bad thing.

Obviously.

 

[Takhisis]

I think our politics pretty well proves that

I had exactly that in mind. Humans behave in a disturbingly lemming-like way.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm not well read on Marx, but since it seems to me that the answers to Luiz's questions are rather obvious I'm posting a few observations:

It wasn't rhetorical at all. I am genuinely curious on how to reconcile a moral/ethical criticism of capitalism with the also Marxist notion that the capitalist must act exactly like he does to bring about the development of humanity.

That the marxist critiques of capitalism resound with the ethical feelings of many different people of all classes was not an argument in itself. That it is aligned with the instinctive feelings of the majority of the population just about everywhere (when they actually wait to think on the issues) is only natural for the majority are "exploited" by a minority everywhere - that is in the nature of the process of concentration of economic power. And grossly speaking the greater the inequalities and the smaller the upper class, the greater the moral revulsion.

The communist motto was always "workers of the world, unite". It is about class, communists are not expecting the capitalist class to voluntarily abdicate their position because of their own moral feelings! Some people who are either born into the upper classes, or somehow made it there, at some point decide not to dedicate the rest of their lives to the accumulation (or mere enjoyment) of wealth and also align, morally, with some of the the critiques against capitalism. But it is not expected that they will ever extinguish themselves as a class, because even if some give up on capitalism others will take their place so long as the institutions to enable them to do it remain (and that is the materialist thing).

But Marx does clearly try to highlight and criticize the supposed injustices of Capitalism. It reads an awful lot like a moral critique of Capitalism, though as you correctly said that is not possible within his own ontology (that's why I said I find it contradictory). Also, how can Capitalism be an obstacle towards human self-fulfillment if, again according to Marx, it's a necessary step towards it?

But Marx wasn't preaching to capitalists! He was pointing out to the exploited classes how they were exploited, and why they should be outraged.
If there is a contradiction, it exists on the minds of those who seek to maintain capitalism as an economic system even though they themselves feel that they recognize in Marx's critique of capitalism some valid moral reasons!
Luiz, perhaps it is you who should reevaluate your position, which seems to have always been against any kind of socialism? After all, are you a capitalist or a worker?

Let me pose a similar question to the first one, perhaps one that can be more easily answered: why, according to Marxist thought, should one side with the proletariat (assuming one is not a proletarian himself)? Why is the proletarian' claim to power, again according to Marxist thought, any better than that of the capitalist, aristocrat or whoever?

Because one is a proletarian? Face it, in any given capitalist system, any one, the majority of the people are, basically, proletarians. They may play some role of owners, they may even own stock of publicly traded corporations of some share in a small business. But most of the profits accrue to a minority, always. The rest must live under the economic terms dictated by a minority of the very wealthy. Even the owners of small businesses are at their mercy: for every one that makes it big, how many fail or remain on a level only sufficient to get by?

So the answer is: people should side with their own best interest. And the best interests of the vast majority of the people is not aligned with the wealthy minority that controls their lives. Sadly they keep letting themselves be distracted from that rather obvious fact of life; what endures is the sense of moral outrage, but not necessarily productive action on it...

Is it wrong, under Marxist theory, to criticize a given capitalist for ruthlessly exploiting his workers? After all, isn't he playing his part in the stage of history just as validly as the workers themselves? Isn't he doing exactly what he is supposed to do to bring about the next stage of development?

Or in another way, still: is Marx saying "this is how it is" or is he saying "this is how it's supposed to be"?

To me it seems he is mixing up both, hence the question.

They are one and the same thing, there is no contradiction. Capitalism is as it is supposed to be. If it were something else it wouldn't be capitalism, would it? Marx was not criticizing the capitalists as individuals, Marx was criticizing the system of capitalism and the roles it creates. That a capitalist system has capitalists doing their unsavory stuff is a tautology. Focus on bringing one done, another one will step into the void. That's why the goal of communism was always to change the whole system. Fighting against individual capitalists, as in unions vs. bosses, is tactics. It can be part of the "class war" but it can't win it. As it should be painfully clear when concessions won by unions in the past are rolled back.

 

[dragonprobably]

I know some Communists who say China is not a real communist country because it was villagers revolting, not factory worker as described in The Communist Manifesto. Would you agree that China is not a real communist country.

 

[luiz]

That the marxist critiques of capitalism resound with the ethical feelings of many different people of all classes was not an argument in itself. That it is aligned with the instinctive feelings of the majority of the population just about everywhere (when they actually wait to think on the issues) is only natural for the majority are "exploited" by a minority everywhere - that is in the nature of the process of concentration of economic power. And grossly speaking the greater the inequalities and the smaller the upper class, the greater the moral revulsion.

The communist motto was always "workers of the world, unite". It is about class, communists are not expecting the capitalist class to voluntarily abdicate their position because of their own moral feelings! Some people who are either born into the upper classes, or somehow made it there, at some point decide not to dedicate the rest of their lives to the accumulation (or mere enjoyment) of wealth and also align, morally, with some of the the critiques against capitalism. But it is not expected that they will ever extinguish themselves as a class, because even if some give up on capitalism others will take their place so long as the institutions to enable them to do it remain (and that is the materialist thing).

But Marx wasn't preaching to capitalists! He was pointing out to the exploited classes how they were exploited, and why they should be outraged.
If there is a contradiction, it exists on the minds of those who seek to maintain capitalism as an economic system even though they themselves feel that they recognize in Marx's critique of capitalism some valid moral reasons!
Luiz, perhaps it is you who should reevaluate your position, which seems to have always been against any kind of socialism? After all, are you a capitalist or a worker?

Because one is a proletarian? Face it, in any given capitalist system, any one, the majority of the people are, basically, proletarians. They may play some role of owners, they may even own stock of publicly traded corporations of some share in a small business. But most of the profits accrue to a minority, always. The rest must live under the economic terms dictated by a minority of the very wealthy. Even the owners of small businesses are at their mercy: for every one that makes it big, how many fail or remain on a level only sufficient to get by?

So the answer is: people should side with their own best interest. And the best interests of the vast majority of the people is not aligned with the wealthy minority that controls their lives. Sadly they keep letting themselves be distracted from that rather obvious fact of life; what endures is the sense of moral outrage, but not necessarily productive action on it...

They are one and the same thing, there is no contradiction. Capitalism is as it is supposed to be. If it were something else it wouldn't be capitalism, would it? Marx was not criticizing the capitalists as individuals, Marx was criticizing the system of capitalism and the roles it creates. That a capitalist system has capitalists doing their unsavory stuff is a tautology. Focus on bringing one done, another one will step into the void. That's why the goal of communism was always to change the whole system. Fighting against individual capitalists, as in unions vs. bosses, is tactics. It can be part of the "class war" but it can't win it. As it should be painfully clear when concessions won by unions in the past are rolled back.

I think you misunderstood my question a little bit.

Your answer is clearly aligned with the "moral critique of capitalism" I talked about. That is to say, what the capitalists are doing is "unsavory" and "morally wrong". This feeling of outrage is present in most of Marx's work, Capital included, and is certainly a big part of the reason for its enduring influence.

Nevertheless, this sort of critique is impossible under Marx's own premises. Marx's view is that each class, in each period, has a certain role to play. That the objective material conditions of each period, the state of class struggle, etc., will determine the ethics of each class (in each period). So what the capitalist does cannot be morally reprehensible, because he is playing his part; he is doing what he has to do to further the advancement of mankind. So what the capitalist does is not any worse or better, morally or otherwise, than what the worker does. They're both playing their parts, and for the working class to seize power, power must have necessarily belonged to the capitalist class before. Industrial development must necessarily reach a certain stage; class struggle must necessarily reach a certain stage. Remember, the role of the revolutionary is merely to "ease the birth pangs of the next stage".

Which is why I asked about how to reconcile those two positions, which seem contradictory to me. On the one hand, Marx makes a strong moral critique of capitalism. On the other, he embraces a "historicist morality" that cannot morally condemn capitalism (or any other system; they're all stages).

Even though I disagree with both*, I find the moral critique of capitalism much more logic. If we are to get rid of the present system, it should be because it is flawed and unjust, not because some pseudo-scientific "Immutable Laws of History" mubo-jumbo say it's the unavoidable next step. And of course, the "historicist morality" can justify all sorts of brutality and barbarism, on all sides of the struggle.

*I could expose in great length all the stuff I find wrong in Marx, but that hardly belongs to "Ask a Red".

 

[aelf]

Which is why I asked about how to reconcile those two positions, which seem contradictory to me. On the one hand, Marx makes a strong moral critique of capitalism. On the other, he embraces a "historicist morality" that cannot morally condemn capitalism (or any other system; they're all stages).

Even though I disagree with both*, I find the moral critique of capitalism much more logic. If we are to get rid of the present system, it should be because it is flawed and unjust, not because some pseudo-scientific "Immutable Laws of History" mubo-jumbo say it's the unavoidable next step. And of course, the "historicist morality" can justify all sorts of brutality and barbarism, on all sides of the struggle.

*I could expose in great length all the stuff I find wrong in Marx, but that hardly belongs to "Ask a Red".

One thing a lot of people don't seem to realise is that there isn't one single Marx. The mature 'scientific' Marx is not the same as the young humanist Marx, is not the same as the late Aristotelian Marx.

Of course, dialectically speaking, the older Marx retains elements of his younger selves with some difference. But if you're going to capture Marx from a purely 'scientific' angle and juxtapose it with the humanist Marx in order to critique a monolithic Marxist theory, then you'd run into the problem of anachronism.

 

[Traitorfish]

There's also the question of the extent to which Marx's work is divided chronologically, and the extent to which it is divided methodologically. Althusser argues for the divergences between Grundrisse and Capital as an "epistemological break", while Dunayevskaya agues that the difference is between the wide-ranging investigation of the former, and the relatively narrow critical project of the latter. It's not always the case of two extracts of Marx representing a change in opinion, but that one or perhaps both of them do not represent the fullness of his views. There's a very strong phenomenological vein to Marx's work which is completely missed if you attempt, as Luiz seems to be doing, to read it as a series of flatly positivist truth-claims.

I know some Communists who say China is not a real communist country because it was villagers revolting, not factory worker as described in The Communist Manifesto. Would you agree that China is not a real communist country.

I'd agreed that it isn't communist (or socialist, or "people's democracy", or whatever term they're throwing around these days), but I don't think you have to point to inconsistency with The Communist Manifesto to make that claim. (Reality comes first, analytical categories second; Marx can be wrong as much as anyone else.) It's simply that it is clearly and obviously capitalist: a society organised on a basis of wage-labour and capitalist accumulation.

 

[Hygro]

I like parts of Aristotelian Marx a lot. He conforms to my preconceived notions.

 

[dragonprobably]

I'd agreed that it isn't communist (or socialist, or "people's democracy", or whatever term they're throwing around these days), but I don't think you have to point to inconsistency with The Communist Manifesto to make that claim. (Reality comes first, analytical categories second; Marx can be wrong as much as anyone else.) It's simply that it is clearly and obviously capitalist: a society organised on a basis of wage-labour and capitalist accumulation.

How about China under Mao Zedong's rule?

 

[Traitorfish]

Same deal, just more flag-waving.

 

[Takhisis]

Which is really covered every time people here ask whether there's ever been a true Communist state/coutnry/land and it's always answered in the negative…

 

[innonimatu]

Your answer is clearly aligned with the "moral critique of capitalism" I talked about. That is to say, what the capitalists are doing is "unsavory" and "morally wrong". This feeling of outrage is present in most of Marx's work, Capital included, and is certainly a big part of the reason for its enduring influence.

The feeling of outrage is present on the readers of Capital. Or at least on many of those. The book is an analysis of the thing. The judgement is done by the reader. If you talk about the Communist Manifesto or his other writings, then you can speak of judgement and even moral outrage in the works themselves.

Nevertheless, this sort of critique is impossible under Marx's own premises. Marx's view is that each class, in each period, has a certain role to play. That the objective material conditions of each period, the state of class struggle, etc., will determine the ethics of each class (in each period). So what the capitalist does cannot be morally reprehensible, because he is playing his part; he is doing what he has to do to further the advancement of mankind. So what the capitalist does is not any worse or better, morally or otherwise, than what the worker does.

As I said I'm not that well read on Marx, so let me quote Engels instead on the subject and matter of political economy. HE should know what Marx's idea was.

From a scientific standpoint, this appeal to morality and justice does not help us an inch further; moral indignation, however justifiable, cannot serve economic science as an argument, but only as a symptom. The task of economic science is rather to show that the social abuses which have recently been developing are necessary consequences of the existing mode of production, but at the same time also indications of its approaching dissolution,-and to reveal within the already dissolving economic form of motion, the elements of the future new organisation of production and exchange which will put an end to those abuses.

They're both playing their parts, and for the working class to seize power, power must have necessarily belonged to the capitalist class before. Industrial development must necessarily reach a certain stage; class struggle must necessarily reach a certain stage. Remember, the role of the revolutionary is merely to "ease the birth pangs of the next stage".

Backtracking a little, from the same work:

So long as a mode of production still describes an ascending curve of development, it is enthusiastically welcomed even by those who come off worst from its corresponding mode of distribution. This was the case with the English workers in the beginnings of modern industry. And even while this mode of production remains normal for society, there is, in general, contentment with the distribution, and if objections to it begin to be raised, these come from within the ruling class itself (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen) and find no response whatever among the exploited masses. Only when the mode of production in question has already described a good part of its descending curve, when it has half outlived its day, when the conditions of its existence have to a large extent disappeared, and its successor is already knocking at the door -- it is only at this stage that the constantly increasing inequality of distribution appears as unjust, it is only then that appeal is made from the facts which have had their day to so-called eternal justice.

Even though I disagree with both*, I find the moral critique of capitalism much more logic. If we are to get rid of the present system, it should be because it is flawed and unjust, not because some pseudo-scientific "Immutable Laws of History" mubo-jumbo say it's the unavoidable next step. And of course, the "historicist morality" can justify all sorts of brutality and barbarism, on all sides of the struggle.

Mark was trying to further science, not morals. A social science to be sure, unlike our contemporary economists he always stressed that the economic rules were political rules, creations of men and of the conditions of each society, while our current crop usually subscribes to abstract and allegedly immutable "market rules", "behavioral rules", "rational choices" and whatever. Ironic, because marxist economists get derided as "materialistic" but current economics is much, much more materialistic in the sense of pretending to be something like a physical science. No longer political economy buy economics, like physics, or mathematics. Even the choice of the modern term (was it Marshall who coined it? Or someone else? I'll have to research) was part of that programme.

And as for Marx's efforts, Engels even stated that they were only one more piece being contributed to a discipline still in construction:

Political economy, however, as the science of the conditions and forms under which the various human societies have produced and exchanged and on this basis have distributed their products -- political economy in this wider sense has still to be brought into being. Such economic science as we possess up to the present is limited almost exclusively to the genesis and development of the capitalist mode of production: it begins with a critique of the survivals of the feudal forms of production and exchange, shows the necessity of their replacement by capitalist forms, then develops the laws of the capitalist mode of production and its corresponding forms of exchange in their positive aspects, that is the aspects in which they further the general aims of society, and ends with a socialist critique of the capitalist mode of production, that is, with an exposition of its laws in their negative aspects, with a demonstration that this mode of production, by virtue of its own development, drives towards the point at which it makes itself impossible.

The main effort of Marx in his economic writings was to show that capitalism was not an "end of history". The main criticism leveled at him was that he only vaguely described the next state, that was to be communism in his view.
While the main effort of the following generation of economists and their "neoclassical" revolution was that economics had indeed brought about the "end of history", was capable of prescribing a perfect (most effective?) form for social relations.

*I could expose in great length all the stuff I find wrong in Marx, but that hardly belongs to "Ask a Red".

You can always start another thread. For my part I believe I'm going to post some things on the history forum about late 19th century economic thought. Might tackle Marx finally. Comments will be free.