Ok guys, do you think some system that fits Marx's ideal society is ultimately achievable, or not? You want straight questions, so answer this straight: will the world inevitably, fatalistically become a Marxist paradise one day? Yes or No?
If that society is inevitable, you will have to have
some kind of practical system, for example your worker's assemblies and committees. Claiming your theory is purely theoretical does not negate the need for a practical system. But the very possibility of such a practical system without class struggle is what I'm talking about here. "There is more than one way to change the world" is not an argument for the plausibility of a classless society. In itself it simply says change is possible, which of course is - nobody argues otherwise. But could
any change be both communist and practical?
To say "[it] provides a theoretical basis upon which praxis can be developed" is to shove responsibility to those that develop such a praxis. When they get it wrong again, you will be free to criticise them for not offering "true Marxism", exactly like what you did to Lenin. This disconnection between theory and practice is precisely what's wrong with modern versions of communism. By denying practicality, you are arguing that your idea of Marxism can't ever be wrong, no matter how much misery the praxes cause, because it's always someone else's fault for not understanding your theory correctly.
So the third question: is it
theoretically possible that Marxism is wrong? If so when would you know it's wrong?
In comparison, "free market" is wrong plenty of times, e.g. bubbles and crises. Moreover, free market doesn't have to be pure to work. It can mix fairly well with state welfare. Does communism have same kind of flexibility?
Both of you have effectively made two arguments so far: that somehow changes can be achieved "organically", but neglected to argue why "organically" means desired results; and that it doesn't have to involve violence, but again, you stopped at saying "[n]obody is talking in North Korean or even in Soviet Union terms", without explaining why "not talking about it" means "it won't happen". Communists have a notorious record of doing the exact opposite of their words. If history is any guide, your merely saying "it won't happen" is a good predictor that it will. To make people trust you, you need to make the more strenuous effort of
proving more or less rigorously that it really won't happen.
And the fourth question: noting that every single praxis that claimed to be Marxist turned out to be a catastrophe, how do you know whether any specific future praxis can succeed
before it is implemented? Particularly, given the Trotskyist idea that revolution has to happen world-wide simultaneously (which, incidentally, is an revisionism that Marx didn't agree), would you suggest that we should put the livelihood of every single person on this planet in a prodigious gamble?
What I am arguing, on the other hand, is that the "organic" change, right after a revolution and in absence of any restrictions, is the very same one that leads to violence.
According to historical materialism, exploitation evolved when private property came into being, as the
have-nots had to rely on the
haves to produce anything in return for feeding themselves. Marx's solution is to abolish private property, so everyone becomes
haves, removing the possibility of exploitation. But is it really possible for everyone to become
haves? What is the meaning of ownership in this case? Does whatever form of ownership you have preclude the possibility of exploitation? If it doesn't, what is the reason that exploitation won't evolve again, like it did the first time?
My earlier post was an attempt to address this exact problem. Can you have a form of ownership that is meaningfully, rather than rhetorically, egalitarian? Is it possible at all for everyone to have precisely equal say on everything regarding the means of production? If the answer is no, then the fundamental conclusion of Marxism - that abolishing private property equals abolishing exploitation - does not hold, for that in a system where private property is nominally abolished, but a more powerful class still exert
de facto influence over means of production, the source of exploitation is not removed.
The questions regarding, say, the sausage-snatcher, were meant to solicit your understanding of ownership. If "a person" would not end up with "the power", what does? "The society"? But as I argued before, it is a mistake to assume such an
entity exists. Letting "the society" have power means, in practice, give power to a committee of delegates that claims to represent the people. And it's a grievous mistake to assume such a committee "have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."
And let's take a look at your approach at distribution:
P(B): Yes.
P(B)(i): In capitalism, money functions for the worker as what you might call "consumption points", that is, a measured entitlement to consumption. Similarly, some form of measured entitlement could exist under communism, but distinguished by the fact that their attribution is direct, not obtained through commodity exchange, and that their redemption does not constitute a further form of commodity exchange.
P(B)(ii): As in capitalism, this is not an issue. "Free access", although an idea tampered with as a long-term outcome (assuming certain levels of technological and social development), is evidently ineffective in any immediate sense.
So you acknowledge that Marx's notion of material abundance won't work. You then have to deal with the not-so-trivial problem of what to have in place of "according to his need". Does everyone have equal consumption points under your system? If yes, you are disagreeing directly with Marx. If no, how do you allocate these points? Who should have more points than others? The more "needy"? Suppose I'm in charge of handing out points, what stops me from twisting whatever rules you have established, and giving myself more points than others?
I don't consider the obligation to contribute to society in order to benefit from society to be "oppressive". Frankly, only a sociopathic narcissist would hold themselves in such high regard as to consider themselves free from such an obligation.
The question again is who gets to decide what kind of work "contributes to society". Suppose I think I'm contributing to society by fiercely attacking communism, what do you do? Do you allow me food and ink? Or do you conclude that I'm not fulfilling my obligation to the society, and force me to do something else than criticising?
Ok, then going back to the original point, what is it about these forms of governance, as distinct from liberal forms of government, that makes corruption an exceptional problem?
Now you also acknowledge that you need some kind of government in your society? Revisionism!
Your committees do not offer an innate defence against its own corruption. Nobody can live independently of the committees, because they are the effective owner of properties. A liberal economy offers different capitalists with conflicting interests. A welfare government offers another alternative to the capitalists. Each of these compete against each other, to the effect that no power is concentrated enough to become self-accumulating.
As for the question of private property, I don't see why you see the need to try and declare some sort of victory here (as if it matters). I'm just not particularly concerned about the validity of propertarianism per se. I'm more interested in how property ownership is perceived and how much of a determining role it plays in social relations.
In short, I'm not interested in amateurish discussions about which side prevails. It's not a contest. I'm interested in the analysis and critique of actual phenomena.
That was slightly more than a declaration of victory, when you argue "a more organic view ... opens the way for culture to spearhead change". How does your view spearhead change if nobody believes in it? Do you predict some kind of mythical event to magically make people accept your view?
"treacherous defeatism" my arse. There is more than one way to change the world. I've already provided you with a vision of praxis, and although I can't say that everyone here endorses something like that, it's a good example of how so-called revisionists (such as John Holloway) operate. On the other hand, you seem to have a preoccupation with talking about violent methods. Maybe it goes to show just what are the actual obsessions of supposedly peace-loving liberals?
The obsession of classical liberals is exactly to stop such violent methods from happening.
(I guess it would be viable if we started a new thread with the Red Diamond rules in place from the start, if we were willing to abandon this one twenty posts early.)
