madviking
north american scum
Does Marx preclude non-consequentialist positions? Or is Marxism just less compatible with deontology and/or virtue ethics?
Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
aelf
Ashen One
Less compatible, perhaps. Especially the revolutionary strain.
It depends on your perspective, though. At the end state, a communist society might even require some form of metaethics resembling virtue ethics to give a purpose to human relations other than the purely financial. After all, in a communist society, people have to be motivated by something other than simply money, and an appropriate methaethical framework would be invaluable for that.
However, in present society, I'd imagine that someone who adheres closely to virtue ethics and deontological ethics would be hard-pressed to call for revolution, unless the conditions are that horrible.
It depends on your perspective, though. At the end state, a communist society might even require some form of metaethics resembling virtue ethics to give a purpose to human relations other than the purely financial. After all, in a communist society, people have to be motivated by something other than simply money, and an appropriate methaethical framework would be invaluable for that.
However, in present society, I'd imagine that someone who adheres closely to virtue ethics and deontological ethics would be hard-pressed to call for revolution, unless the conditions are that horrible.
madviking
north american scum
Makes sense, thanks for the answers
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Let everyone give everyone points, made up on the fly, that are normalized against everyone else's points fiat, and have a public scoreboard.
It's not money I swear.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Maybe RT can answer this better than I, but Deng justified the initial reforms as "the need to develop productive forces." It was essentially a NEP-like project: they will sell us the rope with which they will themselves be hanged. AFAIK the CCP still operates on this philosophy, although I question whether or not the capitalist sector has gotten too far out of hand and if the tail now wags the dog, or will soon.
On the other hand, it was extremely smart of the Chinese to allow the capitalist sector to exist out in the open. In the USSR, the Second Economy was ignored for decades, and the bourgeoisie formed by it burst onto the scene in the late 1980s and the state was unprepared to deal with it. In China, everyone knows it's there, and the state has kept it and its bourgeoisie under their watchful eye.
In general, the stereotype of "long-term-thinking-Chinese" holds rather true. The CCP is playing the long game here, and that means tolerating some capitalism for now, in order to drop off the radar of the capitalist powers during this time of global weakness in the socialist movement. And tolerating capitalism means giving them more freedom than any communist is comfortable with. But it's also worth noting that the recent American business rhetoric is one that is frustrated with Chinese regulations, and having had more success at combating regulations back in the US, is now seeking to reverse the outsourcing dynamic and bring jobs back to the United States from China.
I'm not convinced Marxism has a teleology. There's no "purpose" posited by dialectical materialism, it's simply an observation of the dynamo that drives social change, and posits the logical end to that dynamo will be when there are only two classes, and the one absorbs the other into itself. Because class struggle is driven by inequalities of power, it therefore follows that when class struggle diminishes so does inequalities of power; if the one disappears, then so must the other.
The teleological "feel" to Marxism is imbued by people making a moral case for socialism and communism, I think, which is separate from Marx's explanation of why communism is inevitable. But to claim that "human society exists so that it can become communist" is false.
Surely systems like 'labour notes' - where you get one note for one hour of work - aren't quite the same as money, because there's no negotiation of prices: if you want something that takes an hour to do, you pay one note, and that's the end of it.
I'd rather compare those points to the forum member status, posts count, length of service shown by the "Join date" we all have here, and may be reputation points we don't have here but may have on other sites.
Practically, there isn't much to do with all that stuff but to be smug (or indifferent) about it. Everyone still gets the same level of service.
So it's not money.
aelf
Ashen One
You won't find me arguing against the idea of currency. But those public points hopefully don't beget more points by virtue of being a sizeable amount.
I've seen a convincing case made that the later Marx had a teleology. He seemed to have moved away from the scientific approach at some point.
_random_
Jewel Runner
So people have been pretty keen to label Donald Trump a fascist. Does that seem apt to you? (I recognize this is more of a question for "Ask someone familiar with radical political thought who's likely studied critique of fascism more in depth than you have" but I think that thread got deleted.)
Speaking of American politicians accused of fascism, do you have an opinion of Huey Long? Was he actually a pretty cool guy by the standards of capitalist politicians? Because it seems that way to me, but lots of folks disagreed.
Speaking of American politicians accused of fascism, do you have an opinion of Huey Long? Was he actually a pretty cool guy by the standards of capitalist politicians? Because it seems that way to me, but lots of folks disagreed.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I'm very hesitant to use the word fascist in general. Trump doesn't present much that's new to the American scene: nativism and xenophobia, with an appeal to working-class anger. Fascism is a bit more than that.
However, I do think that Trump is creating breathing room for fascists by voicing ideas idea that empower them. But Trump would have to be more directly militant and more anti-establishment to himself be a fascist, I think. He's not attacked liberalism or any traditionally blameworthy sections of capitalism like bankers, yet.
However, I do think that Trump is creating breathing room for fascists by voicing ideas idea that empower them. But Trump would have to be more directly militant and more anti-establishment to himself be a fascist, I think. He's not attacked liberalism or any traditionally blameworthy sections of capitalism like bankers, yet.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Does it factor that the posters who lived in communist Europe are almost united in their preference for liberal democracy, and if so, how?
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
I notice I have been "rehabilitated" here, and if the time and energy allowed me I would like to comment on quite a few things. Perhaps I will next week.
But I would like to address this:
But I would like to address this:
No it does. Perhaps if you could provide more concrete information about how many people this is, and their background and current socio-economic status. I am quite sure that the people I know from said countries are more representative. So in short, I am equally impressed - or not - with their preference for liberal "democracy" as I am with your own.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
What should make the people you know more representative?
If I may comment on this as well, there is a bunch of textbook classic errors (misconceptions) in the question itself.
First, there was no communist Europe. Ever. So no poster could live there. There was socialist Europe, which barely had its half of a century for development and started that from having been steamrolled by WWII. Twice: there and back. Chances of achieving an impressive success were minuscule even if there were no errors made. But there were. So, no surprise many people were not quite happy. But writing communism off as a bad idea on that basis is similar to writing aviation off as conceptually unworthy on the reason that Lilienthal broke his neck.
Second, communism (as I understand it) is not opposed to democracy at all. Neither it is opposed to liberalism.
There is a simple way to deliberately work with terminology when you take a foreign word and transliterate it to then assign any meaning you like to it instead of translating it for everybody to understand what it really means. Specifically, if you want to oppose democracy to communist ideology, you just take the Russian word совет and transliterate it into soviet (which sounds weird and creepy, and everybody learns that it is something bad though nobody knows what exactly) instead of translating it as parliament, which is what it really means and which is a valid tool of representative democracy.
As for the liberties, "Liberty is a realized necessity", IIRC. Currently, I take the liberty to work, or else I am entitled to the liberty to starve. Social programs (which Socialism consists of, hence the name) somewhat take care of that by providing the unemployed with some crutches and prop-ups like benefits and minimal pay-offs, homeless shelters and some other basic free stuff. Communism takes care of that completely: you have the liberties you want (as long as you don't reduce anyone else's liberties in the process) and can as well choose to use them to donate your time and effort (and product) to those who choose otherwise (which means they do something else, not necessarily useless).
Finally, I think it does factor. The bits of Socialism being adopted in the UK and Scandinavian countries are being adopted carefully, more thoughtfully, quietly (nobody declares there they head to communism full throttle or anything) and they give it time to settle before moving on to adopt the next bit. It is a somewhat different approach to what was seen in the post-WWII Socialist Europe. And it works better, which is good.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Pretty simple, really.
The people who left were the ones whose politics already rejected the idea of communism, thus why they "fled."
Things got worse in every single country in Eastern Europe after communism was overthrown, so many more people fled. It's quite telling of one's politics if they blame the failures of shock therapy on the socialism that came before it.
And finally, most of the people on this forum (there are really only a handful) who were alive during that period and tell all their terrible tales are remembering a childhood when market reforms and debt-induced austerity were wrecking havoc on the socialist system. None of us pretend that Perestroika was a pleasant time or that the revisionism that led to that situation in the late 1980s was a smart choice.
It is, on a fundamental level.
The so-called "socialism" in the UK and Scandinavia are in full-fledged retreat since the 1970s, if you hadn't noticed.
It doesn't work, which is why it's being defeated. You cannot reform capitalism into socialism. It must be smashed.
Then, perhaps, we differ in understanding either communism or democracy and/or liberalism (I can be totally wrong about the latter, I admit, and I also don't have a degree in the former, too).
Would you care to clarify, please? (or maybe link to somewhere to read on it.)
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I don't understand why the recession of progressivism is evidence for it not being viable with the recession of dictatorships of the proletariat is evidence it hasn't been tried enough.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Socialism in Europe is in retreat because people on the whole think the USSR was indicative of what it stood for and how it would end up.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
"For Marx" by Althusser explains it rather well. Marxism is anti-humanist. Humanism is a liberal ideology. Ergo, Marxism is anti-liberal.
Or in more concrete terms, liberalism posits the existence of metaphysical rights, existent throughout time, and an immutable human nature to go along with it. Materialists understand that both of these things are products of the society in which they exist.
If socialism was capable of being forcefully overthrown, what makes you think an undefended attempt at socialism would fare any better? With the same ostensible goal, they will [and do] face the same resistance. But they don't have the guns to defend themselves or to force the bourgeoisie to yield power. They are doomed to fail because the ruling class will never give up its power without a hell of a fight.
And all this time, I thought that people were fleeing from socialist parties due to the efforts Actually Existing Socialism has gone to to defend itself!
Interesting phenomenon: when the Soviets defend themselves, they are blamed for the disillusionment of socialists the world over. When they fail to defend themselves adequately, they are again blamed for the disillusionment socialists the world over have suffered. And this is the cause of socialism's defeat! People are just tired of it!
It's almost like this metric was created with the intention of communists failing it...
Also, on the topic of "socialism being rejected:"
*********
brennan
Argumentative Brit
When the Soviets acts like totalitarians, people notice. When their economy fails, people notice. Defections, Gulags, food queues, invasions, proxy wars... you know, stuff people don't like is associated in many peoples' minds with the USSR and thus with socialism. That isn't to say it's all true or the full picture, but it's what a lot of people believe. A majority of people in the West believe that the USSR collapsed because it was inherently inferior to the capitalist USA and that it deserved to collapse and that the same thing will happen to any other country that dabbles in socialism.
Funny... I read that question as asking about replacing the USSR with a Federation of Independant States...
Funny... I read that question as asking about replacing the USSR with a Federation of Independant States...
