I Have A Question About The Dialectic of History According to Marxists

[Birdjaguar]

Do we have any active Marxists here? I know we have some people familiar with Marxist concepts, but the last person I was aware of who regularly posted here and identified as a Marxist - Traitorfish- is on an extended break. Back in the day Cheezy devolved into a particularly nutty Tankie, and schaulfuchs/sophie barely posts here any more.

Back in ye olden days, how would 'capitalism' be seen? "Yes, we want to destroy traditional bonds and relations on land, traditional rights, and collective membership in favor of a theoretical world; but trust us, it will be better". For Bob the Freeholder in early 18th century Britain, 'Capitalism' was a theory for urban weirdos with too much time on their hands.
In your structure, how much time elapsed between 'Capitalism' first starting to be articulated as a theory to it, in your opinion 'working' for everyone?

EDIT: As an aside, it is sort of funny seeing how political sides shift between groups. A reason I got kicked out of the CFC-exile discord was because I kept getting into arguments with Marxists, believing they were too focused on theory. Here, I'm defending them. Strange world.

Capitalism has deep roots that go back centuries well before industrial capitalism took hold in the 18th c. It evolved. English and Dutch trading companies were important to that progression. Modern capitalism could not emerge until all the pieces fell into place: banking, stock companies, manufacturing, trade, labor markets, etc. It took a very long time for all of those to happen and synchronize. Once they did, those mechanics were put to many different uses to create wealth. Some were healthier than others. Capitalism continues to evolve even today as it is shaped by the world around us. Many of its terrible aspects get mediated. Charitable trusts are one offshoot of the mega-rich produced by capitalism.

 

[Ajidica]

Capitalism has deep roots that go back centuries well before industrial capitalism took hold in the 18th c. It evolved. English and Dutch trading companies were important to that progression. Modern capitalism could not emerge until all the pieces fell into place: banking, stock companies, manufacturing, trade, labor markets, etc. It took a very long time for all of those to happen and synchronize. Once they did, those mechanics were put to many different uses to create wealth. Some were healthier than others. Capitalism continues to evolve even today as it is shaped by the world around us. Many of its terrible aspects get mediated. Charitable trusts are one offshoot of the mega-rich produced by capitalism.

And Communism doesn't have deep roots that go back centuries? If you asked Ranjit the Indian peasant what he thought of the British and Dutch East India companies, he would see no reason to put any faith in 'Capitalism' over traditional "feudal" relationships, seeing 'Capitalism' only as rapacious looting by angry men with guns.

 

[Zardnaar]

And Communism doesn't have deep roots that go back centuries? If you asked Ranjit the Indian peasant what he thought of the British and Dutch East India companies, he would see no reason to put any faith in 'Capitalism' over traditional "feudal" relationships, seeing 'Capitalism' only as rapacious looting by angry men with guns.

Not really Communism was articulated in the 19th century mostly as a result of the conditions of the IR when Marx came up with it.

Capitalism adapted mostly obsoleting the need for Communism but it's gone to far the other way now heading back towards the late 19th century.

Capitalism can adapt, communism can't.

 

[Ajidica]

Not really Communism was articulated in the 19th century mostly as a result of the conditions of the IR when Marx came up with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers
https://www.amazon.com/World-Turned-Upside-Down-Revolution/dp/0140137327

 

[Angst]

Are you saying that there was no underbelly of poverty and unrest prior to some point in time when capitalism became dominant? When do you see the approximate start of capitalism? 17th c? earlier? later? Did it originate in Northwestern Europe?

There definitely was unrest, but the nature of it fundamentally changed with increased urbanization, interconnectedness and mechanization, particularly concentration of poverty in factory worker populations. You can't really organize as well spread thin over farms. And something happens to the poor when your society sees incredible growth where you reap barely any of the benefits. Before then, rebellions were usually food riots. It was very rare that underclass rebellion was about anything but bread. Starvation later fed into worker movements of course, but when starvation didn't happen, worker movements were much more of a presence then.

Capitalism focused poverty densely during the 19th century to a degree historically unseen, and it was absolutely boiling when the 20th kicked in. This is part of the condition that Marx described as having risen after mass employment in factories. Money was not redistributed to these people out of goodwill. It was somewhere between a forced hand by densely populated, and therefore organized, workers, and states' appeasements of the same. Of course, appeasement existed before, otherwise food riots. But because there was appeasement in both systems doesn't mean they were the same, neither does it mean the conditions of the societies were the same. Remember that the Russian Revolution was largely lead by industrial centres, even if the country was largely rural and lacked industry.

Start of capitalism I like Zaardnar's post #40 with the caveat that I believed stocks foundationally started in the Netherlands. Zaardnar didn't note whether stocks originated in England or elsewhere. His later "Capitalism can adapt, communism can't" note is nonsense (so to Zardnaar, both thanks and sorry). Communism has adapted plentifully.

Again, not a Marxist, not even a communist. I'm not even a dialectic materialist, and believed there was made a lot of errors. I've just acquainted myself with worker propaganda of the early 20th century, and it's not "we're hungry".

Also, my notes don't hold outside Europe. I'm only talking European conditions. In East Asia, it was indeed about bread.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I do not dispute that Marx documented 19th C industrialization well, but as a solution to the world's humanitarian issues, it has failed at scale and does not provide any path forward to get where it says the world needs to go. It has an appeal to many and does offer serious social pressure for change. That is its strongest suit.

 

[Angst]

I do not dispute that Marx documented 19th C industrialization well, but as a solution to the world's humanitarian issues, it has failed at scale and does not provide any path forward to get where it says the world needs to go. It has an appeal to many and does offer serious social pressure for change. That is its strongest suit.

Yea I'm not trying to argue for Marxism here, at least not as Marx envisioned, neither am I arguing for communism. Just noting that it foresaw some very real issues with capitalism and was very much partly subsumed by it through activist pressure and organization of the poor. It describes certain problems very well, and there's stuff to learn from it literally if you want to save capitalism. As was done in the 20th century.

Sidenote. Today I'm not particularly sure of what solutions should be done exactly, but there's still rust in the machine and capitalism as currently going is heading towards a climate hellscape. My country will be completely destroyed by rising sea levels according to the most recent prognosis I was presented. So it's a system, at least for Denmark, quite literally destroying its own possibility of existence. Like, there is no underwater economy. I'm not sure Marx is useful here. He never really considered climate. But some of the dialectics hold true, and the primary drive of capitalism, capital, has demonstratedly not been useful for solving its own destruction. Marx's approach to money was as I noted quite complicated and I've basically forgotten most of it, but he did want any sort of resource distribution happening according to practical need devoid of profit incentive. Again, complicated, theoretical, and not a solution, but the youth today are, as in the 20th century, desperately looking elsewhere to find political functions that can deal with things that profit incentive can't. Don't be too hard on people that are desperate when they expect devastation and probable death.

And until then, if the poor are angry, pay them. Dialectics.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yea I'm not trying to argue for Marxism here, at least not as Marx envisioned, neither am I arguing for communism. Just noting that it foresaw some very real issues with capitalism and was very much partly subsumed by it through activist pressure and organization of the poor. It describes certain problems very well, and there's stuff to learn from it literally if you want to save capitalism. As was done in the 20th century.

Sidenote. Today I'm not particularly sure of what solutions should be done exactly, but there's still rust in the machine and capitalism as currently going is heading towards a climate hellscape. My country will be completely destroyed by rising sea levels according to the most recent prognosis I was presented. So it's a system, at least for Denmark, quite literally destroying its own possibility of existence. Like, there is no underwater economy. I'm not sure Marx is useful here. He never really considered climate. But some of the dialectics hold true, and the primary drive of capitalism, capital, has demonstratedly not been useful for solving its own destruction. Marx's approach to money was as I noted quite complicated and I've basically forgotten most of it, but he did want any sort of resource distribution happening according to practical need devoid of profit incentive. Again, complicated, theoretical, and not a solution, but the youth today are, as in the 20th century, desperately looking elsewhere to find political functions that can deal with things that profit incentive can't. Don't be too hard on people that are desperate when they expect devastation and probable death.

And until then, if the poor are angry, pay them. Dialectics.

Capitalism has a huge incentive to tackle rising seas and global warming. Maybe not so much big industry, but there will be money to made to solve the now looming crisis. Governments want solutions to save themselves. Until recently "everyone" thought that we had had much more time and change could be ignored for now. That attitude is changing quickly. The innovation efforts that drive capitalism are working overtime. We will see if it is enough. I will likely miss most of the drama and misery but our kids will see it front and center. China will be interesting to watch. They have the authoritarian system and economic wherewithal make change quickly.

 

[Samson]

Capitalism has a huge incentive to tackle rising seas and global warming.

I am not sure I get this statement. Capitalism is primarily posited on the concordance of individual self interest and societal interest, the greed is good philosophy. This incentive is totally not what we need to tackle climate change, as the harm is so widely distributed that any individual profit that can be made by green house gas (GHG) release is likely to vastly outweigh the harm that one will individually suffer from that release. Also the fact that personal wealth can easily protect you from the consequences of climate change means that it really is in the individuals interest to profit from GHG release.

While it is clearly societies incentive to deal with climate change, I do not see that it is in the interest of capitalism (whatever that is) or individual capitalists. The people who in whose interest it really is to tackle the problem are those with least power, the poor of the world in particular the global south. It is probably in everyone interest to ensure they have a means to do this other that large scale violence, but we are not doing much of that.

 

[red_elk]

Things like fundamental science, space exploration, ecology iniciatives, etc. require collective effort and don't bring immediate profit.
Capitalism and free market don't work in these areas by default, they require state regulations.

 

[Sofista]

Things like fundamental science, space exploration, ecology iniciatives, etc. require collective effort and don't bring immediate profit.

You would say that Bezos, Branson and Musk are just having a private pissing contest then?

 

[Samson]

You would say that Bezos, Branson and Musk are just having a private pissing contest then?

Have any of them done any exploration?

 

[El_Machinae]

You would say that Bezos, Branson and Musk are just having a private pissing contest then?

They have the wealth of entire countries. "Capitalism" might under-invest is public goods, but private individuals will do do stuff.
When I look at my portfolio, I have no incentive (under capitalism) to arrange it to help fight climate change. I can make more money by just playing within the current system and hoping to grow my wealth faster than the damage will accrue. But, because I am a private individual, I also do stuff on my own dime that helps with climate change (you're welcome, by the way).

As long as the people with capital think we can grow our wealth faster than damages build up, we have no incentive to help. We even have incentive to hinder progress. If AGW damages are going to compound at 3%, but my oil shares grow at 4%, then I prefer the status quo if I have enough of them.

 

[red_elk]

You would say that Bezos, Branson and Musk are just having a private pissing contest then?

Partially PR and self-advertising, partially their own personal motivations which are not profit-driven.
Capitalist society doesn't endorse unprofitable projects, but people can still do it for their own reasons. For example, charity.

 

[Sofista]

For now they're just following the footsteps of those who came before. Next step is the moon, after that, who knows? As Elk suggested, science in the form of telescopes and satellites is still done on a public plane.

 

[Sofista]

They have the wealth of entire countries. "Capitalism" might under-invest is public goods, but private individuals will do do stuff.
When I look at my portfolio, I have no incentive (under capitalism) to arrange it to help fight climate change. I can make more money by just playing within the current system and hoping to grow my wealth faster than the damage will accrue. But, because I am a private individual, I also do stuff on my own dime that helps with climate change (you're welcome, by the way).

As long as the people with capital think we can grow our wealth faster than damages build up, we have no incentive to help. We even have incentive to hinder progress. If AGW damages are going to compound at 3%, but my oil shares grow at 4%, then I prefer the status quo if I have enough of them.

Yes, they have that wealth. The question is how much of it they'd want to burn in an enterprise that thus far doesn't seem to offer profits.
Just as we do with our own money, they have their interest, possibly enlightened self-interest at heart, but interest nonetheless.

Partially PR and self-advertising, partially their own personal motivations which are not profit-driven.
Capitalist society doesn't endorse unprofitable projects, but people can still do it for their own reasons. For example, charity.

I'm not sure charity applies to commercial space travel - well, it creates jobs, surely.

 

[red_elk]

I'm not sure charity applies to commercial space travel - well, it creates jobs, surely.

Commercial space travel can be profitable in some cases, e.g. space tourism. Charity was just an example of non profit-driven activity.
In broader sense, capitalism creates imbalances and unfairness in different areas.

In pharmaceutical industry, corporations have incentive to focus research primarily on the needs of wealthy clients, ignoring majority of poors.
It's more profitable not to cure patient, but create a lifelong treatment plan and force people to constantly buy expensive drugs.
These profit-driven incentives are ugly. The goal must be helping all people and prolonging their life, not making money on human suffering.

 

[Ferocitus]

So what makes them believe that Communism is the final form of economics?

Simple. They don't.

 

[Angst]

Capitalism has a huge incentive to tackle rising seas and global warming. Maybe not so much big industry, but there will be money to made to solve the now looming crisis. Governments want solutions to save themselves. Until recently "everyone" thought that we had had much more time and change could be ignored for now. That attitude is changing quickly. The innovation efforts that drive capitalism are working overtime. We will see if it is enough. I will likely miss most of the drama and misery but our kids will see it front and center. China will be interesting to watch. They have the authoritarian system and economic wherewithal make change quickly.

Capitalism has incentive in a sense, but it's not an incentive that really plays into how the climate crisis is a problem.

Five years or so ago we were told that in order to keep 1.5 warming we'd need radical and thorough restructuring of the whole economy globally. However, there's no immediate demand for it, so it didn't happen. Rather, there was an increased investment in stuff like meat and oil production. So 1.5 is surefire now. I don't remember the specifics but 2.0 (apocalyptic) is looming within a decade of inaction, and the rate of warming is so slow there's no private financial incentive to it, and governments are largely invested in safekeeping private interests, even in states like Denmark.

There has been some pretty impressive investment in like green energy, and I guess we'll have lab meat soon, but let me just be clear about something. Replacing our fuel source is not enough. Many people for some reason believe we'll be fine after we switch to windmills and Teslas. We won't. The amount of things that need intervention is baffling and grim, since the market has simply not solved climate change since it was discovered in, I think it was the 1920s or something.

What's the free market's financial incentive to remove farmland and grow forests?

What's its incentive to cut down on like 70% of car transportation?

What's its incentive to completely cull dirty internet use (meaning energy here) when the biggest competitors are using a free with data gathering model (that model can't be maintained without incredibly dirty servers)?

There are thousands of things that could be brought up.

All things can maybe be enforced changed by government intervention, but as long as we're using a profit model, it will lay waste to entire industries with nothing to back it up. Now, the industries will die anyways, but at that point it's too late. Danish government, as green as people think it is, keeps allowing for more oil drills through active policy (it has to be confirmed by the state when new oil projects are done).

And most importantly, I think, you can exemplify for each, but if you were an investor, with only a profit motive, why would you ever invest in a company that clears farmland and grows forests, when you can just invest in Danish pig farming? Even if the former is better long term, why don't you invest your bucks into dirty industries now, make your money, and then invest in the clean industries later when it's the only possibility and therefore a returning investment?

 

[El_Machinae]

2.0 is not apocalyptic, mind. It's the Business as Usual scenario that's a runaway risk. 2.0 has distributed damages that will (in aggregate) not be visible next to growth. In fact, it's possible to over-spend while trying to avoid 2.0, quite easily even. But the BAU scenario means that refusing to spend is underspending.

2.0 is filling a tooth cavity. BAU is waiting for the abscess.