Is Marxism Feasible?

[Damnyankee]

Yes, they do. they want the government (which is a violent institution, always) to protect induvidual rights.



Which, it cannot do, because private tyrannies will grow so enourmous.



Precisely, there is no concept of community in libertarianism, no community interests, only induviduals and a limited state institution.

Never been to New Hampshire?

 

[Norton II]

Yes, they do. they want the government (which is a violent institution, always) to protect induvidual rights.

You're right--government is inherently violent, which is why I'm an anarchist rather than a minarchist.

Which, it cannot do, because private tyrannies will grow so enourmous.

Private tyrannies can be resisted far more effectively than state tyrannies.

Precisely, there is no concept of community in libertarianism, no community interests, only induviduals and a limited state institution.

No, it's just that we don't consider communities to be independent of or superior to the individuals who comprise them. Libertarianism =/= atomism.

 

[Newbunkle]

I think it might work if it was completely voluntary and the population was small - like a commune or something. The reason being, you'll never convince everyone to do it, and ordinary people will resist that kind of change if its forced on them. Personally, I would never live in a Marxist society.

 

[Vince-G]

I would hate to live in a Marxist society. I love the idea of there being a ladder to move up.

 

[Princeps]

Private tyrannies can be resisted far more effectively than state tyrannies.

No. At least over the government we have some power, whereas corporations are nothing but totalitarian entities.

No, it's just that we don't consider communities to be independent of or superior to the individuals who comprise them.

I believe that the mandate of the masses is the supreme authority, but I do believe in many induvidualistic ideals which exist in anarchism. I do believe that the induvidual is the smallest minority, but I also think that libertarianism cannot secure induvidual rights, because it has no notion of community whatsoever. To have induvidual rights there must be a community.

 

[Arwon]

I think it's funny how often the messianic utopianism of libertarians is simply a fun-house mirror image of the messianic utopianism of marxists. Marxists see society as fundamentally driven by economic conflict which is inevitable and determines everything about society. Libertarians see it the same way, but they call it "competition" and welcome it. Both are materialist and reductionist philosphies which claim to be objective and rational.

I mean, look for example at the two groups' views on medical licensing. The old left views doctors associations as a privilige-preserving cartel which consciously conspires to keep numbers of doctors down in order to keep medical costs high. Funnily enough, the libertarians also blame their monopoly on medical treatment for the costs of healthcare.

 

[Norton II]

No. At least over the government we have some power, whereas corporations are nothing but totalitarian entities.

If you don't like what a corporation is doing, you can stop buying their products, sell their stock if you own any, or quit your job if you work for them. If you don't like what your government is doing, you can't stop paying taxes unless you don't mind losing your property or going to prison. Admittedly, in the system you described earlier, voting with your feet would be a lot easier than it is in RL, but why should you have to do that?

I believe that the mandate of the masses is the supreme authority, but I do believe in many induvidualistic ideals which exist in anarchism. I do believe that the induvidual is the smallest minority, but I also think that libertarianism cannot secure induvidual rights, because it has no notion of community whatsoever. To have induvidual rights there must be a community.

I don't believe that any "supreme authority" exists. The only legitimate authority, in my view, is that to which people choose to submit in the absence of force or intimidation.

Also, where do you get the idea that libertarianism lacks any notion of community? We may not think that a community has any automatic claim on anyone's allegiance, but we don't deny that communities exist, nor do we deny their importance.

I think it's funny how often the messianic utopianism of libertarians is simply a fun-house mirror image of the messianic utopianism of marxists. Marxists see society as fundamentally driven by economic conflict which is inevitable and determines everything about society. Libertarians see it the same way, but they call it "competition" and welcome it. Both are materialist and reductionist philosphies which claim to be objective and rational.

You're partly right here, except that libertarianism is not materialist or reductionist--it's just that we confine our economic analyisis to, well, economics. To analyze human action as a whole, of course, you have to look at other things. Still, you should note that the chief object of most people's labors, whether they admit it or not, is to better their material conditions.

I mean, look for example at the two groups' views on medical licensing. The old left views doctors associations as a privilige-preserving cartel which consciously conspires to keep numbers of doctors down in order to keep medical costs high. Funnily enough, the libertarians also blame their monopoly on medical treatment for the costs of healthcare.

Well, isn't this precisely the problem? The demand for health care has skyrocketed over the past few decades, but the supply has been artificially restricted, thus leading to far higher prices than would exist in a free-market medical system. Is there something I'm overlooking here?

 

[Arwon]

I just think it's neat that the Old Left and libertarians agree on their choice of bogeyman in the healthcare system, and it's the entire artifice of licensing and education of doctors.

 

[Norton II]

A stopped clock's right twice a day, so the Old Left would occasioanlly hit the mark.

 

[Arwon]

Nah, it's more that radical libertarian talking points are like antimatter old-left talking points. They identify the same issue and then propose the exact opposite solution.

 

[Norton II]

On one level, that's true, but lbertarians and the Old Left often disagree on what constitutes a problem. For example, leftists object to unequal distribution of wealth no matter what the cause, while libertarians object only to artificial inequalities brought about by curtailments of economic freedom. Thus a libertarian would agree with a Marxist that the relationship between master and slave, or that between lord and serf, is based on exploitation, but he would not consider the relationship between laborer and capitalist to be inherently exploitative, while a Marxist would.

 

[Princeps]

If you don't like what a corporation is doing, you can stop buying their products, sell their stock if you own any, or quit your job if you work for them.

It isn't this simple. And its not corporations only, but the private concentrations of power they serve, which corrode democracy.

Okay, let's take an example of a country ruled by private tyrannies (there's a government, but it's right wing and ruled by the private elites). Colombia is a country that is extremely divided and has vast poor population. Okay, in Colombia, people rarely can just "walk out" of their factories because that's virtually impossible. The sixth branch of the military, the informal paramilitary branch, is the violent arm of private tyranny. The paramilitaries basically take union organizers, label them marxist and shoot them down. Not only that, they gun down lawyers, mayors, and other public officials, who get in the way.

When private tyrannies form, they form because wealth and power is concentrated to narrow, opulent elites. This can happen violently or through the process of capitalism, which always leads to feudalism. In Colombia, these opulent elites run the country, impose harsh tyranny, sell drugs, massacre organized labour, drive people into squalid slums so that they'll work for nothing and the land will be cleared for multinational corporations. All this is of course backed by the United States, where the politicians misleadingly call it the "war on drugs". (Compare to this to the neighbouring country: when Chavez "closed" one television network because it commited an extremely severe crime, he is immediately labelled a "rising dictator" who's is crushing dissent with an iron fist, while in Colombia the right wing government cannot shut down any dissident networks . . . because aren't any! While in Venezeula, 95% of the media is right-wing or far right-wing . . . is that an example of state tyranny? The people there have been able to overcome massive private tyranny, it's violent arms and indoctornation and put someone like Chavez in charge, who is actually making change.)

Now, in the west and in Colombia as well, private institutions can manipulate and deceive us (without taxation on that activity) which is called "advertisement" and "PR", but it's nothing but propaganda often more effective then that of the Nazis. Private institutions overwhelmingly control the media, which is the main reason why our papers are comparable to soviet pravda.

They also control our economy, the production and they control the money flows to a large extent -- what is left for democracy and how much is decided by a narrow class of the stock-owners, lenders, investors and by the people in the board-rooms? In a libertarianism there would be absolute property, which means absolute theft. Nothing would be left to the public, because the state institution would be powerless and would probably only exist to carter to the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

As for stopping to buy their products... well, that's just inane. The people in the slums cannot grow their own crops. And there are various more factors involved.

If you don't like what your government is doing, you can't stop paying taxes unless you don't mind losing your property or going to prison.

You can at least vote for a government that taxes nothing (which would be unwise, and not often wanted) or a government that taxes but uses it for public benefit, like roads, maintaining services and so forth, which is done all the time. It's only the right-wing, which controls the media, that has created all these indoctornated slogans like "no more taxes", that wants people to only care about themselves so that they'll be easily manipulated.

I don't believe that any "supreme authority" exists. The only legitimate authority, in my view, is that to which people choose to submit in the absence of force or intimidation.

I agree, and by this I meant the "mandate of the masses". The power of the masses is the supreme authority, not the power of self-appointed mentors or elites or anything like that.

Also, where do you get the idea that libertarianism lacks any notion of community? We may not think that a community has any automatic claim on anyone's allegiance, but we don't deny that communities exist, nor do we deny their importance.

Libertarianism basically claims that one's induvidal rights exceed everything else. Anarcho-libertarianism believes in absolute property, that no one can tax basically or regulate, that there's no community with authority. I'm an anarchist, I believe that all authority should be questioned, but to me, an authority that can logically argue a case for its need and has the mandate bestowed by the masses, can resort to violence . . . and to tax and regulate. But, in my idea of future government, we wouldn't vote for mentors or institutions to take care of us, we'd make the decisions ourselves through direct democracy.

 

[aneeshm]

Anthropology, for example, is a particularly Marxist influenced field, because Marxism sees humanity as an animal existing in nature and developing in those material terms... not a some special class of being planted fully-formed on this earth by some diety.

Trying to use a political philosophy to explain what is essentially a scientific discipline is just dumb.

 

[Bill3000]

Trying to use a political philosophy to explain what is essentially a scientific discipline is just dumb.

You forgot that Marxism attempted to be a scientific discipline... It failed, though.

 

[luiz]

Marxism is a system of thought and a method for analysing society, not an implementable political system. So is it implementable? Just look at modern historiography or the social sciences and you'll see the answer is yes, it has been.

Anthropology, for example, is a particularly Marxist influenced field, because Marxism sees humanity as an animal existing in nature and developing in those material terms... not a some special class of being planted fully-formed on this earth by some diety.

The exemples you give are the perfect illustration of why Marxism sucks. The marxist influence on historians, sociologists and anthropologists has been nothing short of catastrophic; they have become completely incapable of looking at the world without the thick marxist lenses. Reality and the scientific method became a secondary concern, making the world fit a pre-determined model was the most important. In short, they became fools. Several generations of historians, sociologists and anthropologists were lost because of marxism.

 

[Princeps]

The exemples you give are the perfect illustration of why Marxism sucks. The marxist influence on historians, sociologists and anthropologists has been nothing short of catastrophic; they have become completely incapable of looking at the world without the thick marxist lenses. Reality and the scientific method became a secondary concern, making the world fit a pre-determined model was the most important. In short, they became fools. Several generations of historians, sociologists and anthropologists were lost because of marxism.

Nonsense. The intellectual class of has been overwhelmingly biased toward the existing establishment. In fact, intellectuals in the west are often nothing but power-worshipping propagandists who try to conjure falsehoods, absurd explonations for simple problems ... things like "the clash of civilizations". Most of the real history has been lost precisely because historians have become worshippers of the state and the elite.

 

[luiz]

Nonsense. The intellectual class of has been overwhelmingly biased toward the existing establishment. In fact, intellectuals in the west are often nothing but power-worshipping propagandists who try to conjure falsehoods, absurd explonations for simple problems ... things like "the clash of civilizations". Most of the real history has been lost precisely because historians have become worshippers of the state and the elite.

Is this some sort of joke?

The "Clash of Civilizations" theory has a pretty restricted acceptance, I don't see how it can be used to contradict the obvious and sinister marxist influence on the social sciences.

Saying that most historians are worshipers of the state and elite is only correct if we are talking about the Soviet state and elite. Most of them were indeed Moscow's lackeys for decades (with noble exceptions, both on the left and the right). To deny this is to deny the obvious. For Christ's sake, look at Europe's or Latin America's intellectuals of the 60's and 70's...

Nowadays the influence of marxism on the social sciences is beging to fade away, but it will still take many years before it is completely purged.

 

[Arwon]

The number of Marxists in the academic establishments of the west is quite tiny compared to the amount of fulminating against them that goes on. Academics spend a lot more time critiquing Marxism than promoting it.

However the fact remains that despite this, many Marxist concepts have slipped into mainstream social science because in some ways, they make a lot of sense. When was the last time people seriously argued that abstractions like "class" and "economics" are not major factors in historical development? When was the last time a serious historian argued that ascribing causal relationships to such impersonal ideas takes away the individual morality and agency from history. A century ago, this was a serious argument against Marxist thought by liberal historians. Today, though, many aspects of Marxist thought has been synthesised into the mainstream. Hell, the Marxist explanation of the bourgeois revolution in general and the French Revolution in particular is practically the canon view, inasmuch as there is one.

 

[Princeps]

The "Clash of Civilizations" theory has a pretty restricted acceptance, I don't see how it can be used to contradict the obvious and sinister marxist influence on the social sciences.

It's actually pretty widely discussed, especially when it was new. Instead of dismissed as grotesquely ignorant, fantastically absurd fabrication which it was essentially, it was seriously dicussed in countless articles.

But, one aspect of the theory, that the west is the perfect, the culmination of human development, is something which is often present in many works and attidutes of intellectuals.

Saying that most historians are worshipers of the state and elite is only correct if we are talking about the Soviet state and elite.

Complete, utter nonsense. I mean, when the British Empire was commiting its worst atrocities, the historians and propagandists and poets were discribing the benign, holy purpose and intent of the empire. That same trend persists. When the West bombed Yugoslavia, thus provoking the worst atrocities that took place there, all the historians, media, propagandists and whatever, were euphorically describing the holy purpose of Western intervensionism in a way that was more then reminiscent of stalinist propaganda.

The US-UK imposed, nearly genocidal sanctions on Iraq, recieved similar treatment. I mean, all the reports of suffering and death were dismissed as Saddam's propaganda, despite the broad range of credible sources, stating that 1.5 million people died from the sanctions. Madeleine Albright even confessed to the atrocity, saying it was "worth it" but there was no outrage. I mean, I'm sure you can read something like what Albright said, in the nazi archives as well. Western benign intent is considered obvious and all the deaths were either enemy propaganda or "mistakes".

During the second world war, it was taken for granted in the intellectual community, that the purpose of media was to spread state-glorying propaganda in Britain, US, west and so forth.

Israel-Palestine situation is the most absurd example. I mean, almost everything that is discussed is fabrication. Because the west has conjured so many ridicolous myths around the situation, it no longer makes sense to normal people. Whereas in reality the problem is extremely simple: Israel has been for decades illegally occupied Palestine, pillaging, plundering, mudering . . . which provokes the violence against Israel. Instead, in the western media, Israel is this saintly democratic, western state, a glowing holy island in a sea of extremist scum.

There are so many examples. The very attidute towards anyone seen as non-western, is almost bigoted. In many ways, our media is comparable to Soviet Pravda . . . I mean, I remember reading an article where a former Polish journalist was comparing western media to Pravda, seriously.



I'm sure we've made progress and that it's not always true that intellectual culture and media (I say media, because journalist profession is very elitist) worships power, but the trend lingers. Most of the intellectuals have become deeply indoctornated state-worshippers who's main purpose is to simply fabricate falsehoods such as I discribed.

Most of them were indeed Moscow's lackeys for decades (with noble exceptions, both on the left and the right). To deny this is to deny the obvious. For Christ's sake, look at Europe's or Latin America's intellectuals of the 60's and 70's...

Yeah, I'm sure there were many people who wanted change from the crazed capitalism that kept the society divided and broken. I mean, the reason why Latin America is so backward today, and not the super power as was predicted about a century ago, is precisely because progressive movements (and such) have been beaten back and the countries have been left to kleptocratic regimes, virtual colonies of the US. A good example is Colombia. I mean, US policy makers thought it was obvious that South America was US playground.

Nowadays the influence of marxism on the social sciences is beging to fade away, but it will still take many years before it is completely purged.

Nonsense. As for what you mean by Marxism... well, Marxism is an extremely broad thing. I mean, some argue, with very convincing logic, that western state-systems today follow a variation of Marxism. Marx was a very diverse intellectual, he had many ideas which we today follow. Personally, I'm not a Marxist, I'm an anarchist, but I know Marx wasn't the evil bearded wizard like he's described in western propaganda, and he wasn't the visionary saint as he's depicted in communist propaganda.

Many Marx's brainchildren are here to stay, just like many Adam Smith's ideas are here to stay. But the centers of power, cherry-pick those policies which best suit their intention.

 

[Damnyankee]

Many Marx's brainchildren are here to stay, just like many Adam Smith's ideas are here to stay. But the centers of power, cherry-pick those policies which best suit their intention.

I think that is a statement we can all agree with. I mean, technically the topic was the feasibility of Marxism not whether Marxism was good or bad, but w/e. If a person swallows the whole of one ideology, he takes the good and bad.