Karl Marx: Demonologist

[Eretz Yisrael]

I meant that the credit system in the USSR was situated within a system of circulating money, which Marx rules out fairly explicitly in the Critique of the Gotha Program and elsewhere as being incompatible with communism. The USSR was in the Marxian conception a form of capitalism, merely an historically exceptional one, a product of unusual historical circumstances.

Well yes I know that, but my question is, what should a Communist society use as a token of credit? If none, then how are they supposed to bring about economic distribution?

 

[LucyDuke]

Am I the only one that keeps seeing this thread in the OT lineup and misreading it as "dermatologist"? It's weird every time.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Am I the only one that keeps seeing this thread in the OT lineup and misreading it as "dermatologist"? It's weird every time.

Same here but I thought I was the only one

 

[aelf]

Well yes I know that, but my question is, what should a Communist society use as a token of credit? If none, then how are they supposed to bring about economic distribution?

I think the whole notion of "economic distribution" may not actually be applicable in the context of communist societies to begin with. AFAIK, if we take the implications of Capital at face value (though, of course, Marx employs different discourses in his writings that imply different things), there isn't really anything to distribute, so to speak, as value (as distinct from use value) arises solely from labour and is not therefore inherent to objects. People would produce and trade as their needs dictate, since they are in control of the process of production (in other words, it is not dictated by the logic of capital, which demands that money begets more money).

 

[Brighteye]

The article started off looking like a character assassination and rapidly degenerated into laughable polemic as the author warmed to the subject.

We've gone from Dark Heresy to Magic the Gathering.

I'm certain that Magic: The Gathering contains no spectres at all. It does have a few specters, which are unrelated to necromancers, and it looked strange every time I saw it.
Dark heresy sounds far more fun.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm certain that Magic: The Gathering contains no spectres at all.

It's a special token that he summons. It's a copy of this card.

Spoiler :

 

[Richard Cribb]

From Canada Free Press:


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39223

Now, this is an... Interesting article, but as a devotee of the Most Sacred Prophet Carolus Marxus, May His Name Be Revered In All Nations, I'm not really in a position to make a sound, objective judgement. So perhaps the good fellows of CivFanatics could help me out in better understanding this reasonable, down-to-earth and inarguably well-formatted piece?

Charming article, but nothing out of the ordinary. I see and hear similar things rather often when I take the risk to expose myself to dominant media. Since I am neither a red nor a marxist, I don't feel competent to have any strong opinions on this topic, though.

As an aside, the thread title reminded me of a book I saw in the Sci-fi/Fantasy section of Barnes and Noble the other day: Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter.

Rofl.

It so happens that I just finished reading that one the other day, and I have to say it was quite entertaining. The crossover worked rather well, which is perhaps not surprising since the author is the very same who wrote Pride and Prejudice and Zombies...

I bought my girlfriend the book "Queen Victoria, Demon Hunter" a few weeks ago. I was hoping this was another part of that series.

It is not, but that one is not bad either.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well yes I know that, but my question is, what should a Communist society use as a token of credit? If none, then how are they supposed to bring about economic distribution?

Oh, I see. Well, as Aelf says, it's important not to think of this as some sort of restructured capitalism- a series of planned exchanges as in the popular (though generally inaccurate) image of the Soviet Union- but as a fundamental different way of organising production and distribution. Mechanical details are hard to described in anything more than rough hypothetical sketches, and indeed the mechanics of production will in all likelihood evolve over time, so what needs to be stressed is the fundamental character of production, i.e. that it is communistic, which means that production and distribution are not individual actions, but collective ones. This means that "credit", whatever form it would take, would merely represent an entitlement on the part of individuals to a certain part of the social product, assigned and then redeemed, rather than taking a monetary form and circulating throughout the economy through market exchanges. The mechanics of this, again, can only be guessed at it- Marxism is at heart a theory of history, past and future, rather than a political program, so it's really not compatible with any sort of mechanical blue-prints (for all the enthusiasm with which the "Marxist" regimes of the 20th century pursued them).

 

[Leoreth]

Thanks for elaborating on the impracticality of these ideas

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Oh, I see. Well, as Aelf says, it's important not to think of this as some sort of restructured capitalism - a series of planned exchanges as in the popular (though generally inaccurate) image of the Soviet Union- but as a fundamental different way of organising production and distribution. Mechanical details are hard to described in anything more than rough hypothetical sketches, and indeed the mechanics of production will in all likelihood evolve over time, so what needs to be stressed is the fundamental character of production, i.e. that it is communistic, which means that production and distribution are not individual actions, but collective ones. This means that "credit", whatever form it would take, would merely represent an entitlement on the part of individuals to a certain part of the social product, assigned and then redeemed, rather than taking a monetary form and circulating throughout the economy through market exchanges. The mechanics of this, again, can only be guessed at it- Marxism is at heart a theory of history, past and future, rather than a political program, so it's really not compatible with any sort of mechanical blue-prints (for all the enthusiasm with which the "Marxist" regimes of the 20th century pursued them).

Now I know that Lenin advanced this theory of Marxism as a theory of history and advocated the Communist Party as the vanguard of the Revolution through violent means so that history could inevitably enter a new phase of development, but then I would make two points:

If history has been anything, its been man evolving for its primitive collective consciousness to gradual deeper understanding of the self - that is, more individualistic. I would say humans have evolved to become more responsive to the existence of their ego as well as responding more and more efficiently to it. Rationalism is an empty slogan which people use as a means to answer their own ego-fulfilling (as in the Freudian sense)questions. I personally view the current situation in two ways: one composed of the masses, who fulfill their ego with market solutions and the other composed of elites who fulfill their ego through a systematic Malthusian sense of needs. The danger with advanced markets is that when they are not accompanied with a corresponding amount of culture the social impact is where the former comprise of the majority and the elite are the minority. China and India would be good example - both countries are ruled by elites with immense political clout, who are surprisingly cultured and have a different viewpoint of things compared to the masses.

The second point is when collectives have to deal with the problem of worker motivation. If the situation is where regardless of what individual collective gains in terms of, say, grain output in comparison to the last grain harvest, due to a nil total increase in grain output, what would motivate a worker to work well? The worker isnt going to get his/her life changed by it anyway. What I would expect from collectives is a disoriented workforce with little motivation to work for something that would require them to work as hard in a capitalistic economy. There would simply be no corresponding worker motivating factors.

 

[Traitorfish]

Thanks for elaborating on the impracticality of these ideas

Now I know that Lenin advanced this theory of Marxism as a theory of history and advocated the Communist Party as the vanguard of the Revolution through violent means so that history could inevitably enter a new phase of development...

Lenin is very far from the be-all and end-all of the matter. His theory was criticised by many Marxists of that era, including Luxembrug, Pannekoek, Rühle and others (those are all from his left, of course; criticism from his right was generally tedious and long-irrelevant); it's apparent hegemony among Marxists is a product of historical circumstances rather than because it uniformly constitutes any sort of inarguably logical conclusion to Marxism. Take what he says with a pinch of salt.

...but then I would make two points:

If history has been anything, its been man evolving for its primitive collective consciousness to gradual deeper understanding of the self - that is, more individualistic. I would say humans have evolved to become more responsive to the existence of their ego as well as responding more and more efficiently to it. Rationalism is an empty slogan which people use as a means to answer their own ego-fulfilling (as in the Freudian sense)questions. I personally view the current situation in two ways: one composed of the masses, who fulfill their ego with market solutions and the other composed of elites who fulfill their ego through a systematic Malthusian sense of needs. The danger with advanced markets is that when they are not accompanied with a corresponding amount of culture the social impact is where the former comprise of the majority and the elite are the minority. China and India would be good example - both countries are ruled by elites with immense political clout, who are surprisingly cultured and have a different viewpoint of things compared to the masses.

I'm not really sure what point you're making here, or how it contradicts Marx's theories on the matter. He certainly didn't think that there was any sort incompatibility between a collective class conciousness and what you call "individual conciousness", and in fact seemed to regard capitalism individualism as a necessary precursor of advanced communism, which he in no sense regarded as primitivist return to tribal or quasi-tribal forms of social organisation.

The second point is when collectives have to deal with the problem of worker motivation. If the situation is where regardless of what individual collective gains in terms of, say, grain output in comparison to the last grain harvest, due to a nil total increase in grain output, what would motivate a worker to work well? The worker isnt going to get his/her life changed by it anyway. What I would expect from collectives is a disoriented workforce with little motivation to work for something that would require them to work as hard in a capitalistic economy. There would simply be no corresponding worker motivating factors.

Well, the assumption that you're making here is that the perception of work in capitalist society, as an individual input-output equation, is intrinsic to human production, which I don't think is actually the case. In primitive communitarian societies, production is understood as a social process, something which the band undertakes collectively- even when labour is divided between different individuals- so the input-output equation is also taken collectively. Communism, in reconstituting the social relations of production and thus society as a whole, would revive this collective understanding of production, and so cannot be approached with assumptions made within the terms of capitalist society.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Lenin is very far from the be-all and end-all of the matter. His theory was criticised by many Marxists of that era, including Luxembrug, Pannekoek, Rühle and others (those are all from his left, of course; criticism from his right was generally tedious and long-irrelevant); it's apparent hegemony among Marxists is a product of historical circumstances rather than because it uniformly constitutes any sort of inarguably logical conclusion to Marxism. Take what he says with a pinch of salt.


I'm not really sure what point you're making here, or how it contradicts Marx's theories on the matter. He certainly didn't think that there was any sort incompatibility between a collective class conciousness and what you call "individual conciousness", and in fact seemed to regard capitalism individualism as a necessary precursor of advanced communism, which he in no sense regarded as primitivist return to tribal or quasi-tribal forms of social organisation.


Well, the assumption that you're making here is that the perception of work in capitalist society, as an individual input-output equation, is intrinsic to human production, which I don't think is actually the case. In primitive communitarian societies, production is understood as a social process, something which the band undertakes collectively- even when labour is divided between different individuals- so the input-output equation is also taken collectively. Communism, in reconstituting the social relations of production and thus society as a whole, would revive this collective understanding of production, and so cannot be approached with assumptions made within the terms of capitalist society.

The first point I tried to make meant that when Marx portrayed his theories without the role of the individual, and instead took a dialectical approach to historical analysis,
he minimized the role of individual conscienceness and gave maximum credit to the masses and their collective understanding of the self in order for the establishment of a communistic society. From a Hegelian viewpoint, I would argue against and say instead history is a process of individual ego tries to overcome the other; the ego who triumphs over the other absorbs the other and continues on the battle with others. Thus through a constant absorbtion of ideas for the sake of the ego, a synthesis of higher collective understanding can be reached. The difference might not seem so clear here between my own attempt and the one you say Marx stated, notice that I kept using the word ego. Men are inherently selfish. They move to respond to the emotions and will use rationalism as a means to justify their ego. Thus what I am trying to say here is that if there is any process, it will be inauthentic and not an inevitable process because people, being self-centered, will never rally upon such a slogan continously that will require sacrifice of the self and the adption of a class identity. Class indentity can only genuinely be forced out, which in reality can never take place.

 

[Traitorfish]

The first point I tried to make meant that when Marx portrayed his theories without the role of the individual, and instead took a dialectical approach to historical analysis,
he minimized the role of individual conscienceness and gave maximum credit to the masses and their collective understanding of the self in order for the establishment of a communistic society. From a Hegelian viewpoint, I would argue against and say instead history is a process of individual ego tries to overcome the other; the ego who triumphs over the other absorbs the other and continues on the battle with others. Thus through a constant absorbtion of ideas for the sake of the ego, a synthesis of higher collective understanding can be reached. The difference might not seem so clear here between my own attempt and the one you say Marx stated, notice that I kept using the word ego. Men are inherently selfish. They move to respond to the emotions and will use rationalism as a means to justify their ego. Thus what I am trying to say here is that if there is any process, it will be inauthentic and not an inevitable process because people, being self-centered, will never rally upon such a slogan continously that will require sacrifice of the self and the adption of a class identity. Class indentity can only genuinely be forced out, which in reality can never take place.

Well, I disagree, I suppose, and this seems like a disagreement that takes place on a far more fundamental level than we're likely to resolve, let alone in a thread titled "Karl Marx: Demonologist".

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Well, I disagree, I suppose, and this seems like a disagreement that takes place on a far more fundamental level than we're likely to resolve, let alone in a thread titled "Karl Marx: Demonologist".

Wanted to continue the debate, but I did get sidetracked.... oops