The Question of Leftist Framentation

[Karalysia]

By paying workers' salary?

They pay the workers the absolute minimum they possibly can. If you think workers are being paid fair wages for the value of their work you're deluding yourself. It is an exploitative relationship.

I dare say the only workers getting paid fair wages are those who have a strong union.

 

[ParkCungHee]

By paying workers' salary?

An Aristocrat does not pay his workers a salary.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Never realized why Lenin receiving money from Germans is such an issue anyway, certainly not for his defenders. It would be quite consistent for Lenin to do so, and it's definitely an acceptable action according to the revolutionary moral code. That action justified itself by turning out to be bad for Germany when Lenin and his successor Stalin created a mighty Soviet state that, despite everything, turned out to be Germany's downfall. "The imperialists will give us the rope on which they'll be hanged upon themselves" at its most classic. All hail Lenin's political genius.

Wasn't that sort of dependent on the Germans losing the war? I mean, I'm sure Stalin might have a bit of a problem with the Republic of Ukraine, the Baltic Duchy, Weiss Ruthenia, the Kingdom of Lithuania and an Enlarged Ottoman Empire on his borders.

 

[ArneHD]

Wasn't that sort of dependent on the Germans losing the war? I mean, I'm sure Stalin might have a bit of a problem with the Republic of Ukraine, the Baltic Duchy, Weiss Ruthenia, the Kingdom of Lithuania and an Enlarged Ottoman Empire on his borders.

Stalin was Georgian. Would he even be the leader of Russia if this were the case?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Stalin was Georgian. Would he even be the leader of Russia if this were the case?

Considering how very Russified, and more importantly very not a child he was in 1919, no I do not think it would be likely that he would suddenly become a servent of the Sultan if that's what you mean.

 

[innonimatu]

Wasn't that sort of dependent on the Germans losing the war? I mean, I'm sure Stalin might have a bit of a problem with the Republic of Ukraine, the Baltic Duchy, Weiss Ruthenia, the Kingdom of Lithuania and an Enlarged Ottoman Empire on his borders.

Judging just from how messy that whole area became, the numerous rebellions and groups fighting each other during the Russian Revolution, I'd say instead that Germany risked getting a serious case of "indigestion".
Now, what would have happened if communist first captured power in Berlin instead of St. Petersburg?

Yes, I don't see how it could happen either, but it makes for interesting speculation. Anyway, this is off-topic.

 

[plarq]

Judging just from how messy that whole area became, the numerous rebellions and groups fighting each other during the Russian Revolution, I'd say instead that Germany risked getting a serious case of "indigestion".
Now, what would have happened if communist first captured power in Berlin instead of St. Petersburg?

Yes, I don't see how it could happen either, but it makes for interesting speculation. Anyway, this is off-topic.

A communist regime in Berlin/Munich/Vienna/Paris would fail miserably, being surrounded by evil capitalist forces in the vicinity, as in our real history. Victory in Russia is a solid proof of Lenin's theory that success comes from the margin of capitalist world, not the center.

 

[plarq]

I would blame failures on the CCP and success on time. Things generally improve and, in the case of China, this is despite the CPP (not because of it).

Now let's rethink about it, I blame the success of China on the West. It's because West buying cheap goods from China, disregarding of human right abuses there, making China a powerhouse of light industries, and in some areas, heavy industries.

I blame the failures of China on CCP.--Even if West didn't buy cheap goods from China, Chinese people will still suffer from heavy exploitation and preparation for a World War according to Mao's theory.

 

[vesley1987]

They pay the workers the absolute minimum they possibly can. If you think workers are being paid fair wages for the value of their work you're deluding yourself. It is an exploitative relationship.

What does fair wage and value of worker's work even mean?
Labour is just another commodity, thus it's value is also determined by market power. Demanding "fair wage", which I think you mean much higher than today's standard, when there're thousands of people queueing up for your job, is suicidal. Just as clever a supermarkert refusing to do promotion when everybody else is doing it.
Besides, capital aslo contributes to the output, in some industries, more so than labour.

I dare say the only workers getting paid fair wages are those who have a strong union.

Union is simply a workers' Syndicate, it does improve workers' bargain power in some cases. But whether the wage increase is fair or excessive highly depends on the nature of the industry. A sweatshop or today's General Motors?

 

[plarq]

What does fair wage and value of worker's work even mean?
Labour is just another commodity, thus it's value is also determined by market power. Demanding "fair wage", which I think you mean much higher than today's standard, when there're thousands of people queueing up for your job, is suicidal. Just as clever a supermarkert refusing to do promotion when everybody else is doing it.
Besides, capital aslo contributes to the output, in some industries, more so than labour.

Only valid under capitalism--the biggest injustice of capitalism is treating labor as a commodity. The revision of capitalism is giving a higher reward of that commodity, thus prolonging the inevitable collapse of capitalism.

Union is simply a workers' Syndicate, it does improve workers' bargain power in some cases. But whether the wage increase is fair or excessive highly depends on the nature of the industry. A sweatshop or today's General Motors?

Union improves workers in it, and at the same time, deteriorates situation for those who're not in it.

 

[vesley1987]

Only valid under capitalism--the biggest injustice of capitalism is treating labor as a commodity. The revision of capitalism is giving a higher reward of that commodity, thus prolonging the inevitable collapse of capitalism.

And so far all the non-capitalism systems that claim labor is not a commodity carry out their belief by not paying/paying less for labour.

Union improves workers in it, and at the same time, deteriorates situation for those who're not in it.

Not necessarily, those not in can be free riders sometimes.

 

[pau17]

We must cooperate together to end the capitalist system, the thing we all agree must be done. Once we have conquered Capital, then we can sort out our different ideas about how to create a just society in a civilized way.

Is this not the very reason that there is the problem expressed in the OP in the first place? Not having a unified exit plan merely reduces the potential alliance into the lowest common denominator into a vague anti-program. In one sense, then, what you are advocating is basically anarchism with relation to the current capitalist system. That there is oppression or alienation is neither here nor there; the fact is that the current system in all its injustices is a highly leveraged, risk-calculated system that is coercive in the interest of its own stability only adds to the problem. To say we must simply “bring it down and then figure the rest out later” is like saying that we must do a heart transplant without the guarantee that we will all cooperate to keep the rest of the body tissue alive in the meantime. At the end we might be able to salvage components of the now-defunct body but the original goal will already have been lost. Shifts in social organization have extremely high transaction costs. You could make the argument that total collapse is some necessary, logical result of the current system, but that is a scientific argument, not a moral one, and thus it enters the realm of falsifiability. Even if it were possible to eliminate alienation and oppression as you see it, it could simply be the case that the costs are so high that no rational person would choose to incur them, morally speaking. Even having paid the cost in total chaos and bloodshed, from there it is more likely that moves towards consolidation in the form of extremist power-grabs. Unless I misunderstood you, this is complete madness, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

Thus, my fundamental problem with Marxism is that it is a historically-founded wager, not a scientific truth.

Also, it has come to my attention that Hegel, as a thinker in his own right and especially in relation to Marx(ism), is rampantly misunderstood, with this forum being no exception.

There is very little “Hegelian” thought in Marxism. Saying that Marxism is in any way “Hegelian” because the former is a sort of inverted version of the latter’s principles is like saying that Copernican astronomy is “Ptolemaic” in that the former simply “reversed” the geocentrism of the latter and that thus it was a direct offspring or somesuch of the previous system. They’re both still talking about planets ‘n stuff, right? The difference in both examples is much greater than such a trivial comparison. Marx did not simply reverse some purported Hegelian notion of ideal --> material causality as if there was one in the first place. Hegel did not say that ideals cause the material. In fact it is Marx who posited this distinction between ideal and material forces and asserted any primacy of the latter over the former. Hegel talks about the development of human self-consciousness, and part of his being obscure and dense is that he talks about it in the most general, abstract terms possible to him at the time (and under conservative reactionary censorship in light of the threat of democratic French ideals), in terms that would be equally fluid between history, science, mathematical reasoning, art/culture, religion, etc., as they appeared to human consciousness and as they related to each other as phenomena prior to systematized discourse exemplifying causality between any of these particular system—it is only this sense that he talked about a “spirit,” not that there was some actual floating entity of a “spirit” wisping around calling into being all the stuff of the material world. You can read Hegel in a completely modern, secular, scientific manner, if you choose. Or not read him at all…he’s just not that linked to Marxism.

 

[aelf]

That there is oppression or alienation is neither here nor there; the fact is that the current system in all its injustices is a highly leveraged, risk-calculated system that is coercive in the interest of its own stability only adds to the problem.

Really? You think the current system is that coherent?

And you talk about stability. What about freedom and democracy? This seems to be a classic pitfall that even liberals fall into - forgetting about liberty when talking about stability.

Thus, my fundamental problem with Marxism is that it is a historically-founded wager, not a scientific truth.

This criticism might be very pertinent decades ago, but now you're pretty much addressing a dying branch of (scientific/deterministic) Marxism. Ironically, I think the best reply to most of your complaints is that you are treating Marxism like a monolithic movement. Well, it's not.

But that doesn't mean that it's doomed to fragmentation either. Liberals don't agree with each other on a lot of things, and yet the liberal culture has been fostered in Western societies. A pluralism of thought is a good thing, I think. What is really important is to bring about the mode of thinking, the zeitgeist, if I may.

Hegel talks about the development of human self-consciousness, and part of his being obscure and dense is that he talks about it in the most general, abstract terms possible to him at the time (and under conservative reactionary censorship in light of the threat of democratic French ideals), in terms that would be equally fluid between history, science, mathematical reasoning, art/culture, religion, etc., as they appeared to human consciousness and as they related to each other as phenomena prior to systematized discourse exemplifying causality between any of these particular system—it is only this sense that he talked about a “spirit,” not that there was some actual floating entity of a “spirit” wisping around calling into being all the stuff of the material world. You can read Hegel in a completely modern, secular, scientific manner, if you choose. Or not read him at all…he’s just not that linked to Marxism.

You might be right on this, though from the perspective of Hegel's account of aesthetics, I think there are indications that he does believe in something rather more spiritual (not that he means "spirit" literally) than you seem to be saying.

However, you're not quite correct in saying that Marxism is seen as an inverted form of Hegelianism. That's not what is said. Marx inverts Hegelian dialectics such that it is a matter-driven rather than an idea-driven account of human development. Probably nobody thinks that Marx is some sort of a spiritual (heh) successor of Hegel. It is merely noted than Marxism arose from Hegelianism, and the two are ultimately different schools of thought. Indeed, it seems to me that Marx is a lot less interested in the metaphysical stuff than the political. From a liberal's perspective, I suppose it's a bit like trying to compare Kant and Rawls.

 

[pau17]

This criticism might be very pertinent decades ago, but now you're pretty much addressing a dying branch of (scientific/deterministic) Marxism.

I'm aware of at least several of the different strands of Marxism, but the old-school one that at least made claims to scientific rigor seemed the most worthwhile attacking, since the others that I have seen have serious wafflings in terms of basic structure/agency problems and moral prescriptivism, and if it ultimately boils back down to Marx's dialectical thinking, best to get at it there. Marx in particular thought that the categories of Hegel's Logic mapped onto the beginning of Capital. The fact that Marxist dialectics are a particularly narrowed and crystallized interpretation of Hegelian thought (not logically consequential of it) as I have brought up only adds to the trouble, so it makes sense to go straight to the source, in my opinion. If Marx was not as hardcore of a historical materialist as he seems to be, then what was he? His writings on Hegel repeatedly insist upon flipping around some ideal -> material causality he seems to be seeing in Hegel.

You might be right on this, though from the perspective of Hegel's account of aesthetics, I think there are indications that he does believe in something rather more spiritual (not that he means "spirit" literally) than you seem to be saying.

Hegel much enjoyed looking at art and reading poetry from different cultures almost a sort of serious hobby of his in comparison to his real philosophical bent. He wrote some good stuff on aesthetics, and it's natural that a more floaty side could come out of him there, because he saw art and religion as intricately related. So to practitioners of a given religion and a given artform, it is obvious that the essence of what appeared to them out of their practices would be spiritual in nature, but that doesn't mean that there is a floating spirit dude that really is the God of Light or whatever. Hegel is very stealthy in this regard and he is not the mystic trying to cosmologize Christianity that people shake him out to be. The fundamental kernel of the Phenomenology and the Logic is primary IMO. I think close reading will show that Hegel is perfectly compatible with a rather secularized humanism.

However, you're not quite correct in saying that Marxism is seen as an inverted form of Hegelianism. That's not what is said. Marx inverts Hegelian dialectics such that it is a matter-driven rather than an idea-driven account of human development. Probably nobody thinks that Marx is some sort of a spiritual (heh) successor of Hegel. It is merely noted than Marxism arose from Hegelianism, and the two are ultimately different schools of thought. Indeed, it seems to me that Marx is a lot less interested in the metaphysical stuff than the political. From a liberal's perspective, I suppose it's a bit like trying to compare Kant and Rawls.

That's repeating the caricature, isn't it? To say that anything is "idea-driven" is already getting into an abstract framework with a division between different kinds of substances and causality. Ideas of whom or what? This is where the strawman of Hegel as the monarch-worshipping mystic comes out. The "ideas" are not in people's heads, nor in some floating spirit's head. Spirit is just the collective manifestations of phenomena prior to specific systematized understandings from a particular vantage point, be it economic/material, religious, etc. In given instances, it may surely be the case that material or ideational causalities can be drawn out and shown to be operative on a local scale, but there is something more fundamental that precludes being a full-on materialist like Marx.

 

[aelf]

Hegel much enjoyed looking at art and reading poetry from different cultures almost a sort of serious hobby of his in comparison to his real philosophical bent. He wrote some good stuff on aesthetics, and it's natural that a more floaty side could come out of him there, because he saw art and religion as intricately related. So to practitioners of a given religion and a given artform, it is obvious that the essence of what appeared to them out of their practices would be spiritual in nature, but that doesn't mean that there is a floating spirit dude that really is the God of Light or whatever. Hegel is very stealthy in this regard and he is not the mystic trying to cosmologize Christianity that people shake him out to be. The fundamental kernel of the Phenomenology and the Logic is primary IMO. I think close reading will show that Hegel is perfectly compatible with a rather secularized humanism.

That's not exactly what I was getting at. What I meant was that the coherent links that Hegel tries to establish between different subjects, although quite intuitive to some extent, lends a sort of mystical quality to what he says. I suppose you are arguing that he is merely abstracting and keeping it vague, but the same can be said of many religions, can't it?

That's repeating the caricature, isn't it? To say that anything is "idea-driven" is already getting into an abstract framework with a division between different kinds of substances and causality. Ideas of whom or what? This is where the strawman of Hegel as the monarch-worshipping mystic comes out. The "ideas" are not in people's heads, nor in some floating spirit's head. Spirit is just the collective manifestations of phenomena prior to specific systematized understandings from a particular vantage point, be it economic/material, religious, etc. In given instances, it may surely be the case that material or ideational causalities can be drawn out and shown to be operative on a local scale, but there is something more fundamental that precludes being a full-on materialist like Marx.

Does it matter? Marxist thought does not necessarily require - let alone commit one - to certain ideas in the philosophy of mind. It is enough for someone to say that people are primarily influenced by material forces rather than by ideational forces, as many of us understand these and the distinction between them to be. And even so Marxist thinkers have refined the original 'base and superstructure' concept to provide for the fact that ideas do at times appear to provide people with the primary motivation, which corresponds to what you seem to be saying about the unclear or arbitrary distinction between the material and ideal realms.

 

[pau17]

Really? You think the current system is that coherent?

And you talk about stability. What about freedom and democracy? This seems to be a classic pitfall that even liberals fall into - forgetting about liberty when talking about stability.

Just saw this edit--not sure what you mean with the first question. Do you not agree that capitalism is a highly leveraged, risk-calculated system that is coercive in the interest of its own stability? I'm not saying that it isn't prone to crashes or even that no alienation exists, even as Marx might have seen it.

On the second question, freedom and democracy mean different things for different groups, even among the Left, so if there is no unified, positive plan, then we're just talking about a vague anti-capitalist insurrection with enormous and uncertain transaction costs, and the problem of Leftist fragmentation as specified in the OP becomes obvious.

 

[pau17]

That's not exactly what I was getting at. What I meant was that the coherent links that Hegel tries to establish between different subjects, although quite intuitive to some extent, lends a sort of mystical quality to what he says. I suppose you are arguing that he is merely abstracting and keeping it vague, but the same can be said of many religions, can't it?

Very vaguely and briefly as I am short on time and sleep--Hegel's basic agenda is to make inroads towards a science of the complete study of human development--not just class conflict, nor of religion (like theology perhaps), nor of any specific abstract and narrow field because once you lay down your core postulates as a materialist or a whatever -ist, the conclusions are clearly made and it becomes a best-fit sort of game. But our conceptual understanding of society changes, so there has to be some sense of the "flow" of objective understandings of things. It appears mystic maybe because Hegel in his historical treatments focuses on phenomena as they appear to practitioners themselves--this is where the ideational and material become fuzzy. Of course, there is also a more "objective" sense that we have of things as time goes on and we develop better science and philosophy, but it's still more fluid than Marx declaring that all human development is out of labor and class struggle and so on. Marx ran into a lot of issues with his attempt at a sort of totalistic materialist anthropology, particularly his now outdated views on biological evolution. Hegel didn't think we could predict the future.

Have to check out for a while but will be back at some point...

 

[aelf]

Just saw this edit--not sure what you mean with the first question. Do you not agree that capitalism is a highly leveraged, risk-calculated system that is coercive in the interest of its own stability? I'm not saying that it isn't prone to crashes or even that no alienation exists, even as Marx might have seen it.

This is still, ironically, predicated on an idea that there's some sort of coherent and rational planning in society. I don't think so - not even a good approximation of it. Generally, I think people have no idea what they are doing, at least not as a whole society. But I don't really want to get into this now as it will take a lot of time.

On the second question, freedom and democracy mean different things for different groups, even among the Left, so if there is no unified, positive plan, then we're just talking about a vague anti-capitalist insurrection with enormous and uncertain transaction costs, and the problem of Leftist fragmentation as specified in the OP becomes obvious.

I addressed this issue earlier, actually:

But that doesn't mean that it's doomed to fragmentation either. Liberals don't agree with each other on a lot of things, and yet the liberal culture has been fostered in Western societies. A pluralism of thought is a good thing, I think. What is really important is to bring about the mode of thinking, the zeitgeist, if I may.

For me, Marxism is primarily a method for appraising society and human development. It is not a moral code, so it might not be enough to build a society with on its own, I guess - I'm still learning and thinking about it. But the point is Marxism is a critique of political economy. The critique and why it's made is what is central. Creating a revolutionary state and all that, those don't necessarily have to follow.

Very vaguely and briefly as I am short on time and sleep--Hegel's basic agenda is to make inroads towards a science of the complete study of human development--not just class conflict, nor of religion (like theology perhaps), nor of any specific abstract and narrow field because once you lay down your core postulates as a materialist or a whatever -ist, the conclusions are clearly made and it becomes a best-fit sort of game. But our conceptual understanding of society changes, so there has to be some sense of the "flow" of objective understandings of things. It appears mystic maybe because Hegel in his historical treatments focuses on phenomena as they appear to practitioners themselves--this is where the ideational and material become fuzzy. Of course, there is also a more "objective" sense that we have of things as time goes on and we develop better science and philosophy, but it's still more fluid than Marx declaring that all human development is out of labor and class struggle and so on. Marx ran into a lot of issues with his attempt at a sort of totalistic materialist anthropology, particularly his now outdated views on biological evolution. Hegel didn't think we could predict the future.

Marx began Marxism, but he's clearly not its god. He said some stuff that are still very pertinent, but he was also a child of his times. That's suitably Hegelian, isn't it?

And Hegel himself suffers from a few conceivable shortcomings in terms of his account of historical development. For one, Hegel posits a rationalist and progressive universe or a linear time line, while it is very possible to disagree and see the universe as irrational and history as cyclical without heading towards any end point. So I don't think Hegel is necessarily the better philosopher or anything like that. I'd say, as I said earlier, that the two have different foci - Hegel deals more with the metaphysical while Marx deals more with the political/economic (without necessarily having to presuppose a particular metaphysical conception).

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I would blame failures on the CCP and success on time. Things generally improve and, in the case of China, this is despite the CPP (not because of it).

People do this same BS with Stalin, etc. "But some things got better!" Well, things always get better in general (this is true even in Africa) and giving a tyranny credit for general progress that happens despite them is lame.

If I beat my kid everyday and force it to live in a shack outside, and that kid wins a spelling bee... do I get the credit?? No. And the CCP should not get credit for the advancements of the Chinese people. It should get only blame for holding them back, thus limiting the progress (not creating it).

Remember that person who got kidnapped for 18 years in the news recently? Giving the CCP credit for progress is like saying "well, look how well she speaks! Her kidnapper sure did some good things! Look at the progress he created"!

Giving a tyranny credit for progress is BS; I think you can see that now. Progress happens because of the people, not because of the government; government only holds us back - that's why it should be as small and uninfluential as possible.

We're going to let it happen again, aren't we?

NO!!!The horror!!! This cannot be true; this photo must have been made by Fox News

Most people in China dont know about the Tiananmen Square Protests - its incredible how a country could make such an event disappear from the nation's minds.

 

[Merkinball]

For me, Marxism is primarily a method for appraising society and human development. It is not a moral code - aelf

In a collectivist, planned system, how can you appraise society and human development without a central moral code? This is why you think most have, "no idea what they're doing." This doesn't happen in a Marxist society as everything is predefined for the people, and every effort is made to ensure that everyone does know what they are doing. Without a moral code, you can't evaluate or measure what the society has accomplished in a Marxist world.