Economic Systems: Probing the Debate of Communism vs. Socialism

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I've researched a little about Marxism, and I've found that Karl Marx was a brilliant philosopher; however, I've never heard anyone commend communism. Despite this, why is communism deemed an inappropriate economic system? I've heard the argument of greed being unstoppable, but didn't Marx argue that greed was the result of social conditioning? Couldn't a communist economic system simply result in slackers being pressured to work by outside sources - wouldn't something be implemented to prevent abuse of the system?

Also, I've noticed that people often group socialism and communism together (perhaps because Marx said socialism led to communism); however, they aren't identical. Socialism, to my knowledge, contains no unrealistic factors as an economic system. To each according to ability, to each according to effort - it seems reasonable to me. With a socialist system wouldn't talented individuals who coast on the capitalist system be forced to work harder?

Overall, I've been researching other economic systems for interest; furthermore, I'm wondering why the world has seemed to stop and say - democracy and capitalism - that is the answer. Shouldn't society progress over time - is a democratic, capitalist society really the final answer until the end of time? I know many brilliant individuals have advocated change - if I remember correctly, Einstein supported social democracy.

 

[russ_watters]

...I've never heard anyone commend communism.

You haven't been paying attention here for the last couple of months. Alexandra is a big fan and we've had some rather lively discussions.

Despite this, why is communism deemed an inappropriate economic system? I've heard the argument of greed being unstoppable, but didn't Marx argue that greed was the result of social conditioning?

Well, you answered your own question, but posed another. The answer to that question is that no, greed is not the result of social conditioning, its human (and animal) nature. Related to that, greed is necessary for human achievement. Calling it "greed" gives it a bad connotation, but greed, competitiveness, and ambition are all the same. Whether its the quest for personal knowledge or the quest for personal monetary wealth, its the same feeling motivating people to succeed.

Couldn't a communist economic system simply result in slackers being pressured to work by outside sources - wouldn't something be implemented to prevent abuse of the system?

Yes. In practice, every communist system tried has resulted in the proliferation of mediocrity. Russia is a wasteland of environmental disaster, low quality buildings, crumbling infrastructure, and shoddy industry. And Russia is the communist success story! The other side of the coin is North Korea, in which a full 10% of the population has starved to death in the past 10 years.

Also, I've noticed that people often group socialism and communism together (perhaps because Marx said socialism led to communism); however, they aren't identical.

Not identical, but two parts of the same ideology and related.

Socialism, to my knowledge, contains no unrealistic factors as an economic system. To each according to ability, to each according to effort - it seems reasonable to me.

Sure, it seems reasonable, but how do you get it to work? How do you convince a doctor that even though he is vastly more intelligent and skilled than a janitor that he and the janitor are worth the same salary?

With a socialist system wouldn't talented individuals who coast on the capitalist system be forced to work harder?

Talented individuals who coast in capitalism?? Huh? Anyway, it has been proven that you cannot force someone to work harder for very long. S/he has to want to. Besides, who wants an autocratic system where people are forced to do things they don't want to do? Whatever happened to freedom?

Overall, I've been researching other economic systems for interest; furthermore, I'm wondering why the world has seemed to stop and say - democracy and capitalism - that is the answer. Shouldn't society progress over time - is a democratic, capitalist society really the final answer until the end of time? I know many brilliant individuals have advocated change - if I remember correctly, Einstein supported social democracy.

Well, democracy and capitalism continue to evolve. However, since democracy and capitalism have been vastly successful, most people have decided its better tweak what works than to abandon it completely for something that may or may not.

 

[1123581321]

communism has always failed miserably, look at the USSR.
In a communism system, you work for fear of punishment, not desire for reward.
that is the main difference, and that is why communism is bad. go ask anyone not high up in the soviet communist party, they will tell that life sucks unless you get friends or power. look at the inventer of the AK-47 compared to the inventor of the M-16. the guy who made the m-16 made loads of cash, the guy who made the AK is poor. While one could argue that the AK is more reliable than the older versions of the 16 first made in NAM, capitalism permitted the 16's creator to make money. if you make a really cool inventioin, would you rather be communist or capitolist? communism and monarchy always fails and is overthrown, simply because it makes the people miserable. people in America may complain about the economy or government debt, but Americans have it really good. America is a great country to live in with many opprotunities. America is one of the few countries where a drop out could become rich (DELL). I could continue, but i think you get it.

Fibonacci

 

[selfAdjoint]

Fibo, some of us get tired of pointing out the fact that the USSR was not a communist state by any criteria except their own. Their political organization was party-based tyranny and their economic system was state capitalism.

 

[russ_watters]

Fibo, some of us get tired of pointing out the fact that the USSR was not a communist state... [snip] Their political organization was party-based tyranny and their economic system was state capitalism.

Others get tired of pointing out that by the same [flawed] logic, there has never been a capitalist or democratic state either.

We also like to point out that the fact that Marx's vision wasn't attained does constitute evidence that his vision was unattainable.

Either the USSR was communist or they were an attempt at communism. Either way you split that hair, it says nothing good about Marx's vision.

...by any criteria except their own.

Lenin would certainly disagree and so would everyone who made an attempt to follow in his or the USSR's footsteps: China, Cuba, N Korea, etc.

Furthermore, Marx doesn't own communism any more than Einstein owns Relativity. All theories evolve beyond what their creator envisioned. In fact, that makes the USSR (Lenin, Stlain)more communist than Marx! (Just as Penrose & Hawking know more about Relativity than Einstein ever did)

 

[alexandra]

I've researched a little about Marxism, and I've found that Karl Marx was a brilliant philosopher; however, I've never heard anyone commend communism.

Hello Dooga

It seems Russ has kindly introduced me as the resident 'crazy Marxist' already - pleased to 'meet' you I like your questions, so I thought I'd respond. I've sort of given up on posting too much on this board because of all the emotional, irrational 'shouting' that happens here - I began seeing it as a waste of time trying to discuss anything seriously. But your questions are different - and it will be nice to talk to someone who is calm and interested in exploring the topic for a change.

To respond to your above statement: I totally and irrevocably commend communism - not the so-called 'communism' of Stalinist Russia, or of any state that has claimed to be socialist or communist in our times. In common with other internationalist socialists (yes, there are many of us!), I believe that it is impossible to achieve socialism or communism in a global environment in which capitalism predominates; it can only be achieved internationally. I believe that if humanity does not achieve socialism (a more just and rationally organised society), the economic, social and environmental consequences will be so disastrous that literally anything could happen - we are already living George Orwell's prediction of '1984' (a really important book to read if you haven't read it yet, in my opinion - Orwell's predictions of constant warfare against ever-changing enemies, and his concepts of 'thoughtcrime', of 'doublethink', and surveillance by 'Big Brother' define our current lives). The global environment is also in serious trouble, and as capitalism gets more and more ruthless it will only degrade further and may reach some catastrophic point of 'no return'. So I truly believe it's either going to be socialism or ever-increasing poverty, suffering, social dislocation and chaos, and perhaps even a serious environmental disaster.

Despite this, why is communism deemed an inappropriate economic system?

You will be aware that one of Marx's central concepts is 'ideology', and that the dominant ideology (or body of ideas current in a society) is always created by the ruling class and is disseminated via its major institutions (the education system, the mass media, the churches, etc). The mass media especially have been very instrumental in painting communism as unworkable, and key 'intellectuals' (sorry, I do not believe they truly do deserve the title) have declared 'Marxism' and 'communism' dead, and have declared 'the end of history' and 'the triumph of capitalism'. As I read posts in these threads, I see this ideology being accepted by many uncritically (though not everyone is uncritical, thank goodness!). I think people do this for a variety of reasons, including that:
* many people are unable to question the status quo (or to imagine a different world) because they have never been taught how to question things critically;
* it is not in some people's interest to question the way things are because they belong to a class (or hope to belong to a class or, sadder still, fool themselves into believing that they belong to a class) that benefits from the status quo;
* the propaganda has been so good (and Stalinism, Maoism, etc haven't helped much either) that people refuse to even look at Marxist theory - they have written communism off as 'bad' because 'everyone says so'.

I've heard the argument of greed being unstoppable, but didn't Marx argue that greed was the result of social conditioning?

Marx (and many social scientists) argue that there is no such thing as ‘human nature’ (it’s the old ‘nature versus nurture’ debate). But it is in the interests of capitalists (and those who support the profit system) to present humans as innately ‘greedy’ and ‘individualistic’. There have been a number of studies on various aspects of the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate, and I found this very interesting comment on a research article that was published in the science magazine Nature on this issue: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/pophealth/2003-September/000647.html A brief extract:

'Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay'That is the title of the paper in this week's Nature (18, Sept 2003, pg297-9) by B Rosnan and de Waal ( the latter an world renown primatologist whose book THE APE AND THE SUSHI MASTER, about his work in primate culture is very insightful). Monkeys desire fairness, it seems. The New York Times ran two pieces on this work (below). This is consistent with human studies of altruisim and counter the feeling among people in the USA that humans are a naturally greedy species. The evidence suggests not. In this country, especially, we have been indoctrinated to think we are greedy.

(Dooga, just watch how those who do not agree react to this quoted evidence – they will either refute it loudly, without presenting counter-evidence for their claims, or they will ignore it!)

Couldn't a communist economic system simply result in slackers being pressured to work by outside sources - wouldn't something be implemented to prevent abuse of the system?

LOL – yes! Precisely. And this is the point! This is what everyone’s so scared of. In a communist society, you’d never get this scandalous situation:

CEO salaries and bonuses surged 15% in a year salaries for rank-and-file workers averaged 3.2% gains.

* Instead of stock options, many companies gave CEOs large blocks of restricted shares, less risky equity stakes. Among 36% of CEOs receiving them, the median value was $2.9 million.
* More than 90% received fresh stock-option grants, with a median potential value of $23.2 million.
* Nearly one-third pulled in compensation valued at $50 million or more. Even at companies where pay fell, pay packages remained large. PepsiCo CEO Steve Reinemund's pay package fell 62%, but was a still-impressive $76.5 million.
More: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2003-03-31-ceopay2_x.htm

Also, I've noticed that people often group socialism and communism together (perhaps because Marx said socialism led to communism); however, they aren't identical. Socialism, to my knowledge, contains no unrealistic factors as an economic system. To each according to ability, to each according to effort - it seems reasonable to me. With a socialist system wouldn't talented individuals who coast on the capitalist system be forced to work harder?

I believe that the confusion of terms is sometimes deliberate – just as Stalinism is labelled ‘communism’, political terms are used incorrectly so that people get confused and can’t distinguish between the different systems; they’re all lumped together, and are all ‘bad’ or ‘evil’. Sometimes I believe the confusion of terms is because of genuine lack of knowledge – it does not seem as if Marxism is a popular research topic, and people just haven’t been exposed to the existence of these ideas and definitions.

… if I remember correctly, Einstein supported social democracy.

Ah, yes – he certainly did! Here’s a link to an article he wrote about it entitled ‘Why Socialism’: http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm . Another interesting link is the FBI’s huge file on Einstein - he was under surveillance because he belonged to the Communist Party: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm

Well, Dooga, it’s been a pleasure; thank you for this opportunity for discussion of ideas

PS: To everyone who’s going to flame irrational responses to what I have written here – don’t bother. I really won’t be wasting my time trying to discuss politics with people who aren’t serious about investigating issues.

 

[hitssquad]

'Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay'

(Dooga, just watch how those who do not agree react to this quoted evidence

Yes. That proves it. Karl Marx was a monkey.

 

[Pengwuino]

I will help you booga and point you to previous threads alexandra has been part of. After reviewing his/her postings, it was fairly evident that people will give him/her a good amount of information to the contrary and seeing that he/she has run into a brick wall, will complain she is somehow being "attacked" for her beliefs and that everyone else is suffering from some sort of emotional ignorance when she is, in fact, the first person to get emotional and the first to start attacking people outside of the argument.

Maybe this is why communism doesn't stand a chance eh? Their advocates deem any counter-argument or facts to the contrary as an "attack" or "emotional outburst".

I'd also like to remind you that I am sure Einstein woudl be the first to note that he was not an economist.

 

[Pengwuino]

Their political organization was party-based tyranny and their economic system was state capitalism.

To clear things up, this basically means they were basically socialists

 

[russ_watters]

(Dooga, just watch how those who do not agree react to this quoted evidence – they will either refute it loudly, without presenting counter-evidence for their claims, or they will ignore it!)

Surprise surprise: I think that that monkey study is completely consitent with what we know about humans (and the competitiveness observed in monkeys). The problem is that Marxists misunderstand the concept of fairness. In the study, receiving unequal reward for equal work is unfair. Seems obvious - but in Marxism, people are to receive equal reward for unequal work! In Marxism, effort (labor) is what counts and that is part of the reason Marxism failed: that's a flawed way of viewing "fairness".

Tell me: where did the monkeys get the pebbles (money)?

LOL – yes! Precisely. And this is the point! This is what everyone’s so scared of.

I don't see why that's funny or why forcing people to work is a good thing. Human history is filled with slavery and other forms of involuntary servitude. Its abolition is considered to be one of the more important social achievements of human history.

To everyone who’s going to flame irrational responses to what I have written here – don’t bother.

If you really think you've been flamed here, try posting in a politics forum somewhere else. You'll find you didn't realize what flaming really is.

 

[Pengwuino]

If you really think you've been flamed here, try posting in a politics forum somewhere else. You'll find you didn't realize what flaming really is.

lol!

http://www.forumplanet.com/planetbattlefield/forum.asp?fid=5536

there! go there! just put capitalism/communism in your title and don't even make a post and see what true flaming is all about.

 

[Informal Logic]

I will help you booga and point you to previous threads alexandra has been part of. After reviewing his/her postings, it was fairly evident that people will give him/her a good amount of information to the contrary and seeing that he/she has run into a brick wall, will complain she is somehow being "attacked" for her beliefs and that everyone else is suffering from some sort of emotional ignorance when she is, in fact, the first person to get emotional and the first to start attacking people outside of the argument.

Maybe this is why communism doesn't stand a chance eh? Their advocates deem any counter-argument or facts to the contrary as an "attack" or "emotional outburst".

And of course your posts have been so much more informative, open minded, and as with this post, not a personal attack on anyone.

 

[GENIERE]

I have only pity for someone who seemingly devotes his life to the study of Marxism.

 

[Pengwuino]

And of course your posts have been so much more informative, open minded, and as with this post, not a personal attack on anyone.

Go review some older threads and you'll understand why i choose to be very close minded to this alexandra person. Simply informing others of what to expect and to not get their hopes up.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Everybody has theories. Juxtaposed against that is the pragmatic value of "what works," or at least what is working now. It's true that Marx's theory has never been applied exactly as he envisioned, but it certainly wasn't for lack of trying.

However, Russia did manage to implement a crucial part of Marx's theory, which was to insist individuals give TOP priority to working for the benefit of the whole. It didn't take very long before participants began to feel unfulfilled by working for some invisible "whole." Why? Because built into humans, whether by genes or God, is the need to feel personally fulfilled by what we give ourselves to. If we put out and put out and put out . . . but we get back nothing close to what we give, or if what we get back isn't fulfilling, then we start to lose interest.

The big mistake Marx made, IMO, was to think economics (translated: survival) is what inspires, motivates, pushes humanity more than anything else all the time. That is only true if survival is threatened. Studies have repeatedly shown that once humans are physically secure, other things move to top priority. When reasonably comfortable, we want to be creative, to feel like we contribute, to be part of the decision making process, to feel appreciated . . . i.e., the need for self actualization moves to the forefront.

So although Marxist theorists often try to squirm out of their failures by claiming the theory has never been properly implemented, that doesn't explain the much greater success (by far) of democratic capitalism (a self-rewarding system) which also has not been ideally practiced.

Marxist theorists try to claim too that humans have no nature -- a theory not supported by observation. You'd have to live in the dark ages not to notice that the reason some human-based system works better than another is primarily because the system is designed around human nature; likewise, the worse a human-based system does, the more contrary to human nature it has proven to be.

Whatever sort of system makes humans get naturally excited, naturally committed, naturally interested (i.e., without "state" pressure and propagandizing to hypnotize citizens into obeying/believing) . . . that's what we have the most evidence of working best.

I kinda like democratic capitalistic socialism myself. :tongue2:

 

[alexandra]

The big mistake Marx made, IMO, was to think economics (translated: survival) is what inspires, motivates, pushes humanity more than anything else all the time. That is only true if survival is threatened. Studies have repeatedly shown that once humans are physically secure, other things move to top priority. When reasonably comfortable, we want to be creative, to feel like we contribute, to be part of the decision making process, to feel appreciated . . . i.e., the need for self actualization moves to the forefront.

Marx did not think that what inspires and motivates humanity is economics; on the contrary, this is what he wrote (I posted this in a discussion on the 'Political Perspectives' thread):

Marxism sees poverty not so much as in the shortfall of means in meeting needs but in the low level of development of human needs. The person who wants only for their next meal experiences real poverty; the artist in her garret whose heart’s desire is a sublime insight or subtle nuance for their next artistic work is poor, but not as poor as the person who has no idea of art at all.

The poverty that communists seek to abolish with the overthrow of capitalism, is not so much the inequality of distribution, but the poverty of development of human sensibilities:

“We have seen what significance, given socialism, the wealth of human needs acquires, and what significance, therefore, both a new mode of production and a new object of production obtain: a new manifestation of the forces of human nature and a new enrichment of human nature. Under Private Property their significance is reversed: every person speculates on creating a new need in another, so as to drive him to fresh sacrifice, to place him in a new dependence and to seduce him into a new mode of enjoyment and therefore economic ruin. Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. [See also Comments on James Mill for more on this]

“The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering. Man becomes ever poorer as man, his need for money becomes ever greater if he wants to master the hostile power. The power of his money declines in inverse proportion to the increase in the volume of production: that is, his neediness grows as the power of money increases.

“The need for money is therefore the true need produced by the economic system, and it is the only need which the latter produces. The quantity of money becomes to an ever greater degree its sole effective quality. Just as it reduces everything to its abstract form, so it reduces itself in the course of its own movement to quantitative being. Excess and intemperance come to be its true norm.” [Human Needs and the Division of Labour]Reference: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/o.htm#poverty

So Marx argues argues that capitalist competition for a larger share of the pie impoverishes humans by robbing them of having any worthwhile goals as intellectual/artistic/creative beings. It is simplistic and inaccurate to accuse Marx of economic determinism. That some of his interpreters misinterpret his theory so crudely does not mean that the theory itself is crude.

 

[alexandra]

Marxist theorists try to claim too that humans have no nature -- a theory not supported by observation. You'd have to live in the dark ages not to notice that the reason some human-based system works better than another is primarily because the system is designed around human nature; likewise, the worse a human-based system does, the more contrary to human nature it has proven to be.

Please, Les, show me the observational/research studies that claim to be the final word on this issue. It is not enough to say ‘You’d have to live in the dark ages not to notice… etc’, because we are trying to have a reasoned exchange of ideas here so we need to back up our claims.

Whatever sort of system makes humans get naturally excited, naturally committed, naturally interested (i.e., without "state" pressure and propagandizing to hypnotize citizens into obeying/believing) . . . that's what we have the most evidence of working best.

But Les, what about the extraordinary amount of consumer pressure and propagandising that occurs in capitalist societies? I have studied the techniques used by advertising agents (here’s one reference to back up my claim, but I can find many others if you want me to): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising#Techniques , and these are nothing but propaganda, as you will notice at once if you just click on this link to ‘Propaganda Techniques’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques_of_propaganda_generation )– and anyone who switches on a television set, or reads a magazine or newspaper can see how prevalent advertising is in daily life. As for ‘hypnotizing citizens into obeying/believing’ – well, isn’t that exactly what politicians and their media-buddies do? The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania’s website, http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/ , has a number of interesting links to reports about these topics; for example here’s a link to a report on just one of the issues, “Issue Advertising in the 1999-2000 Election Cycle”, http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/03_political_communication/issueads/2001_pressrelease020101.pdf

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So Marx argues argues that capitalist competition for a larger share of the pie impoverishes humans by robbing them of having any worthwhile goals as intellectual/artistic/creative beings.

While this may have been true once I would not agree that it is now. More and more people are capable of making a living as an artist or writer and even if you aren't talented enough to make a living you can still do them for your own self gratification.

 

[alexandra]

While this may have been true once I would not agree that it is now. More and more people are capable of making a living as an artist or writer and even if you aren't talented enough to make a living you can still do them for your own self gratification.

Although what you say is true, overall we will have to disagree about this, TheStatutoryApe - my argument is that under a communist system many more people (perhaps even all people) will have the opportunity to meet their potential as human beings.

I have no empirical evidence to back up my claim except that the Soviet Union produced many talented individuals and they did not have to be rich to become brilliant. The Soviet Union was not communist, but it was not capitalist either. It had more of a 'social welfare' system, though - most importantly for this discussion, education was free. I believe that there are many talented people living in capitalist societies whose potential will never be reached for a very silly reason: they just lack the means to achieve it.

But you will disagree with me (we obviously adopt different ideological positions in many of our discussions), so perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this issue, for which neither of us can provide empirical supporting evidence?

 

[Pengwuino]

Although what you say is true, overall we will have to disagree about this, TheStatutoryApe - my argument is that under a communist system many more people (perhaps even all people) will have the opportunity to meet their potential as human beings.

How so? Under communism, you are forced to do a task that you may very well not want to do "for the good of society". I don't think anyones dreams and ambitions will be fulfilled when they are told they need to be garbage men "for the good of society" for the rest of their lives.

 

[alexandra]

How so? Under communism, you are forced to do a task that you may very well not want to do "for the good of society". I don't think anyones dreams and ambitions will be fulfilled when they are told they need to be garbage men "for the good of society" for the rest of their lives.

Pengwuino, this is not what communism is about (why would I want to promote such horrors if it were?) - it is just what you have been taught it is.

This is what communism is:

As a theoretical social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production, no money and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned cooperatively and collectively, by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status and rights. Theoretically, under communism, human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of resources as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the problem of the capitalist poverty cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

 

[Les Sleeth]

Pengwuino, this is not what communism is about (why would I want to promote such horrors if it were?) - it is just what you have been taught it is.

This is what communism is:

I've been busy for the last few days and couldn't find time to answer you until this morning, and then as I was about to post, I saw you'd switched to some idealization of communism when I thought we were talking about Marx. I'm going to post the Marx thing anyway, but first I want to comment on your statement "this is not what communism is about," which seems to me as idealistic as a statement gets.

When you say "this is what communism is," that's pure fantasy. It might be what communist devotees dream it could be, but what it's actually been has been the horrors, and that's the only applied examples we have of communism to judge it by.

It's easy to write off the failures to misapplication, but it could just as well be that communism both invites oppression and is ultimately inefficient. So because no one has ever applied it successfully, you cannot possibly state "what communism is."

Anyway, here's what I was going to post about Marx:

Please, Les, show me the observational/research studies that claim to be the final word on this issue. It is not enough to say ‘You’d have to live in the dark ages not to notice…[ that the reason some human-based system works better than another is primarily because the system is designed around human nature ], because we are trying to have a reasoned exchange of ideas here so we need to back up our claims.

Well, maybe you should study the field of organizational development. The case studies are abundant, and the results are clear for anyone to see. Why do you think management theory has changed so much in the last 40 years? It has been from recognizing that people do have intellectual, creative, emotional, and participatory needs on the job, and then designing work flow around those needs. I don’t think it’s fair to expect me to educate you in something which is so easily observed and researched for oneself.

Marx did not think that what inspires and motivates humanity is economics . . . Marx argues that capitalist competition for a larger share of the pie impoverishes humans by robbing them of having any worthwhile goals as intellectual/artistic/creative beings. It is simplistic and inaccurate to accuse Marx of economic determinism. That some of his interpreters misinterpret his theory so crudely does not mean that the theory itself is crude.

I think he rationalized his theory with idealistic rhetoric, but it is contradicted by what Marx’s focus was. Consider how he explains his concept of “self fulfillment” as dependent on socioeconomic conditions, what people have to do to make a living, and what sort of practical relationships they have with others. Now compare that with say, Maslow’s concept of self actualization. I can see ways to interpret them as similar in several respects, but there is a huge difference in how they are put into practice.

Maslow’s approach is something each individual can work toward alone, and which the managers and associates of each work environment can implement. One by one, sort of like a revolution from within the system, things can be changed. And, in fact, that is exactly what’s been happening. It turns out that designing work systems around human psychological needs helps people be more productive and effective, so self-interest has proven itself again. As people learn more about themselves, they find out enlightened self-interest is actually quite practical. But we all need to learn it for ourselves, and not have some self-proclaimed genius shove it down our throats, which describes Marx’s demeanor fairly well.

His ideas had to be executed on a grand scale . . . through revolution of the entire society. And what qualified Marx to be so resolute about society’s needs? Why he was a genius, he figured it all out, he knew what was best for all of us. He didn’t need the approval of other thinkers or the understanding of the masses; and his appeal has generally been to the downtrodden but quite ignorant masses. Of course, those masses were often led by opportunists who saw the perfect promise to make to aspiring revolutionaries.

Socioeconomically, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek and Bertrand Russell all effectively spoke of the inevitability of power abuse and inefficiency reflected by those 18 million trusting peasants who died of starvation under Mao’s “great leap” (was it supposed to be backwards?), the 14 million Stalin needlessly let starve, the million starvations under the leadership of Kim Sung, the millions who died due to the methods Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Antonescum, Karadzic, Ne Win, Milosevic, Pavelic, and then there’s Cuba’s booming economy to instill confidence. This is the legacy of communist leadership thus far.

I personally think sharing wealth more evenly and the elimination of class distinctions are enlightened ideas, but you can’t force enlightenment into people’s consciousness, which is what Marx seemed to think was the way to go. And of course, as a materialist, to Marx human consciousness needs are secondary (just the opposite of Maslow’s conception). Quoting from a philosophy source book, “Marx conceives the justice of economic transactions as their correspondence to or functionality for the prevailing mode of production. Given this conception of justice, Marx very consistently . . . concluded that the inhuman exploitation practiced by capitalism against the workers is not unjust . . . this conclusion constitutes no defense of capitalism, only an attack on the use of moral conceptions within the proletarian movement.”

Marx’s pompous, disdainful attitude is reflected throughout his life. German-born Carl Schurz, who within sixteen years after immigrating to the U.S. would be admitted to the Wisconsin bar, serve as a general in the Civil War, be elected U.S. senator, and help establish the New York Evening Post, recalled attending a meeting of "democratic associations" in 1848 where Karl Marx attended. Almost sixty years later, Schurz could still not forget the uneasiness of that experience: “I have never seen a man whose bearing was so provoking and intolerable. To no opinion, which differed from his, he accorded the honor of even a condescending consideration. Everyone who contradicted him he treated with abject contempt . . . he denounced everyone that dared to oppose his opinions.”

So is it to be an arrogant know-it-all who’s ideas, however poorly implemented, have brought so much misery . . . is that who we are to believe figured out what’s best for humanity? Give me George Washington and Adam Smith any day.

(BTW, if I were allowed to choose what sort of economic system we had, I’d want to fully socialize or subsidize things all humans need, such medicine, legal services, education [i.e., through college], housing, food . . . but I’d also want to allow people to make plenty of money. However we are talking about Marx, not creative socialist possibilities.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

When you say "this is what communism is," that's a fantasy. It might be what communist devotees dream it could be, but what it's actually been has been the horrors and that's the only applied examples we have of communism to judge it by.

Except they aren't examples of communism. Not one of them meets Marx's criteria for communism, not one was established in a mature, late-stage capitalistic economy, as Marx said the revolution would be. They are all a bunch of dictatorships that found it conveneint to wave the red flag.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Except they aren't examples of communism. Not one of them meets Marx's criteria for communism, not one was established in a mature, late-stage capitalistic economy, as Marx said the revolution would be. They are all a bunch of dictatorships that found it conveneint to wave the red flag.

I realize that, but I don't think we can dismiss the possibility that when people start to work toward communism, it ends up the way it has. Can we be sure that communist principles themselves aren't responsible for part of the failure of movements to end up as ideal of communism?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Also, compare new efforts to work toward a capitalist democracy to those new efforts to work toward communism. Why should capitalist democracy fare so much better with incipient efforts? Personally I think the passion of the people to be free creates devotees to capitalist democracy naturally. Free social and market ideals strike a nerve in us.

I am not saying that once things are cooking, we shouldn't consider some communal ideals, because I am fairly "left" myself. It's just that communism when forced as a "system" and not realized naturally in people seems to undermine human individuality, and that leads to mediocrity.

 

[alexandra]

I've been busy for the last few days and couldn't find time to answer you until this morning, and then as I was about to post, I saw you'd switched to some idealization of communism when I thought we were talking about Marx. I'm going to post the Marx thing anyway, but first I want to comment on your statement "this is not what communism is about," which seems to me as idealistic as a statement gets.

Well, if you read what immediately preceded my post, you’ll see that I did not ‘switch to some idealization of communism’ – I was merely responding to something Pengwuino wrote. If anyone ‘switched’ the topic, it was not I. The ‘switch’ happened in the course of the discussion: responding to something I wrote, TheStatutoryApe wrote something to which I responded again, and then Pengwuino joined in the discussion. This is just what discussions are like – as new points are raised, they develop.

When you say "this is what communism is," that's pure fantasy. It might be what communist devotees dream it could be, but what it's actually been has been the horrors, and that's the only applied examples we have of communism to judge it by.

It's easy to write off the failures to misapplication, but it could just as well be that communism both invites oppression and is ultimately inefficient. So because no one has ever applied it successfully, you cannot possibly state "what communism is."

I can state ‘this is what Marxist theory states communism to be’. That is what this whole thread is about – different economic systems. According to Marxist theory, communism is, basically, as defined in the Wikipedia extract I quoted in that post. Am I not allowed to state what a theory says? Why not?

 

[alexandra]

I think he rationalized his theory with idealistic rhetoric, but it is contradicted by what Marx’s focus was. Consider how he explains his concept of “self fulfillment” as dependent on socioeconomic conditions, what people have to do to make a living, and what sort of practical relationships they have with others. Now compare that with say, Maslow’s concept of self actualization. I can see ways to interpret them as similar in several respects, but there is a huge difference in how they are put into practice.

Ah yes, how familiar is this: when someone one disagrees with actually turns out to have a sophisticated theory, we assert that he ‘rationalized’ it with ‘idealistic rhetoric’, but if the self-same thing is said by people one happens to agree with (management theorists), we take it at face value and applaud them and do not recognise the hypocrisy of what they are stating.

Since when did ‘managers’ care about people? They care about – what is that term… oh yes, “the bottom line”. And if ‘the bottom line’ calls for industrial rationalisation and laying off employees, or in the interests of increasing profits closing down whole industries and shifting them 'offshore' (where labour is cheap) well sorry everyone – even if you do have a family to support, no hard feelings – I’ve go to ‘let you go’... Who cares about these people’s ‘psychological’ (or even their physical) welfare then?

One by one, sort of like a revolution from within the system, things can be changed.

IMHO this is a fairy tale; nice – but talk about idealism!

 

[alexandra]

And, in fact, that is exactly what’s been happening. It turns out that designing work systems around human psychological needs helps people be more productive and effective, so self-interest has proven itself again.

Oh yes, ‘more productive and effective’ – the employees that are left, in any case, after all the ‘downsizing’. Yes, I can see we are designing work systems around human psychological needs.

But we all need to learn it for ourselves, and not have some self-proclaimed genius shove it down our throats, which describes Marx’s demeanor fairly well.

This is a discussion. No-one is shoving anything down anyone’s throat – least of all Marx (I mean, he’s dead, although his theory – much to many people’s annoyance, is alive and well and sure to thrive in this conflict-ridden environment that is only going to get worse and worse).

As people learn more about themselves, they find out enlightened self-interest is actually quite practical. But we all need to learn it for ourselves, and not have some self-proclaimed genius shove it down our throats, which describes Marx’s demeanor fairly well.

What about pompous free-market ideology, that claims to have the best solution of all to the world’s problems? Witness now the ‘shoving down people’s throats’ of so-called ‘democracy’ (what a laugh!) and the ‘free market’ economy (‘free’?!).

Now, about “Marx’s demeanour” – he called his theory ‘scientific socialism’ to distinguish it from ‘utopian socialism’. It is the utopian socialists (as I’ve already written at length in various threads) who thought they ‘knew’ and could ‘convince’ others how best to live. Marx made a historical and economic study of changes in social formations and suggested that the next progressive step in social organisation after capitalism would be a social organisation called socialism, which could progress to communism. But ok, if you want to see Marx as a ‘pompous, self-proclaimed genius’, please yourself. I really don’t care what you believe, and nor does history. The thing is, history will tell us whose analysis was correct and whose was not. You don’t seriously think that we (members of the privileged, decadent middle classes - fast disappearing, by the way) are actually in control of history? It is the people who are suffering under this fantastic free-market economy who will either choose to continue suffering and take whatever degradations ‘democracy’ and the ‘free market’ subject them to or will try to do something about it. My bet is they won’t take this oppression and degradation forever. Evidence: there is resistance in many places over the world – a very recent example being Bolivia ( http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-06-03T052157Z_01_N03226934_RTRIDST_0_INTERNATIONAL-BOLIVIA-DC.XML ). Of course, sheer force can be used and entire populations can be decimated to prevent social change – and, of course, that wouldn’t be considered in any way comparable to what the ‘communist’ dictators did (they were not actually communists, by the way). Oh yes, and the enforced ‘regime changes’ being led by the enlightened ‘democracies’ of the world right now are perfectly fine, are they not? It is not as if civilians are dying or suffering in any way.

 

[alexandra]

And what qualified Marx to be so resolute about society’s needs? Why he was a genius, he figured it all out, he knew what was best for all of us. He didn’t need the approval of other thinkers or the understanding of the masses; and his appeal has generally been to the downtrodden but quite ignorant masses. Of course, those masses were often led by opportunists who saw the perfect promise to make to aspiring revolutionaries.

Well Les, you seem to have Marx’s theory all figured out – so I presume you’ve studied it and are discussing this from an informed position? As you wrote earlier, you don’t see the need to ‘educate’ me regarding management theory because I can ‘do the research’ myself. Well, given your deep studies of Marxism and your considered and informed conclusions, how can I argue against you? My own readings of Marx do not lead me to think of him as ‘pompous’ or idiotic or whatever personal insults you care to fling at him because you just can’t be bothered to argue seriously against his actual theories. Oh well, I guess you know better.

I would hardly call the many intellectuals who have recognised the value of Marx’s theories ‘ignorant masses’ – but I concede, you did say ‘his appeal has generally been to the downtrodden but quite ignorant masses’. By the way, that statement does sound rather elitist to me – the ‘quite ignorant masses’, hmmm. And so people like Trotsky were merely opportunists, were they? Do you know anything at all about Trotsky, and about what he lost in the course of his fight for a better society?

Socioeconomically, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek and Bertrand Russell all effectively spoke of the inevitability of power abuse and inefficiency reflected by those 18 million trusting peasants who died of starvation under Mao’s “great leap” (was it supposed to be backwards?), the 14 million Stalin needlessly let starve, the million starvations under the leadership of Kim Sung, the millions who died due to the methods Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Antonescum, Karadzic, Ne Win, Milosevic, Pavelic, and then there’s Cuba’s booming economy to instill confidence. This is the legacy of communist leadership thus far.

Here is the legacy of ‘civilised’ ‘democratic’ leaders - I am quoting William Blum, who has published several interesting and enlightening essays and books about US foreign policy ( http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html ):

Suggesting a moral equivalency between the United States and terrorists (or, during the cold war, with communists) never fails to inflame American anger. The terrorists purposely aimed to kill civilians we are told (actually, many of the victims were military or military employees), while any non-combatant victims of the American bombings were completely accidental.

Whenever the United States goes into one of its periodic bombing frenzies and its missiles take the lives of numerous civilians, this is called "collateral damage" -- inflicted by the Fates of War; for the real targets, we are invariably told, were military.

But if day after day, in one country after another, the same scenario takes place -- dropping prodigious quantities of powerfully lethal ordnance from very high altitudes with the full knowledge that large numbers of civilians will perish or be maimed, even without missiles going "astray" -- what can one say about the intentions of the American military? The best, the most charitable, thing that can be said is that they simply don't care. They want to bomb and destroy for certain political ends and they don't particularly care if the civilian population suffers grievously. "Negligent homicide" might be suitable legal terminology.

In Afghanistan, when, on successive days in October, US gunships machine-gunned and cannoned the remote farming village of Chowkar-Karez killing as many as 93 civilians, a Pentagon official was moved to respond at one point: "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead", while US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commented: "I cannot deal with that particular village."{8}

On occasion, US bombing campaigns do have as part of their agenda the causing of suffering, hoping that it will lead the people under the falling bombs to turn against the government. This was a recurrent feature of the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. As can be seen in the "War Criminals" chapter of Rogue State by the author, US/NATO officials -- in their consummate arrogance -- freely admitted this again and again. And in Afghanistan we have the example of the chief of the British Defense Staff, Adm. Sir Michael Boyce, declaring that the bombing will continue "until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed."{8a}

Such a policy fits very well into the FBI definition of international terrorism, which speaks of the use of force or violence against persons or property "to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

In any event, the September 11 terrorists could just as easily claim that their aim was not to kill civilians but to inflict great damage to the institutions that represent and carry out American imperialism -- the World Trade Center = the economic arm, the Pentagon = the military arm, and the aborted plane attack may well have been intended for the political arm: the White House. After all, if killing civilians were their principal aim they could have flown one or more planes into a full football stadium -- right into the stands -- and killed many thousands more.

Speak no evil, so Americans will see no evil.

In reaction to a number of gruesome images of Afghan bombing victims, and expressed European and Middle-Eastern concern about civilian casualties, the American media strove to downplay the significance of such deaths. The chairman of Cable News Network (CNN) advised the news staff that it "seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan."{9}

A Fox Network report on the war wondered why journalists should bother covering civilian deaths at all. "The question I have," said the host, "is civilian casualties are historically, by definition, a part of war, really. Should they be as big news as they've been?" His guest from National Public Radio replied: "No. Look, war is about killing people. Civilian casualties are unavoidable." Another guest, a columnist from the national magazine, U.S. News & World Report, had no argument: "Civilian casualties are not ... news. The fact is that they accompany wars."{10}

But if in fact the September 11 attacks were an act of war, as the world has been told repeatedly by George W. Bush and his minions, then the casualties of the World Trade Center were clearly civilian war casualties. Why then has the media devoted so much time to their deaths?

These were the only kind of deaths Americans wanted to hear about and they could become furious when told of Afghan deaths. A memo circulated at the Panama City, Florida News Herald warned editors: "DO NOT USE photos on Page 1A showing civilian casualties from the U.S. war on Afghanistan. Our sister paper in Fort Walton Beach has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening e-mails and the like."{11}
http://www.venusproject.com/William_Blum/sep11.htm

How civilised! How completely different to the misuses of Marxist theory by dictators! How breath-takingly blind of those who will not see the truth that’s so, so obvious. And I’m not even going into history here – I’m not writing anything about Vietnam, Korea, Hiroshima, Nagasaki – and the damage caused to ordinary European people while the US administration turned a blind eye to Hitler’s doings and just waited patiently, only to step in as the sole remaining ‘super-power’ at the very end (after the despised Russian people – those damned communists! - died in their millions to weaken Hitler). And here’s a link with much information about the ‘regime change’ policy to ‘bring democracy, peace and prosperity’ to regions: http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214 - read it if you’re interested (I can’t read it for you), but here’s a brief, telling extract:

Immediately after September 11, Paul Wolfowitz and other officials urged President Bush to attack Iraq. New Yorker writer Mark Danner notes as part of a PBS Frontline special that they saw this as a "new opportunity presented by the war on terror-that is, an opportunity to argue to the public that Iraq presented a vital danger to the United States." Colin Powell and the joint chiefs opposed them. "Powell's view was that Wolfowitz was fixated on Iraq, that they were looking for any excuse to bring Iraq into this," Washington Post reporter Dan Balz told Frontline. Powell won, but briefly. Neo-conservative writers began to urge regime change as part of a larger strategy for remaking the Middle East.

But you people who argue against me (and people with similar analyses to mine) know all this – you just choose to ignore it!

Almost sixty years later, Schurz could still not forget the uneasiness of that experience: “I have never seen a man whose bearing was so provoking and intolerable. To no opinion, which differed from his, he accorded the honor of even a condescending consideration. Everyone who contradicted him he treated with abject contempt . . . he denounced everyone that dared to oppose his opinions.”

By this token, I should be terrified of you and the many others who disagree with me and so vehemently oppose my opinions. All those who disagree with me are ‘provoking and intolerable’ and should therefore not be allowed to state their views. Come on, Les, we’re having a discussion. People disagree. So Marx disagreed with Schurz – so what? He disagreed with many people. That was the nature of the new theory he had developed; it’s a conflict perspective, and those who support the status quo just aren’t going to agree with it because it is not in their class interest to do so. It points out very uncomfortable truths about the nature of capitalism, about exploitation and class conflict; middle class people just don’t like to be faced with such discomforting thoughts.

I am not saying that once things are cooking, we shouldn't consider some communal ideals, because I am fairly "left" myself. It's just that communism when forced as a "system" and not realized naturally in people seems to undermine human individuality, and that leads to mediocrity.

But this is the thing – no-one is advocating ‘forcing’ communism as a system. Marx did not advocate this either. He wrote about the political conscientisation of the working class, and worked towards this aim, of course – but he never envisaged an ‘enforced’ communism; as far as Marx was concerned, it would be the people (the working class) who effected the change from capitalism to socialism. And this is precisely what still distinguishes Marxists from people who claim to be ‘revolutionary’ or ‘left-wing’: Marxists know that a small group of leaders or rebels cannot do anything to change society – social change will either be effected by the bulk of the people or it won’t happen at all. No true Marxist ever supported Stalinism. Those ‘left-wing’ supporters of Stalinism and the other so-called ‘communist’ (they were not communist) societies, didn’t have a clue what they were supporting – either that or they were themselves Stalinists (not Marxists).

 

[Les Sleeth]

My own readings of Marx do not lead me to think of him as ‘pompous’ or idiotic or whatever personal insults you care to fling at him because you just can’t be bothered to argue seriously against his actual theories. Oh well, I guess you know better.

I apologize if anything I said seemed directed at you (except responding to your expectation that I cite studies about something so well published). If I feel any sort of impatience it's with Marx. I don't consider myself an expert on Marx, but I've read McClellan's biography, Das Kapital, the manifesto of course, and several papers. I think I have a grasp of Marx's complaints about capitalism, and the alternative communist system he proposed. So it's not from ignorance that I say I don't think his theory is a good one.

I could break it down to details, but really there is one particular point where he goes wrong which creates the main problems for his theory. I don't think he knew much about human motivation, and that made him base his socioeconomic theory on a false assumption about human psychology.

Marx underestimated the human need for self actualization. I mean this in the general sense of developing, expressing, and achieving as an individual. He seemed to think people would be motivated by working for some invisible, nondescript whole. But that has never proven as motivating as when people act out of self interest. Self interested is what we psychologically are first and foremost.

As I said earlier, there are varieties of self interest. I used to think only of my little selfish needs when I was younger, but now I find it’s in my own best interest to share more, to love more, etc. It’s practical because not only am I happier, I build better relationships with people. But it takes time for people to learn what things are really good for them.

In the meantime people are driven to find self satisfaction. It’s true that while looking for it a great many people do things that are harmful to others and the environment. Unenlightened self interest, like greed for example, hurts humanity overall (which seems to be one of your big complaints about capitalism). But if we devise a system to eliminate greed which requires one to reject self interest, we have taken away the main motivational force of a human being. If we were all selfless saints, maybe it might work, but that isn’t where humanity is right now.

Further, the fact that communism requires the individual to set aside his primary psychological drive seems to justify the oppression of individual expression and therefore more easily leads to the totalitarian state. Add to that the blandness that develops from squelched self actualization and you get the freedomless mediocre hue of communism.

Despite the pitfalls of capitalism, it has the top human motivating force in the primary spot where it belongs. Because selfishness still prevails in the human race, it’s taking time for us to learn selfishness is shortsighted and can cause great loss in the long term. As we learn enlightened self interest is far more practical to our existence, we are trying to reform the selfish aspects little by little.

But Marx wanted to eliminate selfishness all at once with a system! That was Popper’s main point in his book The Open Society and it Enemies. “[Marx is a threat to open society] because his theories of historical inevitability lead one to believe that piece-meal reform of institutions for the benefit of the public (and it is this which is the ongoing democratic project), is pointless; perhaps even harmful if it were to prolong the ‘birth-pangs of communism’.”

Marx, like many big thinkers, didn’t understand the inner workings of a human being. A “system” is an outer thing, but the change he was trying to base his system on is an inner thing. You can’t force inner psychological growth (not on the scale of entire society anyway) with an outer system; you can’t devise a system which humans, once part of it, feel like fish out of water. Human systems have to be designed around how humans are now, and what they have to work with (psychologically) now. Then once grounded solidly in what humans can relate to, one gradually works toward more enlightened social practices.

 

[Joel]

Interesting posts Les Sleeth, thank you.

Further, the fact that communism requires the individual to set aside his primary psychological drive seems to justify the oppression of individual expression and therefore more easily leads to the totalitarian state. Add to that the blandness that develops from squelched self actualization and you get the freedomless mediocre hue of communism.

I'd like to add that I understand that Marx was quite vague about what he meant with the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but it could easily be understood that one institution (the proletariat) would enjoy supreme power after the revolution, which per definition is a totalitarian state. Regardless of what ideology, the total domination of a single ideology cannot but be destructive for the ongoing democratic project, as (you and) Popper put it.

 

[alexandra]

I apologize if anything I said seemed directed at you (except responding to your expectation that I cite studies about something so well published). If I feel any sort of impatience it's with Marx. I don't consider myself an expert on Marx, but I've read McClellan's biography, Das Kapital, the manifesto of course, and several papers. I think I have a grasp of Marx's complaints about capitalism, and the alternative communist system he proposed. So it's not from ignorance that I say I don't think his theory is a good one.

I didn't take anything you said personally, Les – I was just defending my views/beliefs in general (as well as the thinkers and historical actors I have much admiration for). My interpretations of Marx's writings are very different to yours, and I was defending these interpretations. Perhaps Marx was, as a person, 'arrogant' and ‘argumentative’ (I don’t know whether or not he was, but I believe a lot of famous people are 'guilty' of this - as are many not-so-famous academics ) Here’s an excerpt from a biography of Newton, for example:

Adjectives that have been used to describe facets of his personality include "remote", "lonely", "secretive", "introverted", "melancholic", "humorless", "puritanical", "cruel", "vindictive" and, perhaps worst of all, "unforgiving". http://www.icpress.co.uk/books/histsci/p299.html

But even if Marx was arrogant as a person, this does not detract from his academic work any more than Newton’s personality detracted from his academic work.

I could break it down to details, but really there is one particular point where he goes wrong which creates the main problems for his theory. I don't think he knew much about human motivation, and that made him base his socioeconomic theory on a false assumption about human psychology.

Marx underestimated the human need for self actualization. I mean this in the general sense of developing, expressing, and achieving as an individual. He seemed to think people would be motivated by working for some invisible, nondescript whole. But that has never proven as motivating as when people act out of self interest. Self interested is what we psychologically are first and foremost.

I disagree with you that Marx thought people would be motivated by working for some invisible nondescript whole – I believe Marx’s theory of alienation in capitalist societies is the key to understanding what his critique of this aspect of capitalism was. I think we are interpreting Marx’s writings differently, Les. Here’s a lengthy quote from McLellan’s “The Thought of Karl Marx: An Introduction” (1971, McMillan Press, London, p.25):

[In his notes on James Mill, Marx]…outlined, in philosophical and almost lyrical tones, his conception of the truly human society:
Supposing that we had produced in a human manner; each of us would in his production have doubly affirmed himself and his fellow men. I would have: (1) objectified in my production my individuality and its peculiarity and thus both in my activity enjoyed an individual expression of my life and also in looking at the object have had the individual pleasure of realising that my personality was objective, visible to the senses and thus a power raised beyond all doubt. (2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have had the direct enjoyment of realising that I had both satisfied a human need by my work and also objectified the human essence and therefore fashioned for another human being the object that met his need. (3) I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species and thus been acknowledged and felt by you as a completion of your own essence and a necessary part of yourself and have thus realized that I am confirmed both in your thought and in your love. (4) In my expression of my life I would have fashioned your expression of your life, and thus in my own activity have realized my own essence, my human, my communal essence”

I read this as self-actualisation of a very deep and meaningful sort.

As I said earlier, there are varieties of self interest. I used to think only of my little selfish needs when I was younger, but now I find it’s in my own best interest to share more, to love more, etc. It’s practical because not only am I happier, I build better relationships with people. But it takes time for people to learn what things are really good for them.

I agree with what you write here – but I believe that this is exactly what Marx was getting at as well. When I apply this thinking on a global level, it seems obvious to me that in order for our planet to remain habitable (environmentally), and if we are not to descend into some chaotic ‘Mad Max’-type of world, we will have to adopt a less self-interested approach to life: to secure our existence as individuals, we will have to care about more than just ourselves. This seems to me the most important lesson that Marx’s writings has taught me.

In the meantime people are driven to find self satisfaction. It’s true that while looking for it a great many people do things that are harmful to others and the environment. Unenlightened self interest, like greed for example, hurts humanity overall (which seems to be one of your big complaints about capitalism). But if we devise a system to eliminate greed which requires one to reject self interest, we have taken away the main motivational force of a human being. If we were all selfless saints, maybe it might work, but that isn’t where humanity is right now.

Ok, but what if our enlightened self-interest were precisely to think of the good of our communities (and even of the global community)? I think this is perhaps where I differ with many people I engage in discussions with on these boards: I do not believe we have infinite time to sort out our priorities – the environment isn’t going to wait, and the casualties of capitalism are dying right now – it is a system that is extinguishing lives needlessly; lives that can never be recovered (sigh, yes – I know this sounds all ‘softy-liberal’, but I can’t turn a blind eye to what’s happening to the millions of poor and powerless people around the world right now). I see it as a matter of urgency that people realize that they cannot afford to promote greed any longer – precisely because it is not in their self-interest to have this attitude. The problem with capitalism is that it is focused completely on the short-term: “How much profit can I make now? What must I do to make it?” This short-term view is built into the capitalist system – companies are ‘responsible’ only to their shareholders, and the shareholders want a return on their investments right now - and, frankly, most of them (the investors) don’t care what the cost of their profits are to either the environment or to human (employees’) lives.

Further, the fact that communism requires the individual to set aside his primary psychological drive seems to justify the oppression of individual expression and therefore more easily leads to the totalitarian state. Add to that the blandness that develops from squelched self actualization and you get the freedomless mediocre hue of communism.

Les, I can really understand why you have this view of communism. Stalin did the concept a great deal of damage – but anyone who understood Marxism could see that Stalinism and communism were incompatible. I see that in another of your posts you suggest that there may be something about communism itself that will always (inevitably) result in the kind of totalitarian society that developed under Stalin. I don’t understand what it is about the concept of a socialist or communist society that leads you to this conclusion. On the other hand, I can quite clearly describe why capitalism is by its nature (by definition) destructive: the very fact that capitalism is built on (absolutely depends on) a philosophy of greed, individualism and self-interest (of the unenlightened selfish variety) means that it cannot be reformed and cannot ever be ‘benevolent’.

Despite the pitfalls of capitalism, it has the top human motivating force in the primary spot where it belongs. Because selfishness still prevails in the human race, it’s taking time for us to learn selfishness is shortsighted and can cause great loss in the long term. As we learn enlightened self interest is far more practical to our existence, we are trying to reform the selfish aspects little by little.

If capitalism is based on self-interest and if the sole aim of the most powerful citizens (ie, the transnational corporations – who do not even have a ‘face’ or body) is to maximize profits, then how can it ever operate other than on the basis of shortsighted self-interest? What do ‘corporations’ care about the planet, or about people? How could 'corporations' ever be 'taught' to care about such things. Although they are legally defined as people, corporations are not people and never can be.

But Marx wanted to eliminate selfishness all at once with a system! That was Popper’s main point in his book The Open Society and it Enemies. “[Marx is a threat to open society] because his theories of historical inevitability lead one to believe that piece-meal reform of institutions for the benefit of the public (and it is this which is the ongoing democratic project), is pointless; perhaps even harmful if it were to prolong the ‘birth-pangs of communism’.”

Marx, like many big thinkers, didn’t understand the inner workings of a human being. A “system” is an outer thing, but the change he was trying to base his system on is an inner thing. You can’t force inner psychological growth (not on the scale of entire society anyway) with an outer system; you can’t devise a system which humans, once part of it, feel like fish out of water. Human systems have to be designed around how humans are now, and what they have to work with (psychologically) now. Then once grounded solidly in what humans can relate to, one gradually works toward more enlightened social practices.

I know that one cannot effect change unless the prevailing objective material and subjective psychological conditions favour it. Perhaps you’re right – perhaps humanity is just not ‘there’ yet - will never get there. One thing, though, that Marx wrote and that makes total sense to me: the system cannot be ‘reformed’ from within (so I totally disagree with Popper's critique on this issue). Those who have power and benefit hugely from a system (eg. the aristocracy in Europe before the French Revolution) never willingly give it up. How do you get people who have immense power to give it up without a fight? Has this ever happened before?

BTW, thanks for this challenging discussion. It's good to have a specific point to argue against

 

[Curious6]

Alexandra, I find your comments very interesting. It makes me view communism from a different perspective. However, there is one point I think you have not really addressed: If people by their nature are more apt than others to carry out certain jobs and perform well at them because of various reasons (e.g. innate differences in IQ) what solution does communism (or, considering the theoretical ideal, Marxism) propose for this?

 

[loseyourname]

If capitalism is based on self-interest and if the sole aim of the most powerful citizens (ie, the transnational corporations – who do not even have a ‘face’ or body) is to maximize profits, then how can it ever operate other than on the basis of shortsighted self-interest? What do ‘corporations’ care about the planet, or about people? How could 'corporations' ever be 'taught' to care about such things. Although they are legally defined as people, corporations are not people and never can be.

This can happen when corporations consider their long-term self-interest. It is in their best interest to maintain the environment and human population because these are the planet's primary resources. No resources, no corporations. It's a radical suggestion and I make it tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps lifetime appointments for CEO's would help alleviate some problems. As it stands today, CEO's are held accountable to stockholders that are only concerned with quarterly reports and not with projections 20 years down the line. As such, it is often in the best interest of a given executive to implement short-term solutions that end up screwing over the next CEO of that corporation, and that results in the scandals we see dramatized in the headlines. This investor/stockholder mentality of making the quick buck was nowhere better exemplified that in the dot.com boom. These were people with the best of intentions, who talked about (and seemed to honestly believe in) changing the world for the better by creating a global community where everyone had cheap internet access and could buy whatever they wanted from wherever they wanted at whatever price they wanted. They just didn't have the discipline to realize that the best way to implement their dream was through sound long-term business strategies. They opted to make the quick buck (partly because they were young and this excited them, partly because the venture capitalists funding them were more likely to fund a company that showed short-term profit). You can hardly call these young idealists coming out of Stanford 'greedy.' They were just short-sighted. What Les said about humanity is true of individuals. One acquires perspective as one ages. If only businessmen waited until their 50's to begin their careers.

Anyway, that was a little long-winded and I probably said nothing of substance. I'm really dazing over watching my roommate play video-games here and my allergy/asthma medication is making me high.

 

[alexandra]

It's a radical suggestion and I make it tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps lifetime appointments for CEO's would help alleviate some problems.

Good joke, loseyourname - excellent lateral thinking :rofl:
(Thanks for the light relief - that really did make me laugh out loud!).

This investor/stockholder mentality of making the quick buck was nowhere better exemplified that in the dot.com boom. These were people with the best of intentions, who talked about (and seemed to honestly believe in) changing the world for the better by creating a global community where everyone had cheap internet access and could buy whatever they wanted from wherever they wanted at whatever price they wanted. They just didn't have the discipline to realize that the best way to implement their dream was through sound long-term business strategies. They opted to make the quick buck (partly because they were young and this excited them, partly because the venture capitalists funding them were more likely to fund a company that showed short-term profit). You can hardly call these young idealists coming out of Stanford 'greedy.' They were just short-sighted. What Les said about humanity is true of individuals. One acquires perspective as one ages. If only businessmen waited until their 50's to begin their careers.

Hmm, I don't think it makes sense to blame greed on youth - many of the richest and most powerful people in the world are over 50, and their business dealings don't necessarily take a long-term perspective either (though perhaps George Soros - founder and chairman of the Open Society Institute - http://www.soros.org/, could be considered as a model of the type of businessman you are talking about?)

Anyway, that was a little long-winded and I probably said nothing of substance. I'm really dazing over watching my roommate play video-games here and my allergy/asthma medication is making me high.

I've subjected myself to watching a friend play video-games before, so I know exactly what you mean by feeling 'dazed over' :zzz: - don't do it, loseyourname; it's bad for your brain neurons!