News Can Socialism Provide a Stable Political Framework?

[alexandra]

Political Perspectives

Hello loseyourname (and anyone else interested), I've copied your last entry in the 'Great Tragedies' thread as per my response there so we can continue this discussion:

I'm beginning to notice one thing, Alex. You note that you subscribe to Marxist theory because it helps you to understand developments in human affairs. It's a paradigm by which you can place into a certain context the events of history, both in the recent past and as it is being made today. However, depending on who you are, any number of paradigms might help you to personally better understand history and current events, or at least make sense of them within whatever given paradigm you have subscribed to. Heck, I can think of many political paradigms, from the egoism of Hobbes to the civilizational conflicts of Huntington, that make sense of certain aspects of current events. I can point to incidents and say "look, that government was acting in its own rational self-interest to gain power by the right of nature" or "look, that nation supported another nation that was part of its civilization against a nation of another civilization." Each statement can be true. What paradigm becomes accepted academically, however, largely depends on predictive power.

What you write here is very true, loseyourname. I must admit that if I had not grown up in the particular society I grew up in, and had not studied when and where I did, I may have never experienced the explanatory power of the Marxist perspective and may have been convinced by other paradigms. The thing was, though, that the politics of South Africa were very confusing (especially to a very innocent young person who had had no idea what was going on). At first, I tried to understand what was happening using a ‘race’ analysis: ie, that the political system of apartheid was a result of white people’s racism. But it didn’t take much thought to figure out that this couldn’t be the case – I mean, not everyone was racist, and many 'white' people totally disagreed with the racist laws of the land. Another confusing thing was that there were 'black' people working for the state as well – for example, as policemen. Now why would they do that if the system could be understood in terms of race? Did they really agree with the racist laws which were, after all, against their own interests too? I mean, were they racist against themselves? It was a real puzzle: terrible things were being done to innocent people in the name of ‘justice’ and ‘decency’ and ‘law and order’, and as a student of politics it was my task to analyse and understand the situation, so I could no longer ignore it. That’s how most people got by back then – they just ignored politics and pretended not to see any of the awful things that were happening (the killing of school children, the detentions without trial, assassinations of political activists, and general extreme exploitation and deprivation on numerous fronts). In any case, I no longer had the luxury of ignoring the situation; I had to find a way of making sense of it all, and Marxism certainly provided the analytical tools for doing this in a much clearer way than anything as ill-defined as ‘racism’ or 'tribalism' could. If one looked at the historical and economic reasons for what was happening, it started making sense. The more I learned about Marxism, the more it explained.

I honestly cannot use concepts like Huntington’s ‘the clash of civilizations’ to make sense of the world. To me those are strategies used by the powerful to obscure the real reasons for the conflicts that have occurred historically and that are occurring now. The colonial slogan, ‘Divide and rule’ says it all: if you divide communities by religion, race, culture, sex, etc, then you can control them because they will not join together to address the real issues in their lives. This is what was consciously done to the working class in South Africa: it was deliberately divided along racist lines so that white workers would not join with black workers in working towards changing an unjust system. I cannot possibly summarise all the detailed study I have done on this issue over the years, but the evidence is there for you to read about if you are interested.

Perhaps you can lay out for us novices all, or at least most, of the testable predictions that Marx made, and then we can determine whether or not they have come true. The only ones I know of myself are the much discussed proletariat revolution and the increase of worldwide poverty and consolidation of wealth. The thing is, compared to Marx' own lifetime, there is less consolidation of wealth, less poverty in the world, fewer worker's revolutions, and very few Marxist states (Cuba is the only one I can even think of).

I would say that Marx’s prediction that increasing disparities in wealth would occur (the increasing concentration of immense wealth in the hands of the few and the relegation of the many to miserable lives of poverty) has come true, and is continuing to come more and more true as we speak. You say not – but show me your evidence? The thing is, millions of people live on $1 or $2 per day – I would call this poverty. And a small group of people are making immense profits (ie, wealth is being increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands – one cannot argue about the power of the large corporations, many of which are wealthier than entire nations – I can look up figures if you want me to).

I would not classify Cuba as a Marxist state (actually, as I’ve said before, I think it is confusing to use the word ‘Marxist’ to describe a political system; it would be less confusing to use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ as these are systems of government while Marxism is a theoretical perspective). Castro’s party did not represent socialist ideals – Castro was actually a nationalist. The distinction between nationalist and socialist political parties and ideas is important, but again, it would take a lot of time to explore this issue in depth. One thing I found out when analysing South African politics that may be illuminating regarding this issue was that the ANC was not a socialist party, but actually nationalist, and the implications of this were incredibly significant as this explains why the miserable social and economic conditions of the bulk of the population have not changed since the ANC came to power. Instead there are now a number of ‘black’ faces amongst the rich (and please excuse my use of the words ‘black’ and ‘white’, but there is no other way of discussing the politics I am talking about here).

It might be that the key question we can ask here is how people align themselves in the contemporary world. Do we align ourselves with others of the same culture? The same ethnicity? The same nation? The same civilization? The same religion? Or do we mostly align ourselves by economic class? It seems to me that for Marx to be right, alignment by economic class must be the prevailing alignment in the world. It doesn't seem to me that reality conforms.

You are correct, loseyourname: people do not align themselves along class lines. Marxist theory itself explains why this should be the case: the prevailing ideology is the ideology of the ruling class. Powerful groups work really hard to deflect attention from any analysis in terms of class (to deflect even any thought of economic classes), and because of the power of institutions they control (such as the mass media and the formal education system), they are largely successful. What I am saying is that people are actively encouraged to think in terms of religious, cultural, and ethnic divisions rather than to think about the things that really matter: the real economic implications underlying all political and social policies.

 

[russ_watters]

I would say that Marx’s prediction that increasing disparities in wealth would occur (the increasing concentration of immense wealth in the hands of the few and the relegation of the many to miserable lives of poverty) has come true, and is continuing to come more and more true as we speak. You say not – but show me your evidence? The thing is, millions of people live on $1 or $2 per day – I would call this poverty. And a small group of people are making immense profits (ie, wealth is being increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands – one cannot argue about the power of the large corporations, many of which are wealthier than entire nations – I can look up figures if you want me to). [specific prediction in bold]

How about showing us your evidence? That's generally the way burden of proof in science works.

When pressed in the other thread, you refused to look at the long term trends. Yes, it is true that billions of people live on $1 or $2 a day in this world. But the prediction was that poverty would increase. It has not - it has dropped drastically.

The income inequality is more problematic - for Marxism, that is - because of class mobility. While depending on how you use the statistics, income equality is getting worse (which is why I want to see how you would use the statistics), guys like Bill Gates and Ingvar Kamprad started off from just about nothing to become the richest men in the world.

And while many, many people talk about fairness, the difficulties faced by lottery winners show the true reason why people consider wealth distribution relevant: greed. Someone winning the lottery does not in any way injure their relatives, yet it often tears families apart because of the perception that people are "owed" a share of it.

Also, the only justification I've seen for saying income inequality is a bad thing is that it increases poverty - but it only increases poverty if you define poverty according to income inequality. That's circular reasoning and its not acceptable scientifically.

You posted some statistics in one of the other threads that show that many americans who are not "middle class" define themselves as middle class. I think you misinterpreted the meaning of those statistics - and the threat they pose to Marxism. The fact that most people choose to define themselves as "middle class" does not make them delusionsal, but rather its a reflection of the fact that in the US, such class distinctions are largely irrelevant/meaningless. A 150 years ago, when there were just factories and workers and 350 years ago when there were just land-owners and peasant farmers, it was impossible to miss the differences between the classes: If your floor was dirt, you were a peasant, if you had a servant, you were upper class. Today, its not so simple. Even those that we define as "poor" in the US have tv's, cars, etc. Its tough to call someone "poor" if they have things that 200 years ago a king didn't. And what that means to Marxism is that one of its biggest points isn't just wrong, its irrelevant.

 

[Burnsys]

may be i am not understending this chart... but i think it says that the top %1 of the population each time is wealthier while the bottom class each time share less of the wealth..

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 39 percent of total net wealth, the top 10% of families owns over 72%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 1%.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/WealthTable.htm

Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, make the case for wealth:
"Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and economic well-being. We need to examine trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume."

 

[russ_watters]

may be i am not understending this chart... but i think it says that the top %1 of the population each time is wealthier while the bottom class each time share less of the wealth.

Yes, that's correct. What's your point?

To head-off one possible misconception, that fact alone does not imply that the poor are getting poorer. That would only be true if the quantity of wealth available were increasing at the same rate as the population. It is not (its increasing faster than the population), so while the gap gets wider, the poor are still getting richer. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03ar.html

 

[alexandra]

may be i am not understending this chart... but i think it says that the top %1 of the population each time is wealthier while the bottom class each time share less of the wealth..

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 39 percent of total net wealth, the top 10% of families owns over 72%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 1%.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/WealthTable.htm"

Thanks for this link, Burnsys - its information is very clearly set out, and you have interpreted it correctly. This table also shows trends in changes of the distribution of wealth over time, but I'll post about that separately.

 

[alexandra]

Yes, that's correct. What's your point?

Burnsys point, Russ, is that if you just have a look at these tables you will see that (as Marx predicted), in the most advanced capitalist country in the world (ie, in the United States) wealth is increasingly becoming concentrated in the hands of the few. Here is a summary of some of the information you will find in these tables if you choose to check them:

The top fifth (20%) of the US population owned 81.0% of the wealth in 1962 and owned 83.7% of the wealth in 1995 (I’m ignoring the estimate figures of 1997). In other words, the wealth of the top 20% in the US increased by 2.7% in that 33-year period. Conclusion: The wealthy got wealthier, as Marx predicted – so Marx’s theory is not irrelevant.

The top 1% in the US owned 33.4% of the wealth in 1962 and their share of the ‘pie’ grew to 37.6% in 1995. In other words, the wealth of the top 1% in the US increased by 4.2% in that 33-year period. Conclusion: as above.

In the same time period, 90% of the US population shared 19% of the total wealth available in 1962, and their share fell to 16.3% in 1995. Conclusion: The poor are getting poorer, as Marx predicted – so Marx’s theory is not irrelevant.

To head-off one possible misconception, that fact alone does not imply that the poor are getting poorer. That would only be true if the quantity of wealth available were increasing at the same rate as the population. It is not (its increasing faster than the population), so while the gap gets wider, the poor are still getting richer. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03ar.html

Nevertheless, Russ, these figures show that the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are getting poorer. The true beneficiaries of the system are the wealthiest.

 

[alexandra]

How about showing us your evidence? That's generally the way burden of proof in science works.

This is not fair, Russ - I have included evidence in many, many of my posts. I am very aware that with my political perspective I'd better have evidence 'or else'! In any case, to make wild claims without using evidence goes against the Marxist method of analysis. Most of my previous posts are backed up with evidence (when I wasn't discussing political theory). Please note my use of evidence in my response below.

When pressed in the other thread, you refused to look at the long term trends. Yes, it is true that billions of people live on $1 or $2 a day in this world. But the prediction was that poverty would increase. It has not - it has dropped drastically.

As others have pointed out in the ‘objectivity’ thread, Russ, economics experts disagree about the indicators used to measure poverty and some experts say that there are serious problems with the way in which poverty is defined and measured:

russ, that is not an objective, simple, straightforward fact. Many experts have critisized those reports of the World Bank. For instance:
http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp(bin/130fulltext.pdf

Some experts like Pogge and Reddy had already strongly disagreed with the methods to estimate poverty employed by the World Bank in previous years reports.

I found a relevant online reference by Professor Pogge and Assistant Professor Reddy. They published a paper in 2002, available at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcpds/documents/Pogge%20Reddy%20pop.pdf NOTE: this is a US academic paper published on the Harvard University website (just establishing credentials of my sources here). In this paper they clearly outline the problem with the official poverty indicators used by the World Bank and other organizations.

The paper is entitled “Unknown: The Extent, Distribution, and Trend of Global Income Poverty”. It is brief (12 pdf pages) and well-written, and relatively easy to understand (as economic papers go). The basic argument is that official estimates of world poverty and world poverty trends are inaccurate and err on the side of optimism. Here are a few quotes from the Pogge and Reddy paper:

…The [World] Bank’s estimates of severe income poverty – its global extent, distribution in space, and trend over time – are widely cited in official publications of governments and international organizations and in popular media, often in support of the view that liberalization and globalization have helped to reduce poverty worldwide. Most readers, including many economists, take these figures as clear-cut facts. But the method used to calculate them has serious flaws, which cause the resulting estimates to be untrustworthy…. It is desirable to have a worldwide scheme… for collecting data on prices poor people must actually pay to meet their basic needs. Despite the feasibility of putting in place a data collection system of this kind, there has never been an effort to do so…

...the Bank’s assessments of the global incidence of severe income poverty are severely distorted, leading to a substantial underestimate of the number of people living below the Bank’s chosen international poverty line. There are also reasons for believing that the distortion worsens over time, causing the Bank to come to unjustified conclusions concerning the trend of severe income poverty worldwide.

…we do not yet know with any reasonable degree of confidence how many poor people there are in the world, where they live, and how their number has changed over time.

In the other paper originally referenced by antfm in the ‘objectivity’ thread, Robert Went (from the Faculty of Economics and Econometrics, Universiteit van Amsterdam - again, please note the academic credentials of my source), the author points out that

…contradictory assertions about the development of global poverty and world income inequality are not primarily caused by data problems – which surely exist – but depend above all on value judgements and methodological choices made by their claimants. These claims have an impact on how the world is interpreted and on the choice of resource priorities, but most readers of the popular press and websites reporting on these issues ‘do not see the embedded value judgements in the facts presented to them’ (Ravallion 2004: 22). It is therefore important to clarify the assumptions, methodology and value judgements that underpin them. In addition, proposals for more genuine measurements of global poverty and inequality should be taken into serious consideration by policy makers, NGOs and researchers

In effect, both papers point out that some economists are 'cooking the books', and ordinary people who do not critically examine the official statistics are being fooled.

(By the way, Russ, why is it that you constantly demand evidence from others yet you often make statements without backing them up with any evidence yourself )

 

[alexandra]

To head-off one possible misconception, that fact alone does not imply that the poor are getting poorer. That would only be true if the quantity of wealth available were increasing at the same rate as the population. It is not (its increasing faster than the population), so while the gap gets wider, the poor are still getting richer. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03ar.html

I was just wondering about the implications of the footnote referred to in the heading of these tables:

28/The CPI-U-RS is a price index of inflation that incorporates most of the improvements in methodology made to the current CPI-U since 1978 into a single, uniform series. See Money Income in the United States: 1999 or the appendix of Money Income in the United States: 1998 for more information. Before 1977 the CPI-U-RS is extrapolated.

My interpretation is that the second set of figures take inflation into account, and these are the figures one should refer to in order to identify trends over time as they show that in real terms:
* the annual income of the poorest 20% of the population in the US increased by a mere $2 407 in 36 years;
* the annual income of the richest 5% of the population in the US increased by a phenomenal $224 634 in the same time period.

Hmm, quite a difference to what is shown in the first table at the top of the page. I wonder why the two tables are presented in that order, and why the footnote is so unobtrusively presented? I have a theory about why this should be so…

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would have to agree with russ that inequality of wealth is not a very good measure of poverty. Many people I know here in the US could easily qualify as being below the poverty line yet they still have cars, apartments, televisions, computers, video games, DVDs and the like. I would hardly refer to them as being down and out. Hell, where I live all of these things are common possessions for just about any household. If you don't have cable tv and a cell phone you're almost a minority. Virtually none of these things are really neccisary for survival, though some may try to make a case for it, so from my perspective it would seem that most people live in relative luxury.

 

[russ_watters]

Burnsys point, Russ, is that if you just have a look at these tables you will see that (as Marx predicted), in the most advanced capitalist country in the world (ie, in the United States) wealth is increasingly becoming concentrated in the hands of the few.

I'm not disputing that the distribution of weath is changing. What I'm disputing is this:

In the same time period, 90% of the US population shared 19% of the total wealth available in 1962, and their share fell to 16.3% in 1995. Conclusion: The poor are getting poorer, as Marx predicted – so Marx’s theory is not irrelevant.

Nevertheless, Russ, these figures show that the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are getting poorer. The true beneficiaries of the system are the wealthiest.

That does not support the assertion that the poor are getting poorer. Again, you are using two separate definitions of "poor" - one absolute, one relative. The absolute definition is valid, the relative one is not. The relative definition belies the fact that the poor live better than they used to. The true definition of "poor" is based on how you live, which is why an absolute scale is used.

As others have pointed out in the ‘objectivity’ thread, Russ, economics experts disagree about the indicators used to measure poverty and some experts say that there are serious problems with the way in which poverty is defined and measured:

But that's besides the point: those experts still agree that poverty levels are dropping. All they are disputing is how much.

My interpretation is that the second set of figures take inflation into account, and these are the figures one should refer to in order to identify trends over time as they show that in real terms:
* the annual income of the poorest 20% of the population in the US increased by a mere $2 407 in 36 years;
* the annual income of the richest 5% of the population in the US increased by a phenomenal $224 634 in the same time period.

Hmm, quite a difference to what is shown in the first table at the top of the page. I wonder why the two tables are presented in that order, and why the footnote is so unobtrusively presented? I have a theory about why this should be so…

I had no trouble interpreting the data and it seems that neither did you, so why bring it up? Regardless, you have now acknowledged the fact that the poor are getting richer!

By the way, Russ, why is it that you constantly demand evidence from others yet you often make statements without backing them up with any evidence yourself

What are you talking about? I have provided evidence - I'm demanding that you reciprocate. But beyond that, what I am demanding is what you implied you wanted in the title of the other thread: objectivity. That means sticking to the facts. Yes, I demand evidence. Yes, I demand consistency. Yes, I demand that you not use arbitrary or ever-changing definitions to avoid admitting a failure of Marxism. Yes, I demand a scientific approach to the discussion. Why do you fight against the very concepts you say you support?

edit: In the last thread there were a few times I treated some facts as self-evident, and I apologize for that. That said, I still consider such facts as the decreasing poverty rate and the increasing world GDP to be something that everyone - and certainly someone with some education on the subject - should be aware of. I'm still a little incredulous that you would require substantiation of such things, but I have been providing it since. I am aware that most people aren't aware of data represented in that income table I posted above, which is why I [almost] always post it when I discuss the fact that the poor are getting richer.

edit: alexandra, here is why I think you're being disingenuous and why I dropped out of the last discussion. In post one, you said this:

The thing is, millions of people live on $1 or $2 per day – I would call this poverty.

You accepted this definition of poverty. Yet, in your response to me, quoted above, you used a different definition in order to avoid dealing with the fact that using the definition I just quoted, poverty has decreased and therefore Marx was wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

I would have to agree with russ that inequality of wealth is not a very good measure of poverty.

Thanks...

Many people I know here in the US could easily qualify as being below the poverty line yet they still have cars, apartments, televisions, computers, video games, DVDs and the like. I would hardly refer to them as being down and out. Hell, where I live all of these things are common possessions for just about any household. If you don't have cable tv and a cell phone you're almost a minority. Virtually none of these things are really neccisary for survival, though some may try to make a case for it, so from my perspective it would seem that most people live in relative luxury.

That's actuall a separate matter altogether and one I've avoided for the sake of consistency when comparing the US to the rest of the world. The fact is, though, that in the US, we define poverty much more strictly than in most other countries. What we identify as "poor" would not qualify in most countries. I generally don't mind this, because I think we should have higher standards, but the net effect is that due to things like welfare, the number of poor in the US, by the typical international standards, is just about zero.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's actuall a separate matter altogether and one I've avoided for the sake of consistency when comparing the US to the rest of the world. The fact is, though, that in the US, we define poverty much more strictly than in most other countries. What we identify as "poor" would not qualify in most countries. I generally don't mind this, because I think we should have higher standards, but the net effect is that due to things like welfare, the number of poor in the US, by the typical international standards, is just about zero.

Sorry if I've hurt your argument at all. I just mean to point out that even though these people have a very small portion of the over all pie it doesn't mean they don't live relatively well. In my opinion this is what makes the gap between them and the wealthy more or less moot point.
Ofcourse I'm not really drawing on any numbers or anything here so my argument isn't very scientific.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry if I've hurt your argument at all.

Don't sweat it - its quite worthy of discussion. In any case, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I just mean to point out that even though these people have a very small portion of the over all pie it doesn't mean they don't live relatively well. In my opinion this is what makes the gap between them and the wealthy more or less moot point.

Yes, one of the things about capitalism is it makes that pie very, very large.

 

[loseyourname]

In the same time period, 90% of the US population shared 19% of the total wealth available in 1962, and their share fell to 16.3% in 1995. Conclusion: The poor are getting poorer, as Marx predicted – so Marx’s theory is not irrelevant.

There are two reasons why this is misleading, which Russ began to hit upon. I'm going to try and give a gross, and I mean gross, simplification, to better illustrate:

Let us imagine a world that had a constant population of 1,000 people for 100 years. At year 0, there was $1 million of absolute wealth in existence. At year 100, there was $100 million of absolute wealth in existence. Both figures are adjusted for inflation so that they accurately reflect the purchasing power of all assets that are in principle liquifiable. Let us imagine that at year 0, 50% of the world's wealth was held by the wealthiest 10% of the population. That means the wealthiest 100 people were collectively worth $500,000 dollars, for an average net worth of $50,000. The average net worth of the average person in this world at year 0 was $1,000. We'll define poverty in this world as being worth less than or equal to 10% of the average net worth; that is, having a personal net worth less than or equal to $100.

Let us say that the bottom 10% of the population at year 0 possessed 1% of the wealth in the world; that is, the bottom 100 people were collectively worth $1,000. Let's just say that wealth is evenly distributed at this level and that each of these 100 people has a net worth of $100. All of them live in poverty.

For review, we have 100 people at the top of this society at year 0 that are worth $50,000 on average, and we have 100 people at the bottom of this society at year 0 living in poverty, that are on average worth $100. The net worth disparity from bottom to top is thus 98%, with the average person on the bottom being worth 2% of the average person on the top.

Let us go ahead and imagine that at year 100, the top 10% of the population (the upper class) now holds 70% of the wealth in the world. 0.7 x 100 million = 7 million, and so the top 100 people now have an average net worth of $700,000, up from $50,000 at year 0, a 1400% increase.

Let us say that the bottom 20% of the population is now in possession of 0.5% of the wealth, or $1 million. That is, the bottom 200 people have an average net worth of $10,000. As the average net worth of an individual over the whole society is $100,000, all of these people qualify as living in poverty.

For review, at year 0 we have 100 people living in poverty. At year 100 we have 200 people living in poverty. Poverty has thus doubled in our hypothetical society. Furthermore, wealth has become further concentrated from 50% to 70% in the top 10% of the population. If we look more closely, however, the people living in poverty at year 100 have an average net worth that is 1000% of the people living in poverty at year 0. The upper class experienced an increase of 1400%, you'll remember.

There are two ways of interpreting these data. The first is in absolute terms. In absolute terms, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten richer. If we define wealth as relative to the wealth of the very wealthiest however, then the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer. Russ and Ape and I are using the former interpretation, whereas you are using the latter. The thing is, however you want to define wealth, whether in absolute or relative terms, the purchasing power and quality of life of people in all classes is better at year 100 than at year 0. This is because, as Russ frequently points out, wealth is not a zero-sum game. The amount of wealth in the world has greatly increased over the past 100 years, even more so in the real world than in our hypothetical world. Furthermore, the poverty has actually decreased over the last 100 years in our world, rather than the doubling that took place in our hypothetical world.

Nevertheless, Russ, these figures show that the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are getting poorer. The true beneficiaries of the system are the wealthiest.

The other problem I see with your interpretation of the data is with your definition of the epithet 'the wealthiest.' The upper class of society today is not the same as the upper class of society 100 years ago; that is, they are not the same people. Many people that are in the upper class today come from families that lived in the middle class, or even lived in poverty, 100 years ago. This points to the other problem: class mobility. Many of the people who have gotten wealthier, both in absolute and in relative terms, were previously poor. By saying that the true beneficiaries of the system are the wealthiest, you are ignoring that 'the wealthiest' does not designate a static group of people. Anyone of sound mind and body can, in principle, become one of these 'wealthiest' people. The system benefits whoever can find a way to use the system to his advantage.

 

[russ_watters]

...class mobility...

Good point. I'd mentioned this in the other thread, but forgot about it here.

Something else I missed is that alexandra has yet to define a poverty line. Setting aside the two mutually exclusive definitions, under what percentage of the highest incomes would the poverty line be in your second definition?

In 1999, the top 1% earned an average of $719,000 (SOURCE ). At what fraction of this income would you define the poverty line? 1%? 5%? 20%? This could lead to the entertaining exercise of having a look at what constitutes "poverty" in the US. Depending on where you put that line, I may find myself to be poor (much to my chagrin and my friends' surprise).

And, of course, since I am the one who insists on sticking to the principles of science, I'd like to see some substantiation of your definition. While it would be interesting to see how you define it and where you put the line, can you point to any published papers by leading economists that use that definition of poverty? I'd even settle for how Marx would define it, however from other things you've said, I don't think he'd approve of the definition you're using... Also, you have said many things that contradict your own definition. From the other thread:

So, Marx predicted that when the material conditions are right (ie. when the vast bulk of humanity is so impoverished that the ordinary people have nothing to lose), people will unite and do whatever is necessary to try and secure their physical survival. [emphasis added]

If poverty is referenced to physical survival, that's an absolute scale, not a relative one. As we've pointed out, while the gap gets wider, the capacity for physical survival of even the lowest income bracket is increasing.

 

[russ_watters]

Here are a few perspectives I've found on the net. While you have acknowledged that you are outside the mainstream, the difficulty in finding people who agree with you, nonetheless, makes your burden of proof a tough one.

...most anthropologists think that Marx’s prediction on the transition from capitalism to communism is wrong. Historical facts reveal that communist revolutions occurred in non-capitalist societies such as the former Soviet Union and China.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Marx.html

Here is an interesting one on Marxism and science:

Still others criticize Marx from the perspective of philosophy of science. Notably, philosopher Karl Popper has critized Marx's theories for not being falsifiable, which would render his historical and socio-political arguments unscientific. Primarily, this stems from Marx's prediction that capitalism will fall to class revolt. The skeptic may say "this will not happen," to which the Marxist may reply "but it will." This makes any argument over Marxism on empirical grounds impossible. From this position, Popper argues that despite Marx's claims to restoring science to the study of history, Marxist thought is anything but scientific.

http://www.recipeland.com/encyclopaedia/index.php/Karl_Marx
You have echoed the unscientific assertion that a prediction needs no timetable for success.

This echoes some things I've said before:

The funny thing is that communism does follow a twisted sort of logic. If you accept its underlying premises, some of its conclusions actually do make sense. However, you can't accept its underlying premises.

[and]

"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat." This is Karl Marx's biggest mistake: his assumption that all of the societal classes in an industrialized world will coalesce into two remaining classes: wealthy industrial property owners and starving labourers.

[and]

...his artificial polarization was an inaccurate description of events in the 19th century, and his writings proved an inaccurate prediction of events in the 20th century. Events have shown that a free-market system does offer great opportunity for those with ambition and intelligence, contrary to what Karl Marx predicted.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html (Ironically, this site is relevant to a thread in GD where people are comparing Star Wars to politics today - trouble is, they miss the point.)

Here is an interesting perspective:

Karl Marx was right, it is just that he had the wrong species...

http://www.froes.dds.nl/WILSON.htm

Simply, while Marx believed that society would naturally want to follow communism, he forgot an important fact: people are individualists by nature, and want the opportunity—and the right— to accumulate wealth and status.

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/april/review.html



And finally, an entertaining (but relevant) interview of a repentant Marx in Hell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace14.html

 

[alexandra]

Here are a few perspectives I've found on the net. While you have acknowledged that you are outside the mainstream, the difficulty in finding people who agree with you, nonetheless, makes your burden of proof a tough one.

Yes, the burden of proof is tough, Russ. But nevertheless, I choose to follow this path outside mainstream thought (not for any reason other than that the marxist perspective has proved itself robust in explaining the social world whenever I have used it). I must persevere in sharpening my arguments, and you have correctly called me to task for being sloppy in my use of some key terminology, but I'll respond with more detail on this point shortly (this is a precursor to more detailed responses to your previous posts).

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Marx.html

Here is an interesting one on Marxism and science: http://www.recipeland.com/encyclopaedia/index.php/Karl_Marx
You have echoed the unscientific assertion that a prediction needs no timetable for success.

This echoes some things I've said before: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html (Ironically, this site is relevant to a thread in GD where people are comparing Star Wars to politics today - trouble is, they miss the point.)
Here is an interesting perspective: http://www.froes.dds.nl/WILSON.htm
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/april/review.html

And finally, an entertaining (but relevant) interview of a repentant Marx in Hell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace14.html

Hmm, lots of links here - it's going to take me a while to look all these up. Well, even though you're giving me a 'hard time', Russ , I'm enjoying this - I'll let you know my responses to your above links later; at the moment, I'm formulating responses to some of your previous posts...

 

[Joel]

The thing is, however you want to define wealth, whether in absolute or relative terms, the purchasing power and quality of life of people in all classes is better at year 100 than at year 0.

I think your illustration is very good, don't be modest. But I do want to comment on this particular bit and I hope you don't mind me doing only that.

I don't know if you intended or not, but here you draw a parallel between economic wealth and quality of life. The relationship between these two variables correlate positively often, but not always. According to Amayrta Sen's argument in his book, "Development as Freedom", freedom would actually predicts quality of life better than economic wealth. But I suppose this is a thread or two worth of discussion in its own right.

 

[alexandra]

Again, you are using two separate definitions of "poor" - one absolute, one relative..

Yep, my bad. I have certainly done this - in the heat of our arguments, in an infantile desire to 'win' the argument, I have been inconsistent and simplistic in my use of this term. I am currently working on clarifying my own use of this term.

The absolute definition is valid, the relative one is not. The relative definition belies the fact that the poor live better than they used to. The true definition of "poor" is based on how you live, which is why an absolute scale is used. But that's besides the point: those experts still agree that poverty levels are dropping. All they are disputing is how much.

This is not true, Russ - the experts do not agree that poverty levels are dropping. In their paper Unknown: The Extent, Distribution, and Trend of Global Income Poverty. Pogge and Reddy clearly state:

…we do not yet know with any reasonable degree of confidence how many poor people there are in the world, where they live, and how their number has changed over time.

Check if you don’t believe me – the url is http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcpds/d...Reddy%20pop.pdf
I am willing to acknowledge when I am wrong/unclear, but I'm not willing to agree to something that I understand to be incorrect.

But beyond that, what I am demanding is what you implied you wanted in the title of the other thread: objectivity. That means sticking to the facts. Yes, I demand evidence. Yes, I demand consistency. Yes, I demand that you not use arbitrary or ever-changing definitions to avoid admitting a failure of Marxism. Yes, I demand a scientific approach to the discussion. Why do you fight against the very concepts you say you support?

Well, all I can say to this is 'thank you, Russ' for demanding such rigour from me - I'm not being in the least sarcastic here; this is the only way we will learn. Keep demanding rigour when I have sloppy arguments. But no, I do not admit "the failure of marxism" as a robust theoretical perspective yet... We are still working on this, aren't we? I mean, what good would it do for me to just say, 'Ok, you've made a point about some of my arguments being sloppy so now I totally agree with everything you say'? I think we're still working on this one... I have to clarify my arguments if they haven't been good enough (if I can, of course).

edit: In the last thread there were a few times I treated some facts as self-evident, and I apologize for that.

Ok, apology acknowledged - and I must admit to having been remiss in providing evidence at times as well. I guess that's going to happen sometimes. I'm working on arguing more rationally; I have a tendency to respond emotionally sometimes, without giving proper consideration to what is being said and without finding the necessary evidence to back up my arguments.

That said, I still consider such facts as the decreasing poverty rate and the increasing world GDP to be something that everyone - and certainly someone with some education on the subject - should be aware of. I'm still a little incredulous that you would require substantiation of such things, but I have been providing it since. I am aware that most people aren't aware of data represented in that income table I posted above, which is why I [almost] always post it when I discuss the fact that the poor are getting richer.

Again, Russ, I want to draw your attention to the quote from Pogge and Reddy above - we don't yet know what is happening with regards to poverty - what poverty levels are, how to define poverty indicators fairly, and what the global trends are. I would really urge you to read the whole of Pogge & Reddy's article to see why I'm adamant in not giving in on this issue.

edit: alexandra, here is why I think you're being disingenuous and why I dropped out of the last discussion. In post one, you said this: You accepted this definition of poverty. Yet, in your response to me, quoted above, you used a different definition in order to avoid dealing with the fact that using the definition I just quoted, poverty has decreased and therefore Marx was wrong.

Yep, guilty as charged, Russ I am totally guilty of muddying my argument. I am working on addressing this issue. But do me a favour, Russ, don't drop out of discussions in future - just point out where I'm wrong/unclear/silly so I can refine my argument.

 

[alexandra]

Here are a few perspectives I've found on the net. While you have acknowledged that you are outside the mainstream, the difficulty in finding people who agree with you, nonetheless, makes your burden of proof a tough one.

Thank you for acknowledging this, Russ: it is extremely difficult for me to find information I think you may find acceptable. You will notice that I have avoided using evidence from sources that you would find unacceptable/would question (ie, from websites that question the status quo), even though those are precisely the websites that provide the best evidence for my arguments. Instead I have sought evidence from mainstream sources (and from as many academic sources as possible – preferably even government sources).

In short, it is difficult for me to obtain unbiased evidence that supports my arguments because, for ideological reasons, data is seldom presented and interpreted in ways that can support arguments against the status quo. Just about all the information printed on official and accepted websites will by definition support your arguments; you are arguing for the status quo, which all the powerful institutions also support. I am arguing against it. There is no objectivity, you see... not that this means we should give up on our discourse. My belief is that even if we can't be objective, at least we can try to argue as honestly as possible and find strong supporting evidence for our arguments.

And to support what I say above (ie, that much of the available evidence is biased) I will quote from a post I made earlier in this thread:

In the other paper originally referenced by antfm in the ‘objectivity’ thread, Robert Went (from the Faculty of Economics and Econometrics, Universiteit van Amsterdam - again, please note the academic credentials of my source), the author points out that
Quote:
…contradictory assertions about the development of global poverty and world income inequality are not primarily caused by data problems – which surely exist – but depend above all on value judgements and methodological choices made by their claimants. These claims have an impact on how the world is interpreted and on the choice of resource priorities, but most readers of the popular press and websites reporting on these issues ‘do not see the embedded value judgements in the facts presented to them’ (Ravallion 2004: 22).

Do you think the statement bolded in the above quotation has any merit whatsoever, or do you think it is totally false?

 

[alexandra]

I would have to agree with russ that inequality of wealth is not a very good measure of poverty. Many people I know here in the US could easily qualify as being below the poverty line yet they still have cars, apartments, televisions, computers, video games, DVDs and the like. I would hardly refer to them as being down and out. Hell, where I live all of these things are common possessions for just about any household. If you don't have cable tv and a cell phone you're almost a minority. Virtually none of these things are really neccisary for survival, though some may try to make a case for it, so from my perspective it would seem that most people live in relative luxury.

Point acknowledged; the complexity of the concept 'poverty' deserves much more attention than I have given it. But here's something interesting to consider:

Poverty is to do with human needs and the means of meeting them, but human needs are historically determined. The miller in a mediaeval village enjoyed a life-style which was far from poverty in his own times, but the same mode of life in the midst of a modern city of today would constitute poverty. The young University student, living in digs serving tables to pay for her course, is “poor”, but, looking forward to a professional position and with parents ready to step in if needed, does not experience poverty. The pauper at the outset of the 21st century may have a TV and a fridge while living on social security; their poverty is evidenced in lack of education and any opportunity for improvement. But while the “poverty-line” is historically determined, a wholly relativist concept of poverty would be unwarranted because we do have a right to look to historical progress to overcome poverty.

Reference: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/o.htm#poverty

 

[alexandra]

And, of course, since I am the one who insists on sticking to the principles of science, I'd like to see some substantiation of your definition. While it would be interesting to see how you define it and where you put the line, can you point to any published papers by leading economists that use that definition of poverty? I'd even settle for how Marx would define it, however from other things you've said, I don't think he'd approve of the definition you're using... Also, you have said many things that contradict your own definition. From the other thread: If poverty is referenced to physical survival, that's an absolute scale, not a relative one. As we've pointed out, while the gap gets wider, the capacity for physical survival of even the lowest income bracket is increasing.

Ok, I have done some more research on Marx's definition of poverty, which is a lot more complex than what I have stated in the post you quoted (in terms of physical survival). I do not think you're going to like this, or even grant it validity as a definition of poverty, but here is a summary of Marx's view of poverty:

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 using a much more complex view of poverty: the poverty of wasted potential - thus, competition for a larger share of the pie impoverishes humans by robbing them of having any worthwhile goals as intellectual/artistic/creative beings. So much for arguments that Marx was an economic determinist! Nevertheless, I have to now figure out what to do about our argument regarding poverty. We have not been arguing at a deep enough level, it seems. I am going to do more research and reflection on the issue of poverty and whether or not there are any measurable indicators that can help us further the discussion.

 

[Joel]

Just about all the information printed on official and accepted websites will by definition support your arguments; you are arguing for the status quo, which all the powerful institutions also support. I am arguing against it. There is no objectivity, you see... not that this means we should give up on our discourse. My belief is that even if we can't be objective, at least we can try to argue as honestly as possible and find strong supporting evidence for our arguments.

I think this is getting close to the topic of the other thread and my conslusion from that thread was that there exist some kind of objectivity in political science (if we want to use the word at all). The assumtions made for all studies determine their perspective, which can either be critical, conservative or something else, but these assumtions do not make the study in itself any less objective.
Of course, we are not conducting a study here; we are making arguments (often about the assumtions or perspectives of various studies) with better or worse sources, as you say.

 

[alexandra]

There are two ways of interpreting these data. The first is in absolute terms. In absolute terms, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten richer. If we define wealth as relative to the wealth of the very wealthiest however, then the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer. Russ and Ape and I are using the former interpretation, whereas you are using the latter. The thing is, however you want to define wealth, whether in absolute or relative terms, the purchasing power and quality of life of people in all classes is better at year 100 than at year 0. This is because, as Russ frequently points out, wealth is not a zero-sum game. The amount of wealth in the world has greatly increased over the past 100 years, even more so in the real world than in our hypothetical world. Furthermore, the poverty has actually decreased over the last 100 years in our world, rather than the doubling that took place in our hypothetical world.

loseyourname, I want to acknowledge the truth of your argument here - I have been using wealth in relative terms while you and the others have been arguing in absolute terms. But I am now convinced that we are all not looking at the matter in sufficient depth - the argument has shifted, and I have to do some thinking now about how to proceed... (hmm, I do have some ideas, though).

The other problem I see with your interpretation of the data is with your definition of the epithet 'the wealthiest.' The upper class of society today is not the same as the upper class of society 100 years ago; that is, they are not the same people. Many people that are in the upper class today come from families that lived in the middle class, or even lived in poverty, 100 years ago. This points to the other problem: class mobility. Many of the people who have gotten wealthier, both in absolute and in relative terms, were previously poor. By saying that the true beneficiaries of the system are the wealthiest, you are ignoring that 'the wealthiest' does not designate a static group of people. Anyone of sound mind and body can, in principle, become one of these 'wealthiest' people. The system benefits whoever can find a way to use the system to his advantage.

Even though this may no longer be as relevant to our argument in the light of more precise definitions of poverty, I would be really interested in any figures/statistics you may have access to regarding class mobility, which is often used as an argument to illustrate the efficacy of capitalism. It is easy to point to a few individuals achieving great wealth here and there (eg. Bill Gates, as Russ pointed out in another posting in this thread), but how general a phenomenon is class mobility in the US (or in any other capitalist society)? I know that 'in principle' anyone can become wealthy (this follows from the definition of living in a society based on economic competition) - but how many do? From my understanding, if you already have capital (wealth), you are much less likely to increase it than if you do not have some wealth to begin with. Being relatively poor brings with it all sorts of disadvantages that make the 'race for wealth' unequal. Am I just being stupid in thinking this? It seems to be logical to me.

 

[alexandra]

The assumtions made for all studies determine their perspective, which can either be critical, conservative or something else, but these assumtions do not make the study in itself any less objective.
Of course, we are not conducting a study here; we are making arguments (often about the assumtions or perspectives of various studies) with better or worse sources, as you say.

I agree, Joel. This is a very helpful observation - we are arguing about the validity of the assumptions inherent in using different perspectives. So much depends on whether, when we argue, we either agree on the basic assumptions or, failing that, whether we are aware of (and acknowledge) that our arguments are actually about the assumptions themselves. Hmm, it's really late here so I'd better log off for now. Not that there's much chance of sleep now that my mind is caught up working through these ideas

 

[2CentsWorth]

It would seem that one would need to view so called standard of living according to current methods of exchange. For example, we now have a token economy which includes credit cards, etc. that can allow people to appear to have more material wealth than their real means. You can't imagine how many Americans own nothing, and never will because of debt and bad credit--a kind of never ending servitude. They live month-to-month, and if anything goes wrong, without family and/or social services to turn to, some do become homeless.

To me an income of $18,000 would be living hand-to-mouth without question. So they have an old TV someone gave them, but they share a run down apartment with who knows how many people. A friend of mine helps a homeless person that he has known from childhood, giving him odd jobs (you know, the jobs Americans supposedly won't do). I doubt this homeless person is even in the statistics you are looking at.

I'm not saying to just go out and give welfare to people, because there are people who do play the system. However, capitalist ideology by nature will work to preserve the status quo for those in power, and in so doing diminish responsibility toward society as a whole. IMO, the way companies view employees has really deteriorated. For example, how many times are people laid off, and use their savings or sell their homes until they find new jobs? The workers are losing ground in comparison to the CEOs, but these kinds of set backs won't show up in the statistics, at least not yet.

 

[Joel]

I just found a gem regarding Popper and Marx, I really encourage those interested and with University access to read it:

Popper's Critique of Scientific Socialism, or Carnap and His Coworkers
Notturno Philosophy of the Social Sciences.1999; 29: 32-61.

Notturno uses a serie of personal letters between Popper and Carnap to illustrate, in a very readable (= not heavy on 'philosophical jargon')language, Popper's view on Marx and Historical Materialism. And it's merely a good 20 pages. Everyone; Positivists, Capitalists, Socialists and 'Communalists' gets their fair share of critique, while Rationalism and Freedom is eloquently defended.

Now I wonder, how much, if anything, can I quote from this paper here without doing something illegal or immoral?

 

[loseyourname]

Even though this may no longer be as relevant to our argument in the light of more precise definitions of poverty, I would be really interested in any figures/statistics you may have access to regarding class mobility, which is often used as an argument to illustrate the efficacy of capitalism. It is easy to point to a few individuals achieving great wealth here and there (eg. Bill Gates, as Russ pointed out in another posting in this thread), but how general a phenomenon is class mobility in the US (or in any other capitalist society)? I know that 'in principle' anyone can become wealthy (this follows from the definition of living in a society based on economic competition) - but how many do? From my understanding, if you already have capital (wealth), you are much less likely to increase it than if you do not have some wealth to begin with. Being relatively poor brings with it all sorts of disadvantages that make the 'race for wealth' unequal. Am I just being stupid in thinking this? It seems to be logical to me.

I would say you seem to be right. Any system of competition is going to, at the very least, greatly favor those who are better at competing. The thing is, if we're considering Marxism as the alternative, which would we prefer? A system in which the smart and innovative (and of course those with pre-existing wealth) are favored or one in which no one ever advances?

I'm not certain of the precise stats regarding class mobility in the United States, but I know that Russ has posted numbers before. Perhaps he can dig those up again for us. Something rather anecdotal, but interesting nonetheless, that I read a while back, was a history of the city of New York. it detailed how families would immigrate from Europe with just about nothing. The parents would work for beans and save up everything they could to send their children to college. After gaining an education, the children would then move into the middle class of the city and many were even able to lift their parents out of poverty as well. This was apparently the way the entire social system of the city worked for a very long time. Almost nobody ever came to New York with money; they came there and made money. I doubt there are any example in contemporary society that are so dramatic, but it should at least serve to illustrate the possibilities. Even today, the financial aid system makes it possible for children who grew up in relative poverty to get a college education and enter the middle class. Groups that have been historically disadvantaged are even favored when receiving aid - not from the government necessarily, but when was the last time you heard of a 'White American College Scholarship Fund?'

I think your illustration is very good, don't be modest. But I do want to comment on this particular bit and I hope you don't mind me doing only that.

I don't know if you intended or not, but here you draw a parallel between economic wealth and quality of life. The relationship between these two variables correlate positively often, but not always. According to Amayrta Sen's argument in his book, "Development as Freedom", freedom would actually predicts quality of life better than economic wealth. But I suppose this is a thread or two worth of discussion in its own right.

Yes, certainly. I would argue that the primary duty of government, aside from ensuring the freedom of our economic markets, should be to ensure our freedom in general. The best we can hope for from an economic system is that it creates adequate wealth so that, if we have the desire and ability to do so, we can acquire what is necessary to meet our needs and wants.

 

[loseyourname]

Another philosophical objection that can be raised against Marx is his use of the dialectic. Originally conceived of by Kant as pure reason attempting to uncover empirical truth and instead resulting in metaphysical paradoxes, the dialectic was adopted by Hegel as a system of logic that was able not just to govern the relations between ideas, but to uncover truth. The dialectic as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis was thought by Hegel to be the only true logic, a logic that governed all of reality. He viewed truth and history both as evolving by means of the dialectic toward an end goal of perfect reality that was the transcendence of all paradox - an almost Taoist notion, only with the resolution posited as an end-goal rather than an eternality.

There are two objections that can be raised against Marx's use of the dialectic to predict future history. The first is that the dialectic is not a legitimate form of logic. As Russell said of Hegel, "the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives rise." Antecedent to Hegel and Marx came Frege and Russell, who demonstrated decisively that logic does not uncover truth, nor does it say anything about the nature of being or empirical reality. Logic simply governs the relation of ideas by means of functional operation on truth-values. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis model is fine as a means of conflict resolution, but it is not a logic, nor does it tell us anything about the structure or evolution of reality. The second objection is simply that history is not teleological, as Hegel and Marx would have us believe. It does not evolve toward an end-goal of the perfect utopian society that is the resolution of all apparent paradox. History cannot be predicted in that way. There is no theoretical crystal-ball that can be used to look forward and say "there, that is what will happen." Even if the universe does operate by strict determinism (which is certainly not a known fact), it has generally been acknowledge, since Newton, by everyone other than Hegel and Marx, that it operates efficiently, or mechanically, not teleologically.

 

[ron damon]

Wow. If I remember correctly, there was a recent poll conducted in Great Britain which asked people who did they believe was the greatest scientist of all time. Karl Marx won. In the land of Newton, Darwin, Maxwell and Adam Smith, that result shows as clearly as can be shown how pseudoscience has obliterated anything resembling reason. To put it lightly, Marx was wrong about everything. If he had been an astronomer, his work would be regarded today in the same light as Ptolemy's.

Let me just mention the main postulate of his doctrine: he predicted that worker's income would fall to a minimal level sufficient only for survival. The exact opposite occurred. The 19th and 20th century experienced the most spectacular increment in workers' income humanity has ever seen, rising twenty-fold in real terms in the last century alone. In direct and explicit contradiction to Marx's theory, capitalism has been the most formidable engine for the improvement of mankind's material condition since history begun. It is as if Newton had proposed that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the square of the radius separating two bodies. His ideas would have been rejected, and his name forgotten. Yet a clown like Marx is held today as a God and a prophet, despite reality having proved him helplessly wrong about the power of Socialism to improve material life, and the the failure of Capitalism. If the richests countries are ALL capitalist, and the poorests ALL socialist, what's keeping people from accepting the obvious?

One question I like to pose to people on the Left (that always goes unanswered) is this one: where are all the rich Socialist countries to imitate, and the poor, failed, Capitalist ones?

 

[2CentsWorth]

...Yet a clown like Marx is held today as a God and a prophet

A description more befitting of...Bush? Whereas even if you don't agree with Marx's theories, he was obviously a very intelligent man.

One question I like to pose to people on the Left (that always goes unanswered) is this one: where are all the rich Socialist countries to imitate, and the poor, failed, Capitalist ones?

What country is Socialist that does not practice some amount of capitalism, and what country that is Capitalist doesn't practice some amount of socialism?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is not true, Russ - the experts do not agree that poverty levels are dropping. In their paper Unknown: The Extent, Distribution, and Trend of Global Income Poverty. Pogge and Reddy clearly state:

…we do not yet know with any reasonable degree of confidence how many poor people there are in the world, where they live, and how their number has changed over time.

I thought we were discussing capitalist society. As far as I know, even if it does account for quite a bit of it, the world as a whole is not capitalist. Also I do not believe Russ meant all experts and just because these two may not agree with the rest does not mean there is significant dissent on the matter. In response to your statements regarding information sources this is the reason why some of us won't readily accept the opinions of those that aren't generally recognized as experts in the field. At the same time if you find something that you aren't sure we will find credible yet you think feel it is then go ahead and profer it. Russ, Loseyourname, myself, or somebody will very possibly take the time to point out any merits or flaws they see in it.

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:continued...

This seems to hurt your argument about Marxism being scientific more than help. It's philosophical as opposed to scientific. The "poverty of development of human sensibilities" is subjective and not readily quantifiable. Still if we were to humour that line of argument it could easily be pointed out that your average citizen today in a capitalist society has more access to better education then they did a hundred years ago. Due specifically to capitalism your average citizen has more access to art, music, and literature than one hundred years ago. Just about every person here in the US owns a radio or can for a rather small amount of money and will be able to listen to all of the composers that Marx was probably a fan of and was sad that the vast majority were not able to enjoy themselves. As far as the issue of capitalists taking advantage of and hurting the consumers by adding more and more "objects" that is really a matter of the consumers self indulgence and greed. It is because of the flaw in the consumer, not a flaw in the system, that they allow themselves to be taken advantage of this way. A populace will not take kindly to a system that will not allow them the freedom of their own stupidity. And the system that will cater to these stupid creatures and successfully advance will win in the end.

Also, on the side here... None of us here think you are a jerk. With the way you present yourself I think more than one of us has wondered though. I'd just like to point out that you needn't apologize so profusely. The majority of your posts are spent in apology and all I get out of wading through all of it are a few skant tid bits of your arguement. It's nice to see someone be so polite but at points it gets really annoying. I would definitely appreciate it personally if you were to concentrate more of your effort on the discussion at hand. And just to be safe here, again, I do not think you are a jerk. You actually seem to be a very nice person. Admittedly though when I first started reading your posts on PF I began to think you were trying to make yourself out as a victim as a tactic to encourage people to sympathize with you.

 

[wasteofo2]

One question I like to pose to people on the Left (that always goes unanswered) is this one: where are all the rich Socialist countries to imitate, and the poor, failed, Capitalist ones?

When you're talking about Communism and Socialism, it's important to make the distinction. Communism is the ultimate end described in The Communist Manifesto, where the proletariat collectively owns everything. Socialism is the transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism.

That being said, there are many rich Socialist nations out there. Hell, I'd even consider the USA a Socialist nation, as it's clearly not strictly Capitalist and does have things like workers unions, minimum wage, welfare, medicare, social security, publicly owned land, restrictions on business practices, a progressive tax system, and all sorts of other things of that nature.

But besides the USA, there are countries like Sweeden which are very well off and very far away from pure Capitalism.

It's important to remember that Socialism is a very subjective term, and could be used to describe pretty much any economic system that has a basis in Capitalism but makes efforts to re-distribute wealth, or leans towards achieving (to any degree) any of the goals set out in the Communist Manifesto.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When you're talking about Communism and Socialism, it's important to make the distinction. Communism is the ultimate end described in The Communist Manifesto, where the proletariat collectively owns everything. Socialism is the transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism...
...It's important to remember that Socialism is a very subjective term, and could be used to describe pretty much any economic system that has a basis in Capitalism but makes efforts to re-distribute wealth, or leans towards achieving (to any degree) any of the goals set out in the Communist Manifesto.

In regards to the arguements over the viability of socialism and communism I would have to agree that they are very possibly inevitable so long as the world continues to advance. I think in the future there will be a sort of technocratic socialist system in place. At some point technology will be capable of doing everything that needs to be done as far as menial labour and there will no longer be a need for a lower class of citizens. We will be able to take more and more for granted. Like a Star Trek utopia. I would say it still pretty far off though and I don't neccissarily think a revolution will be needed to achieve it. Revolution more likely would hamper it.

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm, lots of links here - it's going to take me a while to look all these up.

Don't concern yourself with those links too much. While they are interesting, the are not really the main argument here. One of the reasons I don't like to give too much beyond specific facts is it allows people to take their eye off the ball.

I have a busy day today, but I'll respond to some in depth later...

 

[alexandra]

Also, on the side here... None of us here think you are a jerk. With the way you present yourself I think more than one of us has wondered though. I'd just like to point out that you needn't apologize so profusely. The majority of your posts are spent in apology and all I get out of wading through all of it are a few skant tid bits of your arguement. It's nice to see someone be so polite but at points it gets really annoying. I would definitely appreciate it personally if you were to concentrate more of your effort on the discussion at hand. And just to be safe here, again, I do not think you are a jerk. You actually seem to be a very nice person. Admittedly though when I first started reading your posts on PF I began to think you were trying to make yourself out as a victim as a tactic to encourage people to sympathize with you.

Hmm, no - I was not trying to be manipulative, but I obviously gave off that impression. And yes, TheStatutoryApe, can do - 'No more Mr Nice Guy' from me And from now on (barring this post) I will address only the substance of arguments and not personalise the discussion. Now I need some time to formulate responses...

 

[alexandra]

It would seem that one would need to view so called standard of living according to current methods of exchange. For example, we now have a token economy which includes credit cards, etc. that can allow people to appear to have more material wealth than their real means. You can't imagine how many Americans own nothing, and never will because of debt and bad credit--a kind of never ending servitude.

The points you raised led me to look for information about credit and bankruptcy statistics. This is what I have found so far, and it all supports what you wrote above 2CentsWorth:

US Bankruptcy statistics - http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/USbankstats.htm

Although the title at the top of the web page is ‘Bankruptcy Filings Drop in Calendar Year 2004’, if you scroll down the page there is a graph showing a rise in number of personal (consumer) bankruptcies from 1980 onwards. Also interesting is the information just beneath the graph: ‘Bankruptcy Profile’ – two thirds of all people filing for bankruptcy have lost their jobs.

Also interesting is the title of the original source of information the ‘Bankruptcy Profile’ was obtained from: The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt;
Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law School; Smith Business Solutions

Analysis of consumer bankruptcies (in the US) http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/USbankstats2.htm#Consumerbankruptcies

Theories regarding the causes of an increase in the number of bankruptcies in the US since 1985 include outstanding consumer credit and increasing unemployment. The graph at the bottom of page showing a similar cycle for Canada.

I also found some statistical information that supports your point about peoples’ reliance on credit:

The US Treasury’s summary tables of current public debt (individual and government) - http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

The US Treasury’s summary tables of annual public debt from 1997 to 2004 (individual and government again) - http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

The figures show a consistent total increase in debt over the years.

Some relevant Marxist political-economic theory for those who are interested in exploring it
In 1900, the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg wrote ‘Reform or Revolution’, in which she argues against the view that capitalism can adapt itself indefinitely to the economic crises it engenders:

The scientific basis of socialism rests, as is well known, on three principal results of capitalist development. First, on the growing anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to its ruin. Second, on the progressive socialisation of the process of production, which creates the germs of the future social order. And third, on the increased organisation and consciousness of the proletarian class, which constitutes the active factor in the coming revolution - http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch01.htm

She also outlines the role of credit in capitalist economies in Chapter II of the same book - http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch02.htm . I have included a brief extract for those interested – it is difficult reading, I admit, but one cannot avoid complexity when trying to understand a complex world.

Credit has diverse applications in capitalism. Its two most important functions are to extend production and to facilitate exchange. When the inner tendency of capitalist production to extend boundlessly strikes against the restricted dimensions of private property, credit appears as a means of surmounting these limits in a particular capitalist manner. Credit, through shareholding, combines in one magnitude of capital a large number of individual capitals. It makes available to each capitalist the use of other capitalists’ money–in the form of industrial credit. As commercial credit it accelerates the exchange of commodities and therefore the return of capital into production, and thus aids the entire cycle of the process of production. The manner in which these two principle functions of credit influence the formation of crises is quite obvious….

it [ie, credit] increases disproportionately the capacity of the extension of production and thus constitutes an inner motive force that is constantly pushing production to exceed the limits of the market. But credit strikes from two sides. After having (as a factor of the process of production) provoked overproduction, credit (as a factor of exchange) destroys, during the crisis, the very productive forces it itself created. At the first symptom of the crisis, credit melts away….

Besides having these two principal results, credit also influences the formation of crises in the following ways. It constitutes the technical means of making available to an entrepreneur the capital of other owners. It stimulates at the same time the bold and unscrupulous utilisation of the property of others. That is, it leads to speculation. Credit not only aggravates the crisis in its capacity as a dissembled means of exchange, it also helps to bring and extend the crisis by transforming all exchange into an extremely complex and artificial mechanism that, having a minimum of metallic money as a real base, is easily disarranged at the slightest occasion.

 

[alexandra]

I just found a gem regarding Popper and Marx, I really encourage those interested and with University access to read it:

Popper's Critique of Scientific Socialism, or Carnap and His Coworkers
Notturno Philosophy of the Social Sciences.1999; 29: 32-61.

Now I wonder, how much, if anything, can I quote from this paper here without doing something illegal or immoral?

If it's not public access, and you have to access it via a uni website, I'd say it's copyright-protected so you couldn't quote too much from it here, Joel.

 

[alexandra]

I'm not certain of the precise stats regarding class mobility in the United States, but I know that Russ has posted numbers before. Perhaps he can dig those up again for us. Something rather anecdotal, but interesting nonetheless, that I read a while back, was a history of the city of New York. it detailed how families would immigrate from Europe with just about nothing. The parents would work for beans and save up everything they could to send their children to college. After gaining an education, the children would then move into the middle class of the city and many were even able to lift their parents out of poverty as well. This was apparently the way the entire social system of the city worked for a very long time. Almost nobody ever came to New York with money; they came there and made money. I doubt there are any example in contemporary society that are so dramatic, but it should at least serve to illustrate the possibilities. Even today, the financial aid system makes it possible for children who grew up in relative poverty to get a college education and enter the middle class. Groups that have been historically disadvantaged are even favored when receiving aid - not from the government necessarily, but when was the last time you heard of a 'White American College Scholarship Fund?'.

Ok, I was curious enough (and too impatient to wait) to look this up myself. I found this interesting information on a publisher's website - http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_060300_mobilitysoci.htm .

Unfortunately, we encounter the problem of definitions again:

...scholars disagree as to what constitutes social or economic position and how to measure vertical mobility. Moreover, their judgments are not always persuasive. One historian counts as "successful" persons who after ten years have become richer, and as "unsuccessful" those who have grown poorer. By this standard, the pauper who amassed ten dollars over the decade is a success, and the millionaire who lost the same amount is a failure.

Nevertheless, here is a brief extract from the same url summarising the scholarly findings regarding the question of class mobility in the twentieth century:

Twentieth-century mobility has been intensively studied, above all by sociologists...For the most part, the well-to-do and highly successful were born to advantage. What upward movement people experienced was usually "small-distanced": though they might hold a great variety of jobs in the course of a lifetime, most people in the end arrived at an occupational destination similar in prestige to the job they started out with. On the other hand, structural change, such as the sharp decline in agricultural work or the increasing replacement of blue-collar by white-collar work, gave many sons and daughters jobs that commanded greater prestige—if not higher real wages—than their parents had earned. After World War II, African-Americans in the North enjoyed a significant enhancement in work opportunities, and all Americans benefited from a remarkable increase in college enrollments. But differentiation in the standing and reputation of schools or professions was usually masked by the quantitative data that are the stuff of statistical studies. In life it mattered a great deal whether one attended a slum school or a prestigious prep school, or if one was a lawyer, whether one scratched out a living as a court-assigned attorney for the indigent or earned a large income as solicitor to the corporate mighty.

This information seems to support the argument that whatever class mobility does occur is, for the most part, 'small-distanced'. This extract also makes the interesting point that while one may point to an increase in the number of people who have had formal education, it matters a great deal what sort of education one gets and what sort of job one gets ultimately as a result of that education.

 

[alexandra]

I thought we were discussing capitalist society. As far as I know, even if it does account for quite a bit of it, the world as a whole is not capitalist.

I AM discussing capitalist society. Please tell me which parts of the world are not capitalist? I'm not sure what you mean by '...the world as a whole is not capitalist', and I cannot respond intelligently unless you make your meaning clear.

 

[alexandra]

Also I do not believe Russ meant all experts and just because these two may not agree with the rest does not mean there is significant dissent on the matter.

But the fact that not all experts agree is significant – read what Russ actually wrote

edit: In the last thread there were a few times I treated some facts as self-evident, and I apologize for that. That said, I still consider such facts as the decreasing poverty rate and the increasing world GDP to be something that everyone - and certainly someone with some education on the subject - should be aware of. I'm still a little incredulous that you would require substantiation of such things…

This quote comes from page 1 of this thread if you want to check that I have not misquoted him. Besides, I’d imagine that there are more than two economists (actually, I have quoted a third previously) who do not agree! If you want, I can tediously search for more economists with this view, but I think it is very remiss of all of you not to check your own information before responding to my arguments (there seem to be different rules of accountability/evidence-requirements in place here).

 

[alexandra]

Also, on the side here... None of us here think you are a jerk. With the way you present yourself I think more than one of us has wondered though. I'd just like to point out that you needn't apologize so profusely. The majority of your posts are spent in apology and all I get out of wading through all of it are a few skant tid bits of your arguement. It's nice to see someone be so polite but at points it gets really annoying. I would definitely appreciate it personally if you were to concentrate more of your effort on the discussion at hand. And just to be safe here, again, I do not think you are a jerk. You actually seem to be a very nice person. Admittedly though when I first started reading your posts on PF I began to think you were trying to make yourself out as a victim as a tactic to encourage people to sympathize with you.

Ok, this is really, really bugging me. I am not seeking sympathy for my views/myself in any way. I do not need support from anyone at all; I am capable of developing my own arguments. And if people want to think of me as a jerk for thinking differently to them, so be it - I absolutely do not care. I will interpret reality as I see it no matter what.

 

[alexandra]

I would say you seem to be right. Any system of competition is going to, at the very least, greatly favor those who are better at competing. The thing is, if we're considering Marxism as the alternative, which would we prefer? A system in which the smart and innovative (and of course those with pre-existing wealth) are favored or one in which no one ever advances?

In keeping with the 'new, improved' me, I'm going to argue against you ruthlessly here. Even though the USSR was NOT a socialist society, it was nevertheless not based on competition. One result was widespread intellectual brilliance in all fields of human endeavour (including in the sciences, the arts, and in the production of genius-level chess players - if you insist, I can spend hours looking for acceptable evidence in the form of examples; just let me know), as well as amazing technological achievements (including beating the arch capitalist USA in the space race!) It is ONLY in a society NOT based on competition that human beings can realize their potential. It is only when people's interests and abilities are nurtured (regardless of whether or not they have the MONEY to attend good schools and top universities) that they will develop to their full potential. This is precisely what Marx was talking about regarding the poverty of capitalist societies. Capitalist societies make cripples out of people - you can only 'realise' your potential if you have the money to do so.

EDIT: And don't bring up the argument of 'scholarships' to the worthy. Those are mere breadcrumbs relative to the extreme, obscene wealth of the wealthy... little more than pocket change (which, undoubtedly, can also be claimed as a tax deduction!).

 

[alexandra]

This seems to hurt your argument about Marxism being scientific more than help. It's philosophical as opposed to scientific. The "poverty of development of human sensibilities" is subjective and not readily quantifiable.

No, I disagree. It does not hurt my argument; it just demonstrates that when you are analysing complexity it does not do at all to analyse it simplistically, and that this is something Marx was well aware of. His theory is very difficult both to read and understand, precisely because it is a well-developed theory that drew from many disciplines (including Philosophy, of course). The 'poverty of development of human sensibilities' is precisely what is at stake here. As I responded to loseyourname above, as far as I am concerned this is one of the worst aspects of capitalism - that it retards real human development in the areas that matter.

Still if we were to humour that line of argument it could easily be pointed out that your average citizen today in a capitalist society has more access to better education then they did a hundred years ago. Due specifically to capitalism your average citizen has more access to art, music, and literature than one hundred years ago. Just about every person here in the US owns a radio or can for a rather small amount of money and will be able to listen to all of the composers that Marx was probably a fan of and was sad that the vast majority were not able to enjoy themselves.

Please read my response to loseyourname on this issue. Scientifically, culturally and technologically, the USSR (only recently out of the 'dark ages' of feudalism, and dragged out by the 1917 revolution itself) was more advanced than the greatest capitalist country. Do you know that the USSR's technological achievements in the space race, for example, resulted in a complete overhaul (ongoing to this day) of the US education system? To this day, I am reading articles that seriously discuss concerns regarding low educational achievements in the US, especially in the fields of mathematics and science. If you want, I can find countless references on this issue to support what I am saying; let me know.

And, by the way, I want to point out very clearly that I am NOT stating that the USSR was a socialist/communist society; it was not. It was, however, not a society based on competition in the so-called 'free' market; it housed its citizens, and educated them, and if they were interested in/good at ballet (for example), it nurtured their abilities/interests. Sad to see the state that the Russian Federation is in now -poverty has increased, so has homelessness and disease and general want in all areas. But that's great, because a few corrupt individuals are making great fortunes out of the general misery, just as things should be: the survival of the most ruthless (ie, capitalism).

As far as the issue of capitalists taking advantage of and hurting the consumers by adding more and more "objects" that is really a matter of the consumers self indulgence and greed. It is because of the flaw in the consumer, not a flaw in the system, that they allow themselves to be taken advantage of this way.

No, it is not. It is a result of advertising and brainwashing and the deliberate impoverishment 'of development of human sensibilities', just as Marx wrote over a hundred years ago.

A populace will not take kindly to a system that will not allow them the freedom of their own stupidity. And the system that will cater to these stupid creatures and successfully advance will win in the end.

I may have to agree with you on this one, unfortunately. There seems to be overwhelming evidence that you are correct.

 

[alexandra]

Another philosophical objection that can be raised against Marx is his use of the dialectic. Originally conceived of by Kant as pure reason attempting to uncover empirical truth and instead resulting in metaphysical paradoxes, the dialectic was adopted by Hegel as a system of logic that was able not just to govern the relations between ideas, but to uncover truth. The dialectic as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis was thought by Hegel to be the only true logic, a logic that governed all of reality. He viewed truth and history both as evolving by means of the dialectic toward an end goal of perfect reality that was the transcendence of all paradox - an almost Taoist notion, only with the resolution posited as an end-goal rather than an eternality. There are two objections that can be raised against Marx's use of the dialectic to predict future history. The first is that the dialectic is not a legitimate form of logic. As Russell said of Hegel, "the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives rise." Antecedent to Hegel and Marx came Frege and Russell, who demonstrated decisively that logic does not uncover truth, nor does it say anything about the nature of being or empirical reality. Logic simply governs the relation of ideas by means of functional operation on truth-values. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis model is fine as a means of conflict resolution, but it is not a logic, nor does it tell us anything about the structure or evolution of reality.

Marxist dialectics do not adopt this simplistic view that logic can tell us anything about the evolution of reality. Leon Trotsky provides a very readable interpretation of the Marxist conception of the dialectic in The ABC of Materialist Dialectics - available online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-abc.htm . To illustrate, I will quote a single sentence: “The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship similar to that between higher and lower mathematics.” If you’re genuinely interested in reading how Marxists use the term, you can read the article (it’s very brief, and quite interesting in its own right as a piece of philosophy).

The second objection is simply that history is not teleological, as Hegel and Marx would have us believe. It does not evolve toward an end-goal of the perfect utopian society that is the resolution of all apparent paradox. History cannot be predicted in that way. There is no theoretical crystal-ball that can be used to look forward and say "there, that is what will happen." Even if the universe does operate by strict determinism (which is certainly not a known fact), it has generally been acknowledge, since Newton, by everyone other than Hegel and Marx, that it operates efficiently, or mechanically, not teleologically.

Marx would NOT have us believe that history is teleological. As I’ve explained elsewhere, Marx did not ‘predict’ the evolution of capitalism into socialism, and I would add to that that he went to a great deal of trouble to distinguish his theory of socialism (which is referred to as ‘scientific socialism’) from previous/other versions of socialism which one must justifiably call ‘utopian socialism’. Utopian socialists believe that one can convince the wealthy to ‘be nice’ and ‘share’; scientific socialists do not. Marx said that socialism will only ever be achieved through the efforts of human agency – just as it took a political revolution (the French Revolution) to overthrow feudalism and replace it with capitalism, whether or not socialism is ever achieved will depend on the actions of people. The wealthy will not be convinced to ‘be nice’ and ‘share’, and left to its own devices, history will not magically achieve a ‘nice’ and ‘fair society. These things have to be fought for. This is what Marx said, and this is why Marxism is classified as a ‘conflict theory’ in Sociology.

 

[loseyourname]

In keeping with the 'new, improved' me, I'm going to argue against you ruthlessly here. Even though the USSR was NOT a socialist society, it was nevertheless not based on competition. One result was widespread intellectual brilliance in all fields of human endeavour (including in the sciences, the arts, and in the production of genius-level chess players - if you insist, I can spend hours looking for acceptable evidence in the form of examples; just let me know), as well as amazing technological achievements (including beating the arch capitalist USA in the space race!) It is ONLY in a society NOT based on competition that human beings can realize their potential. It is only when people's interests and abilities are nurtured (regardless of whether or not they have the MONEY to attend good schools and top universities) that they will develop to their full potential. This is precisely what Marx was talking about regarding the poverty of capitalist societies. Capitalist societies make cripples out of people - you can only 'realise' your potential if you have the money to do so.

How happy were these people in the USSR, with all this brilliant art and intellectual wealth? I'll leave it to you to look for whatever quantification of happiness you think can be found, but I can again provide an anecdote here. I used to be very active in the Armenian community when I still lived in Los Angeles. In fact, the part of the city I was in (East Hollywood) was populated almost entirely by immigrants from former Soviet Republics. Invariably, every last one I talked to lived a better life here. Most would prefer to be home, because it is home, but the economic conditions there made it difficult to survive. There were people that had been doctors and engineers that made more money here as school teachers or social workers. Heck, my high school physics teacher had been an engineer in the vaunted Soviet space program, but apparently being a high school teacher in the US was a better option. All these people would probably agree that culture in the USSR was far superior, but that had nothing to do with lack of capitalism. Russia, Armenia, and most of the other Orthodox nations have long, rich literary and artistic traditions, and the US does not. We've just never been a very artistic country; our best painters and writers have been satirists or ironical. Nonetheless, I would argue that Marx's and Engels' homelands, Germany and England, have even richer artistic and literary traditions than do the Orthodox nations of the former USSR, and this was true even during the height of 'decadent capitalism.'

EDIT: And don't bring up the argument of 'scholarships' to the worthy. Those are mere breadcrumbs relative to the extreme, obscene wealth of the wealthy... little more than pocket change (which, undoubtedly, can also be claimed as a tax deduction!).

So what? You're just lapsing into the relative viewpoint again. Is a college fund less valuable because someone else has more? Do socialist nations provide a college education for more people? I'm going to college for free, Alex, and that's without any special scholarship funds. That's entirely off of federal and state aid, need-based rather than merit-based. Even if you can't get any aid, community colleges in this state cost $19 per unit. That's $238, or about two weeks worth of pay working minimum wage, for a full-time semester load. Granted, books and transportation will add a little to the cost, and not every state is as cheap as California, but even so. There is almost no excuse for any second generation person in this country to not be in the middle class. You might be in a position like Russ' or mine, where it's quite possible that you're technically considered to be living in poverty by people like you, but we're happy anyway. We have more than enough to provide for ourselves and don't consider it any less valuable simply because Paris Hilton has more.

Furthermore, anyone that wants to be cultured certainly can be. So what if there isn't a whole lot of great American art? I particularly love Irish and French literature; German and Italian painting. A museum trip is $5 (sometimes optional) and used books $2-$10. Sometimes I'll see an Italian opera or a British play for a little more. Everyone here has that option and is fully responsible for whether or not such things matter to them.

 

[loseyourname]

Marxist dialectics do not adopt this simplistic view that logic can tell us anything about the evolution of reality. Leon Trotsky provides a very readable interpretation of the Marxist conception of the dialectic in The ABC of Materialist Dialectics - available online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-abc.htm . To illustrate, I will quote a single sentence: “The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship similar to that between higher and lower mathematics.” If you’re genuinely interested in reading how Marxists use the term, you can read the article (it’s very brief, and quite interesting in its own right as a piece of philosophy).

Wow. No offense, Alex, but that is a huge sprawling mess that does not deserve designation as proper philosophy. That's theory development material there. I'll get to this in more detail later with my specific philosophical objections, but suffice it to say that it is the fact that pieces like this are read as anything other than historical mistakes that makes me question whether or not Marxists are aware that there has been philosophical progress since 1850. Apparently even Trotsky was not aware of that fact. Please don't respond until I have laid out exactly why this is one of the worst pieces of philosophy that has ever been linked to here.

 

[alexandra]

Wow. No offense, Alex, but that is a huge sprawling mess that does not deserve designation as proper philosophy. That's theory development material there. I'll get to this in more detail later with my specific philosophical objections, but suffice it to say that it is the fact that pieces like this are read as anything other than historical mistakes that makes me question whether or not Marxists are aware that there has been philosophical progress since 1850. Apparently even Trotsky was not aware of that fact. Please don't respond until I have laid out exactly why this is one of the worst pieces of philosophy that has ever been linked to here.

Ok, I'm not responding - just letting you know I've read this and will wait to read your developed argument. By the way, I have NOT majored in philosophy myself - I have only formally studied a first year unit in it and have read bits and pieces as they are presented in other discipline areas. I'm just asking that you try and phrase your response appropriately so that a non-expert can understand it.

 

[alexandra]

How happy were these people in the USSR, with all this brilliant art and intellectual wealth? I'll leave it to you to look for whatever quantification of happiness you think can be found, but I can again provide an anecdote here. I used to be very active in the Armenian community when I still lived in Los Angeles. In fact, the part of the city I was in (East Hollywood) was populated almost entirely by immigrants from former Soviet Republics. Invariably, every last one I talked to lived a better life here. Most would prefer to be home, because it is home, but the economic conditions there made it difficult to survive. There were people that had been doctors and engineers that made more money here as school teachers or social workers. Heck, my high school physics teacher had been an engineer in the vaunted Soviet space program, but apparently being a high school teacher in the US was a better option.

Yes, I do not doubt what you write here about people you have met in the US. But what about all those people who are now trapped living in the Russian Federation? I KNOW I have to back up my arguments about how their lives have become much worse now than they ever were before; however, it will take me time to find credible evidence, and I can't do this right now. When I do find the evidence, I will post it.

So what? You're just lapsing into the relative viewpoint again. Is a college fund less valuable because someone else has more? Do socialist nations provide a college education for more people? I'm going to college for free, Alex, and that's without any special scholarship funds. That's entirely off of federal and state aid, need-based rather than merit-based.

The fact that you are going to college for free is not a good argument. How many people get such an opportunity in the US? More importantly, how many people miss out?

Even if you can't get any aid, community colleges in this state cost $19 per unit. That's $238, or about two weeks worth of pay working minimum wage, for a full-time semester load.

Some questions, because I simply do not know: what is a community college? Is it the same as a university? Are there different 'quality' universities in the US? If so, which universities to the wealthy go to, and how do those universities differ from other universities? These questions are relevant. As I pointed out in a previous response to you in this thread (the one where I quoted an extract from a history book), it is too general to say 'many people are educated'. The question is: what sort of education do they get?

There is almost no excuse for any second generation person in this country to not be in the middle class.

So who are the 'working poor' I read so much about? Is it a myth that they exist? There are people in the US, I have read, who have three jobs. They work incredible hours, and STILL can't make ends meet. Is it their laziness that prevents them from being middle class? I guess it must be.

You might be in a position like Russ' or mine, where it's quite possible that you're technically considered to be living in poverty by people like you, but we're happy anyway. We have more than enough to provide for ourselves and don't consider it any less valuable simply because Paris Hilton has more.

I'm really not sure what you mean here. Do you mean I, personally, would think of you as living in poverty? I'm perplexed. Anyway, I'll clear this up - no, I myself am not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. I do not want for anything, but I am not wealthy. Also, I am not motivated by jealousy: I would not WANT wealth if anyone gave it to me. So what drives me? Here it is: I am incensed - totally outraged - by the terrible things that are happening in this world. I truly believe that I would be less than human if I weren't. That's it; my whole argument. This is what drives me - a desire for justice and for humans to be humane, and a rage that they can be so otherwise and tolerate a system that distorts them in that way. It is not human nature to be greedy. Human beings are intelligent - they can get beyond 'nature'. I believe this.

Furthermore, anyone that wants to be cultured certainly can be. So what if there isn't a whole lot of great American art? I particularly love Irish and French literature; German and Italian painting. A museum trip is $5 (sometimes optional) and used books $2-$10. Sometimes I'll see an Italian opera or a British play for a little more. Everyone here has that option and is fully responsible for whether or not such things matter to them.

Have you ever read about Maslow's hierarchy of human needs? One cannot pursue culture if one's physical and safety needs are not first met. If you are homeless, or up to your ears in debt and living on credit - if you are worrying because you can't get health insurance, or don't have money to send your kids to a good school/university, how could you possibly worry about culture?

 

[2CentsWorth]

Also, on the side here... None of us here think you are a jerk. With the way you present yourself I think more than one of us has wondered though. I'd just like to point out that you needn't apologize so profusely. The majority of your posts are spent in apology and all I get out of wading through all of it are a few skant tid bits of your arguement. It's nice to see someone be so polite but at points it gets really annoying. I would definitely appreciate it personally if you were to concentrate more of your effort on the discussion at hand. And just to be safe here, again, I do not think you are a jerk. You actually seem to be a very nice person. Admittedly though when I first started reading your posts on PF I began to think you were trying to make yourself out as a victim as a tactic to encourage people to sympathize with you.

In trying to be objective, my observation has been that members tend to defer to other members rather than providing their own arguments, and then in so doing, tend to provide a lot of rhetoric with little or no references to back up their remarks. In the meantime, alexandra obviously has spent a great deal of time doing research to provide reliable information. alexandra--thank you for the information about credit--it is very interesting and good information--and please accept my apologies for not doing that research myself.