Reminder to you guys about Marxism

[lord of flies]

"The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

 

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. "

 

- Karl Marx

[lord of flies]

PS: Here's the origin of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

 

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! "

 

- Karl Marx

 

Hmm... it almost seems like he's talking about a post-scarcity society wherein people only work if they choose to?

[taks]

he's talking about a utopia in which every demand is equally met with supply. where everyone naturally has everything they want, which also coincides exactly with what they need. i want a leer jet. why can't i have one?

 

i was right, you aren't that bright.

 

taks

[lord of flies]

he's talking about a utopia in which every demand is equally met with supply.

Is what I say.

[taks]

smart people would understand that such a thing is not possible - utopia is an ideal that cannot be met in reality. i spelled it out and you still didn't get it.

 

is your ignorance willful (intellectual dishonesty) are are you really that dumb?

 

taks

[lord of flies]

smart people would understand that such a thing is not possible - utopia is an ideal that cannot be met in reality. i spelled it out and you still didn't get it.

 

is your ignorance willful (intellectual dishonesty) are are you really that dumb?

 

taks

Yeah, so? Your point being? My point is that the quote refers to a point at which the massive growth of the economy, caused by the successful application of socialism, aka the command economy, aka one of the most effective and proven tools for rapid industrial growth, has created an industrial society so mechanized and perfected that work can be completely voluntary. It does not refer to today, tomorrow, or the near future, but rather an indefinite future, wherein the Glorious Socialist Paradise has been achieved across the world. It is a bit "spiritual," to be sure, but it's not some piece of practical advice, thus throwing out the idea that Marxism is about equal pay for unequal work yet again.

[Gorth]

Thread pruned a bit. Call it a "social experiement". Maybe it is possible to discuss marxism without getting all childish and trollish about it, maybe not. Time will tell.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Marxism can work in a small community of like minded individuals but in larger populations it cannot because too many people have too many different ideas and the only way to keep Marxism in play is to force it with violence and fear.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I found this link to be an interesting read about Marxism explaining the Financial Crisis.

[Meshugger]

smart people would understand that such a thing is not possible - utopia is an ideal that cannot be met in reality. i spelled it out and you still didn't get it.

 

is your ignorance willful (intellectual dishonesty) are are you really that dumb?

 

taks

Yeah, so? Your point being? My point is that the quote refers to a point at which the massive growth of the economy, caused by the successful application of socialism, aka the command economy, aka one of the most effective and proven tools for rapid industrial growth, has created an industrial society so mechanized and perfected that work can be completely voluntary. It does not refer to today, tomorrow, or the near future, but rather an indefinite future, wherein the Glorious Socialist Paradise has been achieved across the world. It is a bit "spiritual," to be sure, but it's not some piece of practical advice, thus throwing out the idea that Marxism is about equal pay for unequal work yet again.

 

Command economy?

[Walsingham]

Yes, and LoF quietly slides past the question of who assigns these rewards. The Party. Perhaps just once he'd care to comment on the infallibility of The Party.

[lord of flies]

Yes, and LoF quietly slides past the question of who assigns these rewards. The Party. Perhaps just once he'd care to comment on the infallibility of The Party.

Bolshevism (and by extension the one party state) is ultimately a deviation of Marxism, created in large part by the different circumstances of Russia. To orthodox Marxists, the revolution will come first in industrialized nations (which Russia in 1917 was not), and the early Bolsheviks were waiting on the Germans to go communist for a good long while. Their nation had such a small and relatively uneducated proletariat that the Bolsheviks did not believe it could be properly turned towards communism on its own: thus Lenin's decision to create a vanguard party and enforce Bolshevism on the populace.

 

Orthodox Marxists in Europe, such as Luxemburg, criticized Lenin and Bolshevism as being authoritarian, but when no classically Marxist revolution in mainland Europe happened, the Bolsheviks and their authoritarianism became supreme. Of course, Bolshevism's authoritarianism was later exasperated by Stalin, who made the Congress of the Soviets completely ineffectual, and committed many crimes in addition. To associate "The Party" with orthodox Marxism is ignorant or dishonest.

 

However, you do ask one good question: who determines the value of labor in a soviet democracy? That is, who judges how much and how hard someone has worked? Ultimately, his productive capability and time worked are the determinant factors, since although it does not have a 1:1 relation with his labor, its correlation is relatively high.

 

Edited to add: as to what institution in particular assigns these rewards, the accountable government, obviously.

Edited September 15, 2009 by lord of flies

[Walsingham]

As I have said before, Bolshevism is not an aberration of the communist system. Bolshevism is the ONLY WAY a communist state can come into being or maintain itself. In case you fell asleep suddenly last time:

 

1. Communism is a strongly unnatural state for human beings to adopt

2. Being unnatural it can only be maintained through imposition of control commensurate with the 'energy' present in the system

3. Thus, far from your frankly mad statement, ONLY simple agrarian communities are capable of achieving anything like communism, because they exist in a low energy state

4. Complex high energy societies can only exist in a communit state under massive degrees of control amounting to brutal dictatorship

5. Further, if those societies achieve seriously high energy states, then state control becomes insufficient, and they break down

 

This is the meta-logic which underpins the point under discussion. The control system HAS to administer rewards in communism. But the notion that the people who apportion reward and who also hold the reins of control will be accountable is simply bizarre. How precisely do you suppose a communist government would work? You said you've read about the Spanish civil war, where a variety of non-bolshevist ideas were tried and the result was a failure.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Walsingham

[lord of flies]

This is the meta-logic which underpins the point under discussion. The control system HAS to administer rewards in communism. But the notion that the people who apportion reward and who also hold the reins of control will be accountable is simply bizarre. How precisely do you suppose a communist government would work?

A communist government would be run by a soviet democracy. That is, a democracy wherein rather than the principle unit of government being a "state" or "district" or whatever other term for "random collection of geography," the principle unit is instead an organization of workers (whether they be industrial laborers, farmers, or even soldiers). Voter recall would be possible at any time, and there would be no consecutive terms, so as to ensure the utmost accountability of one's "superiors." By removing the upper classes' ability to participate in the democracy without rejoining the lower classes, and by further removing the ability of a political class to entrench itself in government's workings and ignore the will of the people, a Marxist state would be a natural consequence.

 

Even if this system of direct democracy did not elect communists (which is certainly possible), it would still be distantly better than so-called liberal democracy, since its politicians would be accountable to the broad majority, rather than simply to corporate fat cats.

 

To your claim of the fact that communism is unnatural: what exactly would be so "unnatural," or "impossible" about this system?

[Walsingham]

Even if this system of direct democracy did not elect communists (which is certainly possible), it would still be distantly better than so-called liberal democracy, since its politicians would be accountable to the broad majority, rather than simply to corporate fat cats.

 

To your claim of the fact that communism is unnatural: what exactly would be so "unnatural," or "impossible" about this system?

 

I can't fault you for outlining an actual plan for once, although I would ask why you couldn't have done so sooner. Wait... that was me faulting you.

 

1. You're saying these local democracies could just elect a communist then elect a non-communist? Sure, that could work... jumping from one economic system to another totally dissimilar one regularly...

 

2. I'm going to take an insulting guess and suggest you've never held any kind of managerial or leadership role. You seriously expect high level technical decisions to be taken and seen through by a non-specialist 'caste' of ordinary workers? I'm not for a moment saying people can't do sterling work having come from the shop floor. But they can't do both at the same time. There are specialist skills and connections, you get a grouping of such people if you want effective decisions seen through to fruition. Novices are popular, but hopelessly inept. They rely on commmon sense which is all too often incorrect.

 

3. In ansswer to your question, there's nothing odd or wrong about small local democracies. But expecting a collection of parochial local democracies to produce a leadership group who can and will effectively collaborate is total arse. Since you're probably a student, why not trot down to your local student's union and have a look at how things work there? I haven't been a student in a long while, but that's the point. It never changes, because the mechanics define the dynamic.

[lord of flies]

1. You're saying these local democracies could just elect a communist then elect a non-communist? Sure, that could work... jumping from one economic system to another totally dissimilar one regularly...

Um... I don't know if you're aware, but communists can be elected in a liberal democracy too.

2. I'm going to take an insulting guess and suggest you've never held any kind of managerial or leadership role. You seriously expect high level technical decisions to be taken and seen through by a non-specialist 'caste' of ordinary workers? I'm not for a moment saying people can't do sterling work having come from the shop floor. But they can't do both at the same time. There are specialist skills and connections, you get a grouping of such people if you want effective decisions seen through to fruition. Novices are popular, but hopelessly inept. They rely on commmon sense which is all too often incorrect.

And if someone sucks at leading, there's voter recall until they find someone that doesn't. A-duh.

3. In ansswer to your question, there's nothing odd or wrong about small local democracies. But expecting a collection of parochial local democracies to produce a leadership group who can and will effectively collaborate is total arse. Since you're probably a student, why not trot down to your local student's union and have a look at how things work there? I haven't been a student in a long while, but that's the point. It never changes, because the mechanics define the dynamic.

Hate to ask, but what's the difference between this and the current system?

[Zoraptor]

1. Communism is a strongly unnatural state for human beings to adopt

This is very arguable- most 'primitive' human groups had broadly patriarchal and authoritarian systems with no concept of individual property. Accepted, it isn't human nature now.

 

You said you've read about the Spanish civil war, where a variety of non-bolshevist ideas were tried and the result was a failure.

That's incorrect, the anarcho-syndicalists actually increased production despite the war, despite the implosion of almost all other industries, and despite the outright animosity of the communists and others within Republican Spain (since I had Beevor 2m away you even get a ref: Josep Maria Bracall "Les collectivizatcions" in Anna Salles (ed.) Documents 1931-39).

Edited September 16, 2009 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

1. Communism is a strongly unnatural state for human beings to adopt

This is very arguable- most 'primitive' human groups had broadly patriarchal and authoritarian systems with no concept of individual property. Accepted, it isn't human nature now.

You mean like a family?

[Humodour]

smart people would understand that such a thing is not possible

 

Why is a post-scarcity society not possible? Because you don't want it to be?

[Walsingham]

1 - Electing communists: I don't see your point. If they achieved a majority they would pass laws to make private property illegal etc etc. Maintaining those laws would require exertion of the mechanisms of control. the exertion of those organs would be inherently extreme. The communists would then either be subverted, voted out or would be forced to rely on dictatorship.

 

2 - Voting out failed leaders: I'm obviously not being clear. I'm not just saying it's unlikely you will find managerial characters. I'm saying that the managerially talented would automatically and naturally become isolated from their roots as they struggled to manage. It's a fantasy that management is something you can do in your spare time. It's equally nonsensical to suggest that managing technical issues such as those surrounding software development or military campaigns or healthcare can be handled by some randomly elected goon. The difference with what we have is that while such incompetence is tolerable in a student's union or local council it becomes much more serious when raised to a national level. The complexity of the system, and the 'energy' in the system are too great. Once again, its not good enough to simply say 'oh well' we'll just vote out idiots until someone better drops into the slot. The problem isn't idiocy it's lack of training and time.

 

3 - Zoraptor: I already covered both your points in my initial brief.

 

3. Thus, far from your frankly mad statement, ONLY simple agrarian communities are capable of achieving anything like communism, because they exist in a low energy state

 

I appreciate you citing Beevor because that's my primary source. yes, communal farms did raise production when allowed to run themselves. But these are the simple agrarian communities I was talking about. I don't recall Beevor saying manufacturing went up but i hardly think it would be wise to compare production figures when the pre-stage was riven with strikes and disruption of all kinds.

 

Having said that it's a recognised fact in many circles that involving workers to a degree in the system they work for is a wise plan. It improves motivation, and feedback concerning operating practices. But there's a world of difference between involvement and control.

[Zoraptor]

But these are the simple agrarian communities I was talking about. I don't recall Beevor saying manufacturing went up but i hardly think it would be wise to compare production figures when the pre-stage was riven with strikes and disruption of all kinds.

He only specifically mentions two industries- agriculture and woodworking- and the efficiency of woodworking increased too. That's certainly industrial (specifically he mentions the closing of lots of small workshops in favour of larger ones with more modern equipment). He also says that drops in industrial output were generally related to shortage of raw materials/ money, collapse of domestic demand, unofficial embargoes including by the Republican government itself (he cites the example of them giving uniform contracts overseas rather than to anarchist run textile factories), the Fascists gaining control of the Pyrenees' dams and thus most of Catalunya's electricity, and having a large proportion of workers fighting at the front or otherwise involved in war industries.

 

OTOH Beevor does seem rather an Orwell fan, and he certainly had a strong admiration for the Anarchists- so there might be some bias at work. Overall though, he's fairly convincing.

 

You mean like a family?

Kind of. More like a village than a family though (in the most 'advanced' forms there were far more people per group than we'd think of as 'family').

[Maria Caliban]

"The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

 

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. "

 

- Karl Marx

 

The man knew how to wield a comma.

[Walsingham]

But these are the simple agrarian communities I was talking about. I don't recall Beevor saying manufacturing went up but i hardly think it would be wise to compare production figures when the pre-stage was riven with strikes and disruption of all kinds.

He only specifically mentions two industries- agriculture and woodworking- and the efficiency of woodworking increased too. That's certainly industrial (specifically he mentions the closing of lots of small workshops in favour of larger ones with more modern equipment). He also says that drops in industrial output were generally related to shortage of raw materials/ money, collapse of domestic demand, unofficial embargoes including by the Republican government itself (he cites the example of them giving uniform contracts overseas rather than to anarchist run textile factories), the Fascists gaining control of the Pyrenees' dams and thus most of Catalunya's electricity, and having a large proportion of workers fighting at the front or otherwise involved in war industries.

 

OTOH Beevor does seem rather an Orwell fan, and he certainly had a strong admiration for the Anarchists- so there might be some bias at work. Overall though, he's fairly convincing.

 

You mean like a family?

Kind of. More like a village than a family though (in the most 'advanced' forms there were far more people per group than we'd think of as 'family').

 

 

I'm not clear if you are clarifying, agreeing or disagreeing. My latter point was that any observed differences would be difficult to observe, and unlikely to be due solely to communist management, in either direction. There was disruption before the war, and a war during it.

 

However, if i may be a little sly, you also highlight the way the bolshevists attempted to consolidate their control and monopolise the economy. This is consistent in spirit with what I am asserting. That you cannot be 'part commmunist' any more than you can be partly circumcised.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Communes do work if they're voluntary, like Kibbutzes do work. But the problem is most people don't want to live in them voluntarily. And probably even a lot of people in a commune will eventually decide they'd rather have a big ass house and a big ass car.

[Zoraptor]

I'm not clear if you are clarifying, agreeing or disagreeing.

Clarifying, really, with a drop of disagreement

 

However, if i may be a little sly, you also highlight the way the bolshevists attempted to consolidate their control and monopolise the economy.

Heh. Not that I disagree in a general sense but... In this case it wasn't actually the communists doing that. It was the standard-moderate-left-wing concensus-don't-rock-the-boat guy (Largo Caballero) who instigated the unofficial embargoes against the anarchists really early on in things, prior to his removal by the commies.