Join the Labour Party and save your country!

meursault

Rick Chasey wrote:

meursault wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

meursault wrote:

You need to read Capital to get a full understanding of why Capitalism is way out of date.

Which one?

By Marx? Read that.

By Piketty? Read that too.

By John Lancaster? Also read that.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about the abolition of poverty in China that occured so soon after embracing capitalism.

You know - if Marx is the theory, let's see how the evidence stacks up.

Just the one by Marx. Really read it? What didn't you agree with?

It was less reading it to see if i agreed with it or not.

I was seriously considering doing a PhD in Soviet History so I figured I'd bone up on some of the theoretical underpinnings whilst i was deciding. It was more a question of trying to get under the skin and the internal logic of Soviets, and were it was derived from.

I see a number of basic contradictions in the internal logic, that to be honest, I can't be bothered to articulate, since it requires articulating the original logic first.

However, more broadly, I have a few criticisms.

1) the economist system on which it's all based on itself relies on the labour theory of value; something I disagree with. I see no evidence for it, against, say, marginalist theory, for which I see evidence for every day. The value of something is whatever value people want to put on it, regardless of the labour. In a socialist society, as we have seen, there is no effective price discovery mechanism, and so resources are marshalled in a very inefficient way.

2) With that, we have tonnes of evidence to confirm a lack of incentives to be productive in the socalist model. Humans are not by nature, egalitarian, despite everyone's best efforts, and so to create a system that is genuinely egalitarian by outcome (as opposed to opportunity) requires dictatorship. I have seen no genuine socialist model that does not involve excessive coercion of independent economic and political thought.

3) class is not homogeneous & all that that entails. Marx is not convincing on explaining the Asiatic model.

I'm ultimately of the view that in its modern form it acts like a pseudoscience, with a lot of ad hoc revisionism in light of contrary evidence to the original thesis.

But you still haven't answered my question about china. Why did China still have 88% of its population living in poverty after 30 odd years of socialism, and yet after embracing a market/capitalist based economic model, after the same length of time, virtually none of its population live in poverty?

Marx breaks down capitalist economy to it's components. The basic unit is the commodity. As you point out, the value of that commodity is determined by it's use value, it's exchange value and the amount of human labour that has gone into it.

You cannot arbitrarily assign a value to something. If you could, someone else, a competitor could do it cheaper and take your business. This is all explained very early on in Kapital, chapter one iirc. Best if you can quote specific examples of what you don't agree with.

Human nature. Are you saying greed is human nature? That's a capitalist classic. It isn't. If it were, you'd be trying to breathe more air than me. Greed is caused by the inefficient distribution of commodities. There was primitive communism for about two hundred thousand years, by far the majority of human history. Shared resources, no crime Etc.

Capitalism is a class system, this isn't questioned by serious capitalist commentators.

China, like the USSR after Lenin's death, was a deformed workers state, or Stalinist. Not genuine democratic communism, but a bureaucratic dictatorship.
Virtually none in poverty? I would look again at that.

meursault

KingstonGraham wrote:

meursault wrote:

It's not about Corbyn the personality. I do accept that working class consciousness is lagging behind the objective situation.

Does that mean people don't agree with you?

I don't mind if people don't agree, just providing an alternative view point.

meursault

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

You need to read Capital to get a full understanding of why Capitalism is way out of date.

My irony meter just turned itself inside out and expired.

We need to read a 150-year old book, consisting of incorrect conclusions drawn from dodgy theories and biased observation, to show us how out of date the current economic model is, the one with far and away the greatest success in increasing prosperity and freedom?

Right.

No, you don't have to, but if you want to see why capitalism doesn't work, and if you don't have the philosophy skills of Karl Marx, then you probably do.

Incidentally, what incorrect conclusions, theories and biases are you referring to? It's all well and good making those comments, but where is your argument?

rick_chasey

Alright mate, you can re-state what you think Marx says if you want, but that's not refuting my arguments.

I'm not sure I follow your Chinese comment.

I'm asking about how the capitalist model, rather than their socialist model, is doing significantly better.

Find me evidence that my stats are wrong.

bendertherobot

I thought this was all about Richard Marx, but I shoulda known better.

meursault

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alright mate, you can re-state what you think Marx says if you want, but that's not refuting my arguments.

I'm not sure I follow your Chinese comment.

I'm asking about how the capitalist model, rather than their socialist model, is doing significantly better.

Find me evidence that my stats are wrong.

You said China was socialism when it wasn't. How can you compare the two ideologies when one only existed in USSR for six years? We haven't seen how socialism is going to progress the human race.

rick_chasey

Ah OK.

So you're striving for this hypothetical utopia, that vanishes on contact with reality at any given moment, and those who have tried to enact this Marxist utopia all, conveniently, have a propensity to utilise all the power a modern industrial society offers to subjugate, dominate, abuse, terrorise, torture and kill their fellow citizens in the name of it?

It's not a good look for the marxist cause.

You know Corbyn isn't a socialist in the full Marxist ideal right? You know he's committing to "Negotiating priorities to have "a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union" " in his manifesto right?

rick_chasey

I'l come out and say it. Extreme Marxism is as bad as extreme Darwinism.

They both produce totalitarian states that abuse their own citizens in the pursuit of folly Utopian ideals.

rick_chasey

Since we're on the subjects of Gencoide and Corbyn, would the Corbyn supporters care to comment on his support for a parliamentary motion declaring " a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo"?

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2004-05/392

Along with John McDonnell, natch.

And I guess you're comfortable with the shadow chancellor making speeches underneath Stalinist flags, as recently as this Month?

FocusZing

...

mrfpb

Why does everything has to be black and white with you?

FocusZing

All I see is humans on Earth.

meursault

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah OK.

So you're striving for this hypothetical utopia, that vanishes on contact with reality at any given moment, and those who have tried to enact this Marxist utopia all, conveniently, have a propensity to utilise all the power a modern industrial society offers to subjugate, dominate, abuse, terrorise, torture and kill their fellow citizens in the name of it?

It's not a good look for the marxist cause.

You know Corbyn isn't a socialist in the full Marxist ideal right? You know he's committing to "Negotiating priorities to have "a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union" " in his manifesto right?

No, I didn't mention utopia. Just the updating of a mode of production to the next one. I don't understand why capitalist apologists have no imagination for ANYTHING else, let alone socialism. Do you eat toast for breakfast, dinner and tea every day without question? It's strange to me.

Yeah, Corbyns no Marxist, but I'd settle for old school labour at this juncture.

meursault

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'l come out and say it. Extreme Marxism is as bad as extreme Darwinism.

They both produce totalitarian states that abuse their own citizens in the pursuit of folly Utopian ideals.

You have no understanding of what Marxism actually is or would be. I don't know how to say Stalinism isn't marxism in a way that can be understood.

meursault

mrfpb wrote:

Why does everything has to be black and white with you?

Is this directed at me? I would say more red...

mrfpb

meursault wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Why does everything has to be black and white with you?

Is this directed at me? I would say more red...

It was a reply to FocusZing's comment on having a nice game of Chess (top of page) which he immeadiatley deleted :roll:

rick_chasey

meursault wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'l come out and say it. Extreme Marxism is as bad as extreme Darwinism.

They both produce totalitarian states that abuse their own citizens in the pursuit of folly Utopian ideals.

You have no understanding of what Marxism actually is or would be. I don't know how to say Stalinism isn't marxism in a way that can be understood.

I wonder why that is? Hmm?

TheBigBean

meursault wrote:

Human nature. Are you saying greed is human nature? That's a capitalist classic. It isn't. If it were, you'd be trying to breathe more air than me. Greed is caused by the inefficient distribution of commodities. There was primitive communism for about two hundred thousand years, by far the majority of human history. Shared resources, no crime Etc.

Capitalism is a class system, this isn't questioned by serious capitalist commentators.

China, like the USSR after Lenin's death, was a deformed workers state, or Stalinist. Not genuine democratic communism, but a bureaucratic dictatorship.
Virtually none in poverty? I would look again at that.

In North Korea, they farm in collectives for the better good of society. A quirk of the governance, however, means that everyone is allowed to keep anything they grown on their own land. The interesting part is that every house in North Korea is overflowing with crop (literally, roofs turned into gardens), yet the collective areas are hugely underdeveloped. The point being that people are fundamentally selfish and work hard to support their own interests.

FocusZing

mrfpb wrote:

meursault wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Why does everything has to be black and white with you?

Is this directed at me? I would say more red...

It was a reply to FocusZing's comment on having a nice game of Chess (top of page) which he immeadiatley deleted :roll:

Mine was a inept reference to the "War Games" film. Just in reference to different extreme views. The only way to win is to try and get on.

kingstongraham

If even Engels needed the labour of the proles to support him riding out with the Cheshire hunt, you know there might be a problem implementing the theories in practice.

rjsterry

There was primitive communism for about two hundred thousand years, by far the majority of human history. Shared resources, no crime Etc.

Can you provide some sources for such a bold claim?

I mean given that modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years, that's quite a statement.

The No crime bit is particularly interesting given the number of prehistoric bodies found with evidence of violence.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 180957884/

rjsterry

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

very low workers consciousness that won't go to the polls and vote for a party that represents them

Ah, the classic communist fallacy that "the workers" are a single lump, combined with the hubris of thinking that just because you claim to speak for "the workers", you do.

The working class contains a whole strata, I have never said they are one lump. That doesn't change my view, that working class consciousness is lagging behind the objective situation.

Do you not think that that is enormously patronising of working class people? This idea that if only they could open their minds... It's actually pretty insulting.

And the idea that "the Bosses" are almost to be considered another species. Just what the world needs at the moment: more them versus us.

tangled_metal

Oh really I wonder why anyone debates with someone so entrenched in an ideology. Just accept that he has views you disagree with. What benefit is there from trying to change fixed minds?

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Oh really I wonder why anyone debates with someone so entrenched in an ideology. Just accept that he has views you disagree with. What benefit is there from trying to change fixed minds?

You're know this is an online forum, right?

tangled_metal

Fair point!

TBH I find it entertaining, I really find it fun listening to a true believer. However if even I worked out the flaws as a kid it still amazes me some still cling onto their socialist/Marxist ideology. Still I get the point capitalism isn't perfect.

Stevo_666

FocusZing

Socialism will probably always be a cyclical thing. Every time there is the inevitable capitalist global financial meltdown. Peoples wealth is protect by government policy and consequential austerity reigns, hitting the poor proportionally more.

meursault

FocusZing wrote:

Socialism will probably always be a cyclical thing. Every time there is the inevitable capitalist global financial meltdown. Peoples wealth is protect by government policy and consequential austerity reigns, hitting the poor proportionally more.

According to Marx, it's more of a spiral than a cycle. First mode of production was primitive communism, then slavery, then feudalism now capitalism. Socialism will probably be the next one, then others after that as humans progress. It's all just human development. This idea, that the mode we have now, is the be all and end all is bizarre to me. It goes against all we know about human imagination, and curiosity, and our potential for abstract thought.

As a Buddhist-Marxist (I realise that's not a thing) I'm down with it. Que sera and all that shit.

bompington

Has it ever, just a teeny little bit, occurred to you that Marx might just possibly have been wrong?

meursault

bompington wrote:

Has it ever, just a teeny little bit, occurred to you that Marx might just possibly have been wrong?

Of course. Yet no other philosophy since Marx, has improved on it. The last major philosopher. I'm always keen to read new ideas.

Have you considered capitalism may be out of date?