Why do you feel you need a State in order to transition it to a classless society, so that eventually workers rule and the State slowly fades away?Why do you think the State would just give up all that power? No communist country has ever done this. Nor has communist leaders made themselves equal to their citizens. While Mao ate his freshly cooked tilapia, his citizens were on the streets, searching for rats to eat…
“We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.”
Can you please explain to me how can this not in any way different to claiming a sort of racism? The philosopher’s problems have seemingly nothing to do with what they said - but rather the fact that they are, somehow, a consequence of the division of labor. Why is it that it seems like Marxists of all kinds tend to cling onto variations of this notion that, “Well, really they are of the bourgeois mindset; really the State is helping the bourgeois despite the bourgeois, and therefore they are all wrong” etc., etc
Why must one take a look at factors external to their logic, reasoning, ideas, etc. and become attentive to structures they fall allegedly under? How is this not different than when racists would do the same thing? Please explain.
There most certainly is a transformation problem. To deny this is to deny the existence of time. The only way around this predicament is if you ignore the dimension of time in production. I know of no such world where this could exist and cannot even imagine what it would be like. It is a grave error for economic philosophers to reject this concept. All conceptions of the LTV are rooted in this error.
It’s as if there will be a perpetually fixed value for commodities, and the spontaneous organization of the price mechanism, which is necessary to coordinating production, is rejected all together. All economic systems, whether capitalist or communist, face this problem head on.
Additionally, the responses of the neo-marxists as shown in your link, completely deviate from what Marx said altogether about the subject. It’s as if an entirely new theory comes into place and the Marxists are no longer Marxists. It’s another case of saying, “well Marx may have been wrong here, but this is what Marx really meant.”
Here is what I love about free markets. I might spontaneously desire something say like a book or something. I can get online or go down to the bookstore and get it instantaneously. I don’t have to make a plea to “society” to produce it first.
"Rothbard then offered this ultimate proof for these rules as just rules: if a person A were not the owner of his physical body and all goods originally appropriated, produced, or voluntarily acquired by him, there would only exist two alternatives. Either another person, B, must then be regarded as the owner of A and the goods appropriated, produced, or contractually acquired by A, or both parties, A and B, must be regarded as equal co-owners of both bodies and goods.
In the first case, A would be B’s slave and subject to exploitation. B would own A and the goods originally appropriated, produced, or acquired by A, but A would not own B and the goods homesteaded, produced, or acquired by B. With this rule, two distinct classes of people would be created — exploiters (B) and exploited (A) — to whom different “law” would apply. Hence, this rule fails the “universalization test” and is from the outset disqualified as even a potential human ethic, for in order to be able to claim a rule to be a “law” (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally — equally — valid for everyone.
In the second case of universal co-ownership, the requirement of equal rights for everyone is obviously fulfilled. Yet this alternative suffers from another fatal flaw, for each activity of a person requires the employment of scarce goods (at least his body and its standing room). Yet if all goods were the collective property of everyone, then no one, at any time and in any place, could ever do anything with anything unless he had every other co-owner’s prior permission to do what he wanted to do. And how can one give such a permission if one is not even the sole owner of one’s very own body (and vocal chords)? If one were to follow the rule of total collective ownership, mankind would die out instantly. [However long it takes to die without consuming or eating anything etc. ;)] Whatever this is, it is not a human ethic either.
Thus, one is left with the initial principles of self-ownership and first-use-first-own, i.e., original appropriation, homesteading. They pass the universalization test — they hold for everyone equally — and they can at the same time assure the survival of mankind. They and only they are therefore non-hypothetically or absolutely true ethical rules and human rights." - Hoppe, Intro to The Ethics of Liberty
The above equals win. So I’d love to hear your refutation of self-ownership and origional appropriation. Cheers.
SecurityCulture: Reading your signature phrase I must ask if you would consider yourself to be an anarcho-syndicalist with views similar to Noam Chomsky? Wikipedia’s article on A-S states,
Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labour movement.[1] Syndicalisme is a French word, ultimately derived from the Greek, meaning “trade unionism” – hence, the “syndicalism” qualification. Syndicalism is an alternative co-operative economic system. Adherents view it as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society, democratically self-managed by workers.
Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery, and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Not all seek to abolish money per se. Ralph Chaplin states that “the ultimate aim of the General Strike as regards wages is to give to each producer the full product of his labor. The demand for better wages becomes revolutionary only when it is coupled with the demand that the exploitation of labor must cease.”[2]
Additionally, anarcho-syndicalists regard the state as a profoundly anti-worker institution. They view the primary purpose of the State as being the defence of private property and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, even when such defence denies its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy which springs from it.[3] In contrast to other bodies of thought (Marxism-Leninism being a prime example), anarcho-syndicalists deny that there can be any kind of workers’ state, or a state which acts in the interests of workers, as opposed to those of the rich and powerful. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism holds to the idea that power corrupts.[4]
Although anarcho-syndicalism originated close to the beginning of the twentieth century, it remains a popular and active school of anarchism today and has many supporters as well as many currently active organizations. Anarcho-syndicalist trade unionists, being socialist anarchists, vary in their points of view on anarchist economic arrangements from a collectivist anarchism type economic system to an anarcho-communist economic system.[5]
The article goes on further, but thats the basic idea
Being a Marxist, what’s your response to this piece excerpted from Lords of the Left-Hand Path by Stephen Flowers? (I won’t post the entire piece in whole, just what’s regarding his philosophy specifically.)
In the final analysis Marxism is a system of mystical materialism. He posits that history has an organic structure and that its evolution is driven not by the mind of God, as Hegel would have had it, but by exclusively material considerations, e.g. purely economic determination or human behavior and the change caused by struggles between economically determined classes in society. Throughout all of history classes of people – as determined essentially by economic status – who were without power would, by the inevitable force of the historical dialectic, wrest power away from those who have it at present. Thus the proletariat would, by the sheer force of history, overcome the over-ripe capitalist establishment.
Marx claimed that his theories were purely “scientific” or rationally based, that he merely had the clearest view of historical change and its causes. But as it turns out his work had an effect less like a prophesy and more like a sorcerous incantation. Essentially Marx’ view of history appears uncannily like that of Judeo-Christian tradition – only its causal agent has been revaluated from “God’s Plan” to “historical dialectic.” In the former there is an initial Edenic period, broken by man’s transgression against God’s law. This is followed by a long period of tribulation ended first by the incarnation of the Messiah who brings the program for salvation – the Evangelium – which is to be enacted by his earthly followers (the Church). Once this program has been spread world-wide, evil will be vanquished and a new paradise will be established on earth. The Christian version of this is, of course, highly spiritualized, while the Judaic remains largely materialistic. The Marxist view similarly posits an early period of primitive communism, broken by the institution of private property (= Original Sin) and slave labor. This is followed by successive economic stages of feudalism and capitalism. The beginning of the end of the capitalistic phase is heralded by the Marxist theory as a program for “redemption” – historical dialectic – which is to be enacted by socialist revolutionaries (the International). Once revolution is spread world-wide, capitalism will be vanquished and the classless, perfected Communist society will be established on earth. Such parallels between Marxist and Christian and/or Judaic views of history have also been posited by several scholars in the past.
Although Marxist theory may be increasingly discredited as political systems based upon it fail and prove to be programs for ever more inefficient and intolerant systems than those the theory was designed to overthrow, elements of Marxist thinking have definitely permeated into popular political culture in the form of such things as notions of “political correctness.” The concept of “political correctness” (even the connotations of the phrase) stems from Marxist orthodoxy and is based on the premise that there is an ongoing struggle by a variety of suppressed groups who are at present viewed as being relatively powerless, e.g. women, African Americans, Hispanics, the physically challenged. It is their collective aim (each group individually) to wrest socioeconomic power from those who have it at present. This is Marx’ “class struggle.” Furthermore, those groups are assured by Marxist theory of fighting the good fight, the moral fight, because the historical dialectic (or the Marxist “God”) is on their side. Their morality and their future victory is assured by the very fact that they are currently powerless. This is why, for example, blacks cannot be considered “racists,” or women “sexists,” at least according to this theory based in the Marxist historical dialectic.
If you don’t believe in the subjective theory of value, how is a six pack of PBR is around $5, while at a bar a PBR may be $2.50, and on Friday nights they have the $1 special, if the value is not subjective, how do you explain the differences in price?
What are classes, and how do you know who’s in which class, and can people move in and out of various classes at any time, or are they specifically designated to a specific class?
If you define capitalist as someone who owns the modes of production, how do you explain a laborer (an athelete) who can make a billion dollars a year when he’s not in charge of the modes of production, or that of management? Is he a proleteriat by terms of class association, or did he lose this association when he’s capital accumulation reached a certain, subjective amount? (or are the amounts objective?)
How would you explain price fluctuations on the market in accordance with the price of labor, price of production, and the price of capital and consumer goods?
- How can you explain the objective exchange value of labor (average wage of abstract labor) with Marx’s version of the LTV (Marx rightly claims that labor is a commodity; laborers sell their labor power)?
- How do you explain the objective exchange value of land (rent) with Marx’s version of the LTV?
- How do you resolve the transformation problem (Different industries, with varying degrees of organic composition of capital, have the same rate of profit)?
- How do you explain the objective exchange value of paper fiat money with Marx’s version of the LTV?
- Does Marx have a theory of business cycles at all (as opposed to his theory of crises, which is supposed to end capitalism altogether)?
- Marx’s version of the LTV requires certain assumptions, one of which is perfect competition and perfect information. But under such conditions, why aren’t average wage rates elevated towards the marginal product of labor, therefore eliminating all “surplus value” (Marx claims that the surplus value earned by the capitalists is turned into investment. This investment will first manifest itself as an increase in total variable capital, even if the intention is to increase the total supply of constant capital)?
- Can you explain why the objective exchange value of wine continuously appreciates over time (without the addition of socially necessary labor time)?
Welcome to the Mises forums!
Why call yourself a Marxist?
Why not just say you are a regular person, but happen to have interest in socialist philosophy and other such broad areas of interest? Why should a categorical label ever matter?
You might assume that by calling yourself a Marxist, it may make it quicker for people to know most of where you stand, but the truth is that ordinary people often do not even know even the generalities of certain political views, let alone those of Marx.
And why call yourself a leftist? The word left-wing, as you already know, was created to describe certain members of French National Assembly (Jacobins and co.) who sat on the left side of it, while everybody who was scared of them sat not too close them. It’s used to describe a politician who engages in meaningless violence and terror to get his way, and the kind who idealizes Spartans and other ancient warrior cultures. I am sure you appreciate the fact that calling someone “left-wing” used to be an insult that suggested violence and insanity in the person, so why adopt the label that others make for you?
In the end, why words?
Aww, why not.
Why are proletariats special? The class interests of everyone else leads them to false ideologies. Why is the proletariat alone blessed with the ability to know truth?
Like others I’m still waiting for an answer to the transformation problem. It definitely exists.
In the mean time, you should know that the scarcity of the factors of production make any attempt at establishing communism destined to fail. The communist utopia can only exist if there is a superabundance of all goods, otherwise conflict will result. Past “revolutions” have failed because those societies couldn’t produce a superabundance of goods. A revolution in 2010 won’t lead to a superabundance of goods either. By ignoring the dimension of time and the law of scarcity it is almost as if Marx’s analysis is taking place in some sort of utopia in of itself. Indeed, when Rothbard labeled Marx as nothing more than a “religious eschatologist” he was right on the mark. Marxists don’t like to hear this, but historical materialism is strikingly similar to christian reabsorption theology.
Stating that goods will be allocated according to “the will of the people” is some sort of subterfuge to avoid rational discussion on the subject. It’s similar to when Marxists resort to calling modern economics a “bourgeoisie science” that is tainted ideologically and only meant to serve the class interests from which it’s author stems. Marx and Engels were both wealthy, Engels being a factory owner. It we use a self-referendum argument and apply it to the thesis of Marxism itself, then we arrive at the conclusion that Engels was advocating all of what he advocated to further his own capitalist class interests.
Suggesting that communism helps the working class is a bit rich, because it has done nothing to help them. However, it has helped power hungry politicians, mass murderers, intellectuals - scions of the bourgeoisie, and the politically connected. Marx’s theories have been embraced by countless governments and world leaders where they have been put to the test. They have failed both from a theoretical perspective and from empirical experience.
I yearn for the day that the leaders of Russia, China, and other powerful countries hand out “Human Action” and advise their subjects to read it.
Reading some SecurityCulture’s comments he actually is a Trotskyist. Basically communism can only work if the entire world were communist. If say 90% of the world were communist then he would still argue that the other 10% is somehow not letting the other 90% achieve utopia. If the entire world were communist then there would be nothing to compare against and thus point out the obvious that the communist society is poorer than the others. Interestingly in North Korea, the government proganda states that despite all their hardships their country is better off than the rest of the chaotic world.
I am pretty sure that you will state that Stalin, Lenin,Mao etc. were not true communists, the question then is why those countries that try the communism thing end up with those kind of people running them in the end ?
Voluntaryism just means every relationship and choice you make is voluntary. So pretend one community loves capitalism. Would you allow them to stay in that community working with the free market, currency, capitalist, etc., or would you force them to become a part of the your communistic world if they didn’t want to?
I didn’t say capitalism ends scarcity. The only thing that can end scarcity is technology. What I’m saying is, instead of trying to defeat capitalism, why don’t you try to defeat scarcity for a lot of nceessary items? That way, instead of everyone sharing everything, no one would have to share at all. Just think if fruits were to one day be as non-scarce as air. No need for communism or capitalism with everything basically for free.
The idea that labour is the substance of value comes out more clearly when we examine the historical preconditions for the existence of value relations. For individuals to produce exchange-values, the products they produce must be use-values not to themselves but to other individuals, that is, social use-values. Labour which creates social use-values is social labour, and presupposes a social division of labour which forces individuals to rely on the production of society to satisfy their needs. However, only in certain instances of the social division of labour do the products of society appear as exchangeable values. These instances are where the various branches of the social division of labour carry out production independently of one another and for private account. In such instances, the products of labour become social through the medium of the value-form. Value serves as the substance which undertakes the natural necessity common to every society of apportioning out the labour-time of society to different branches of production in order to serve social wants. As the medium through which labour becomes social labour, we can see clearly that the essence of value is labour. In fact, to say that the substance of value becomes a tautology, which is equivalent to saying that the substance of social labour is social labour.
I think what it takes to be a Marxist, is a complete lack of intellectual rigor.
I think I can answer this one with a fun piece of history. The label “Austrian Economics” originated in the Methodenstreit, when the historicists mocked the a priori method as being “Austrian.” It was meant to be an insult, but the label was proudly taken up in defiance.
I’ll add a few questions to this mix.
-
What’s your opinion of Marx’s doctrine of polylogism? Here’s what Marxism looks like without it.
-
What’s your opinion of the post-marxist / post-structuralist critique of marxism? So — Althusser, Lyotard, Deleuze, Hardt & Negri, et all.
What about the Soviet ‘economists’ who joked that you’d need to leave a tiny free market economy somewhere in the world so that the communists would know what to crudely imitate when they woke up in the morning? 
The only reason the USSR had the faintest idea about prices or what kind of consumer goods to produce was because they were trading with capitalist economies. The whole country was run like a gigantic corporation owned by the Central Committee.
“What is the purpose of the rights to an idea”
So that a person has a monopoly over this idea and can market it and make a profit and stuff.
“if the idea itself cannot be own?”
Owning an idea is sort of impossible if you mean what I think you mean.
Sorry if my posts are sporadic from here on out, my internet access is sporadic and my posts will reflect as such, but rest assured I will respond to your serious questions.
I would still like to know what a Marxist has contributed to society? What have they done or invented to improve the quality of life for people around the world?