Many people have written both in favor of Marxism and against Marxism. As a child in the former Soviet Union, I adopted it as gospel. At this point I seek to refute Marxism once and for all. Marx used the concept of the dialectic, which he got from German philosopher Hegel. According to Hegel, a force – a thesis – is met with its opposite – an antithesis. The two forces struggle among one another to create a synthesis: A mix of the two. This synthesis is then met with another antithesis. According to Hegel, this process lead human history to spiritual betterment of humanity. Marx took the dialectic and “inverted” it. He said instead that this process lead to material betterment of humanity, and that communism was going to be an inevitable result. Dialectic is a useful concept, and one that has applications in all sorts of pursuits. However there is absolutely nothing inevitable about it working for any kind of betterment. Sometimes one force conquers the other. Sometimes there is an ongoing conflict with no resolution. Sometimes the forces combine to give one another their worst traits. Marx was a historian, and he should have studied his history better. No dialectic was accomplished when Vandals sacked Rome. No dialectic was accomplished when the Spanish conquered the Incans, whose agriculture, architecture and infrastructure was vastly superior to their own. No dialectic is being accomplished now in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. And in the contemporary dialectic between America and Islam, so far the results have been mostly destructive. Muslim men have been coming to places like Oslo and Sydney and gang-raping Western girls and teaching young men in disadvantaged communities to be even worse to women than they had been before. Marxist scholars in academia do not get the results of this. The people who fund them do. To believe in such a thing as historical inevitability is ridiculous. We have seen all sorts of orders rising, falling and changing for all sorts of reasons. In a world of 7 billion people, each possessing capacity for choice, nothing at all is inevitable. World changes, all the time, in all sorts of directions and for all sorts of reasons. That has always been the case; that will always be the case. Nor is it in any way correct that history is driven by class struggles. History is not driven by any such thing. History is driven by choices that people make. That always has been the case. It always will be the case. Not every place had classes or anything like classes. There were no classes among Australian aborigines. As for America, it is intended to be a classless society in which anyone can rise - or fall - as far as their efforts would take them. Such ideas may have been credible in 19th century Europe, where bosses and their employers rarely mixed. It is not at all the case in places where there are no rigid class lines, where there is social mobility, or where employers and workers are working closely with one another. Marx also claimed that religion was "opium for the masses." This is completely untrue. The Christian and Muslim religions started from "the masses" and then converted both the rulers and the ruled. Maybe some of the rulers were using some claims of St. Paul - such as that slaves should be obedient to the masters - to justify exploitative conduct; but that was never the intent or the founding of the religion. He also claimed that people, if freed from their chains, would start a revolution and overthrow capitalism. The behavior of American people completely refutes the claim. Not only did they not agitate for a Communist revolution, but they lead the charge against Communism even when many among the elites were warming toward it. These people did not see Communism as a way toward liberation; they saw Communism as a way toward having to give away their liberty and follow the state. What some people in the "elites" believe people to be, and what people actually are, can differ greatly. Another famous claim was that workers should control the means of production. What Marx failed to understand is that, at least in America, most of the people who are in control of the means of production started out as workers and then worked their way up. They were not a part of a "propertied class." They were people who for the most part started from little and then became wealthy through their own efforts. His argument was credible in places where dynasties ruled; it is not credible in places that seek to accomplish equal opportunity. What Marx was right about was affirming the interests of the worker. At that time workers were treated like trash, and Marx's idea of propertied classes exploiting the working classes was credible. In much of the world – particularly in the Western countries - business has since then learned its lesson. When I worked in the corporate world, I did not feel exploited. I was being paid right, and I was being treated right. I have maintained good relations with a number of my former managers and employers, and none of them have been treating me as someone lower than themselves. I do not reject Marxism, as did for example Ayn Rand, because it is not capitalism or democracy. I reject it because of its own glaring intellectual errors. Not everything in history is dialectical; and even in situations of dialectic there is nothing inevitable about it working for any kind of good. Just that something has been a part of Marxism does not necessarily make it wrong. Similarly, “anything that Hitler or Nazis did” is not a workable definition of evil. Hitler was a fitness buff and a vegetarian, but that does not mean that every fitness buff and a vegetarian is going to kill 50 million people. Nazis built the Autobahn, but that does not mean that Eisenhower was a Hitler for building the Interstate. That Marx used the dialectic wrongfully does not mean that the idea of the dialectic is useless. The idea of it leading inevitably toward the betterment of humanity, however, is completely useless, and very obviously wrong. Now I have heard it said by some people that the dialectic is a superior form of cognition to logic. I no more believe that than do I believe the people who think that logic is the higher function or that emotions are a lower function or that religion and spirituality is a delusion. It is a form of cognition. It is a useful form of cognition. But it is just that: A form of cognition – one that can go right, wrong, or in any number of ways. To say that all history is driven by the dialectic, and that it has one or another inevitable result, is ridiculous. History is driven by choices that people make. When you have 7 billion people on the planet, each capable of choice, absolutely nothing is inevitable at all. Some idiot could come to power and blow up the planet. A major power could impose its ways upon everyone, or another major power could try to fight it – something that of course is happening already. Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists or New Agers may have a success in converting everyone to their religion. Anything can happen. It is very much rightful to affirm the interests of the worker. However using a ridiculous ideology is not the right way to go about doing that. Use the Biblical Golden Rule. Use rational reasons – that workers are working at least as hard as their bosses and should be treated and compensated appropriately. Use simple compassion. Do not discredit yourself by adopting an ideology that is absolutely wrong. I do not understand for one moment why so many people, many of them intelligent and many of them ethical and compassionate, bought into Marxism. Maybe they had rightfully had it with those in capitalism who thought that business was the only root of prosperity and that science or labor or education wasn't. Maybe they did not like the way in which workers were being treated. Maybe they took objection to “traditional” roles of women. All these attitudes are totally understandable. But why did they not see just how wrong Marx's central contention was? The countries that did adopt Marxism did not end up treating workers better than did the countries that didn't. Instead Marxism was used to impose totalitarianism. Whereas capitalist democracies, although after very much struggle, ended up improving conditions for their workers and by so doing saved capitalism and democracy. At this time in history, the interest in Marxism has increased. The American Dream has not been working for many people, and many in business have gone back to bad habits that business had had before. I caution them against doing such a thing. You re-create the conditions that preceded Marxism, you will be met with something like Marxism. Similarly the people who want to re-create 1950s will re-create the conditions that lead to 1960s and will be met with something like 1960s further down the road. Personally, Marx and I have a lot in common. We are both nerdy overbearing Jews, and it takes one to know one. Marx had legitimate insights, but what he did with them was wrong. He created a terrible ideology. And many people died or suffered as a result. It is legitimate to seek improvements in the lives of workers, women, etc. But it has to be done in the right way rather than the wrong way. Do not do it according to an obviously wrong ideology. Do it with rational arguments. Do it with arguments toward compassion. Do it with the actual Christian value that is the Golden Rule. Any number of my former bosses have treated me according to Golden Rule, and I have maintained with them solid friendships. We see the same done with many businesses in America, both large and small. These people have learned their lessons from history, and they have made the correct improvements in their behavior. These improvements are partly credited to the efforts of liberals and partly to intelligence on the part of business itself. It is essential that business maintain these improvements if the world be spared a resurgence of Marxist ideology.
In a move which I have come to associate with you, you address a strawman or misconception of the idea you try to attack. I am by no means convinced by Marxist historical inevitability, but the argument you have made above is not sound. Marx doesn't argue that socialism will be the next thing to happen, he argues that even if all sorts of orders will rise and fall, socialism will happen eventually. In the grand scheme of things, there are plenty of inevitable and predictable concepts. Each purchase of Coca Cola is a personal choice, yet when you compound the entire world, sales numbers are, if not completely predictable, reasonably stable. Certainly, class dynamics do not look the same today as it did in Marx' time and I don't think that would surprise Marx. However, it has never suggested that it will go away (even when directly challenged). I wouldn't say today's America doesn't have class issues. I can't say I know enough about Aboriginals to make a statement about it, but whatever can be said about them, it's unlikely to show any glaring holes in any contemporary ideas. Again, your arguments do not support your conclusions. The idea of religion being the opiate of the masses alludes to its ability to keep the masses calm. That idea is not contradicted by your argument that a religion comes from the masses or that rulers also adhere to religions. You take this as evidence that a free American people wouldn't try to overthrow capitalism, but a communist might see it as evidence that the American people are in fact not freed from their chains. You acknowledge that this freedom is required, but you make no effort to argue it. Where exactly are you getting your information about who owns what in America? How do you think you identify a propertied class? Why wouldn't a person who has worked their way up and now controls the means of production not be part of the propertied class? I think that's your greatest weakness. You regularly attack things that you don't seem to have a full grasp of. In my opinion, a person who disagrees with a world view will attack it poorly, unless he is able to see the significant and serious temptation that that world view offers. If you cannot see a serious temptation (even if you can overcome it), then chances are you will miss the point when you address it, and will make a fool of yourself in the mind of anyone who considers that world view seriously.
His post are mostly justification to talk about himself thinly disguised as attempts at rational, educated thinking. Not worth debating.
Once again, there is nothing inevitable about it happening. When people who are in control of the means of production have had to rise from the hoi polloi, that puts a lie to the class argument. The claim is that religion is used by the rulers to keep people quiet. That is contradicted by the fact that religion coming, not from the rulers, but from the masses. In America, it is the rednecks that are most militantly anti-Communist. They think that communism is an attempt by the state to take away from them their liberty. As someone who has worked in many capacities, I have dealt with many businessmen. Most of them started out with nothing and rose through their own efforts. Because class is something that one is born into, which means that a person who rose to wealth through their own efforts is not part of propertied class. I can very much see the temptation of Marxism. I say that the same problems that Marx sought to address are addressed a lot better with reason and compassion.
If anyone in this thread does want to use the term "socialism" as a universal opprobrium, then one must either 1) provide a definition of "socialism" that includes things like universal access to health care and free college but excludes things like universal access to roads and free high school; or 2) admit that one is against roads and high schools too and is not so much of a capitalist as an anarchist. If one does want to say that "socialism" is the same thing as, or inherently leads to, "communism," then one must delete the Facebook account, take three upper division philosophy courses, read a history of economics book (Robert L. Heilbroner's "The Worldly Philosophers" would be a good start), and stop trying to have adult conversations until one does have at least some minimal idea of what is socialism.
For someone who lauds addressing arguments with reason, you're not really providing any. You've just restated your conclusion, as if that would be persuasive to anyone. Incorrect. "A class is those who share common economic interests, are conscious of those interests, and engage in collective action which advances those interests" (source) "To Marx, a class is a group with intrinsic tendencies and interests that differ from those of other groups within society, the basis of a fundamental antagonism between such groups" (source) You seem to be conflating the Marxist understanding of class (proletariat/bourgeoisie, based solely on economic interests) with social classes in a different sense (gentle classes, etc., largely inherited). Certainly, the two are related, my guess is that the word is an inheritance from a time when the two were even more inseparable, but Marx makes it quite clear that he means class in the sense of economic interests. At that point, class is not necessarily something you're born into, or something you can't have if you were once part of the hoi-polloi. I also have worked with many businessmen. In my experience, they are very much aligned with the economic interests of the propertied class (which is the Marxist definition of class). (That's not to say they are evil, or insensitive to other classes, etc., just that rising through one's own effort does not exclude you from the bourgeoisie) Why would that be a contradiction? I see nothing contradictory in the idea that religion came from the masses and was adapted by ruling classes to work against the masses. Having read up a bit more on the quote, Marx used the phrase opiate of the masses, not about religion oppressing the masses, but about the masses turning to religion in a time of pain. This shows another area in which you have not understood the argument that is being made (while still remaining untouched by your arguments of where religion might have come from or who else might be practicing it). Yes, so? Marxism often argues that capitalism offers an illusion of freedom. The fact that rednecks call themselves free in no way means they are actually free in the sense a Marxist might use the word. You are arguing against Marxism using a set of axioms that anyone who seriously considers Marxism have already put into question. Well, if you "do not understand for one moment why so many people, many of them intelligent and many of them ethical and compassionate, bought into Marxism", then maybe you have misunderstood some aspects of it. (That's not to say that anyone who understands Marxism would agree with it, just that anyone who understands it would clearly see how it is persuasive to rational, compassionate people)
I believe this thread is solely about Marxism, rather than socialism (or communism). I used the word socialism in a previous post, in reference to a phrasing used by Marx (with the understanding that Marx was sort of unclear on what he meant by the term, but that was beside the point for the argument I was making). Marxism, of course, also has a lot of different interpretations, angles, versions, etc.. Marx himself famously said that he was not a Marxist, calling into question the idea that there is only one thing called Marxism. For my part, I don't assert a specific interpretation, I just respond to whatever is presented. I'm pretty sure Ibshambat's suggestions come from several different understandings.
Most of the rulers don't really convert. They just pay lip service to it. Look at the kind of religious "opium" that Constantine dished out. Now we have The Vatican. Now we have 200 families who own most of the world and, along with all their lesser wannabies, have us in a stranglehold. Instead of rising thru equal opportunity, people like Elon Musk buy their way in thru porkbarrel influence. The American Dream is up against a winner-take-all economic arrangement, with wealth steadily being concentrated upward away from the masses. Those with influence who can occasionally rewrite the rules profit from carefully placed investments that take advantage of a bubble that bursts. The warmongers profit by provoking conflict to sustain a fat military-industrial complex. Capitalism is just a different means to the same end.
That is not always been the case, as the 1930s and 1960s demonstrated in legislation from Congress. That will be the case of the 2020s.
JakeStarkey said: That is not always been the case, as the 1930s and 1960s demonstrated in legislation from Congress. That will be the case of the 2020s. You are unable to comprehend my clear statement?
One thing is for sure. The American people will not forever tolerate the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Marxism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism or some other ism is going to be the future of America. Capitalism has proven to be a failure for the masses while an overwhelming sucess for the few.
#13. The event must be preceded by a major Great Recession or Depression, an economic dislocation so rough that the average American rises up in the ballot booth and tells American Wealth, "no more, Horation, get thee hence."
Are you responding to the original post, or to a particular reply among the many that have been issued?
