We Are All Marxists

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

 

[Randall Stanhope]

Here's how Marxism / Communism (the 2 are the same thing, right? If not, please educate me) always function in the real world:

An entrenched tyrannical clique consisting of 0.01% of the population has an iron fisted grip on power. They talk about equality constantly, but in reality they have hidden vast, obscene wealth.

They own the media, and their media only tells lies and propaganda.

If any wealth is created (which there will be very little because people have no motivation) the "elite" clique ruling party keep 90% of it, and split the remaining 10% amongst the population.

There's no freedom. And you can't vote yourself out of the tyrannical hell.

And I haven't even mentioned the genocide that always accompanies communists coming into power...

 

[Scruddy]

 

[sober_teacher]

Here's how Marxism / Communism (the 2 are the same thing, right? If not, please educate me) always function in the real world:

An entrenched tyrannical clique consisting of 0.01% of the population has an iron fisted grip on power. They talk about equality constantly, but in reality they have hidden vast, obscene wealth.

They own the media, and their media only tells lies and propaganda.

If any wealth is created (which there will be very little because people have no motivation) the "elite" clique ruling party keep 90% of it, and split the remaining 10% amongst the population.

There's no freedom. And you can't vote yourself out of the tyrannical hell.

And I haven't even mentioned the genocide that always accompanies communists coming into power...

What Marx envisioned in his Communist Manifesto and what we got in the Soviet Union, China, etc. aren’t at all the same. Marx ultimately thought we’d see a society where essentially everything was run by trade unions for the mutual benefit of all via cooperation. Remember, he wrote his Manifesto at a time when power and wealth was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, and he saw how the working classes were left behind - this was a large part of the social upheavals that wracked Europe especially in the mid to late 1800s.

He’d have been horrified to see what Stalin in particular did to his vision. I really suggest you read the communist manifesto sometime, I had to back in college for a social studies class. It really is a fascinating read and does make a certain amount of sense. The problem, imo, is that Marx thought people could ultimately be content with what they had, and completely underestimated how competitive we are.

 

[TC Nole OX]

I haven’t read any of this thread but I will add that corporate America loves their handouts and bailouts.

In good times, their success was entirely due to their efforts (remember all the “I built that” whining in 2012 after Elizabeth Warren correctly pointed out that few businesses would be successful without the roads, police and everything else government puts in place) and all the profits belong to them. When the slightest adversity presents, they are in DC with their hands out looking to be rescued.

I believe the saying is full profits in good times and socialize the losses. Bootstraps for everyone else.

 

[Aardvark86]

What Marx envisioned in his Communist Manifesto and what we got in the Soviet Union, China, etc. aren’t at all the same. Marx ultimately thought we’d see a society where essentially everything was run by trade unions for the mutual benefit of all via cooperation. Remember, he wrote his Manifesto at a time when power and wealth was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, and he saw how the working classes were left behind - this was a large part of the social upheavals that wracked Europe especially in the mid to late 1800s.

He’d have been horrified to see what Stalin in particular did to his vision. I really suggest you read the communist manifesto sometime, I had to back in college for a social studies class. It really is a fascinating read and does make a certain amount of sense. The problem, imo, is that Marx thought people could ultimately be content with what they had, and completely underestimated how competitive we are.

I thought the answer was, "marxists are nicer and cooler". Either way, all of the "applied" examples of it are totalitarian.

Seriously though, certainly very fair to say that Marxism as philosophy and economic theory are very different than Leninism/Stalinism (in theory and as applied), and of course Maoism which just sort figured we'd go right from agrarian economics to communism. Marx viewed the rise of the proletariat and their control of the means of production as an organic thing that would occur as a natural and eventual revolutionary consequence of the industrial revolution. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their cronies (to use a favorite soviet word) weren't that patient (for reasons having little to do with economic theory and more to do with power), and went through all sorts of gyrations to posit that some sort of intelligentsia leadership was necessary to drag the proletariat into communism.

The reason(s) that we haven't had theoretical Marxist communism (at least yet) include (i) social/egalitarian pressures - including pressures deriving from western religions - have provided a natural brake against abuses through government policy, charity, and otherwise, to relieve the pressure, which if you really want, you can call a reflection of the "capitalist superstructure" actually being really good at reinforcing itself; and (ii) Marx was simply wrong in his theoretical observations in that he dramatically underestimated the dynamism of capitalism to continue to create new markets, not only geographically but also in terms of consumer demand through things like advertising.

 

[Aardvark86]

View embedded media

The liberty/equality paradox is The fundamental tension of Americanism, and as Friedman correctly notes, they are in fact in tension with each other. To be an American is to believe in both, and we continually debate over our history what the right "mix" of the two is in terms of our priorities, with some fairly wide swings over time. (See SP Huntington, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony). Personally, I tend to think liberty should predominate in that mix, while many others here think equality should, and that's fine. What is dangerous is to believe that one of the two must "win", and to disrespect or not recognize the completely American validity of the other value.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

The liberty/equality paradox is The fundamental tension of Americanism, and as Friedman correctly notes, they are in fact in tension with each other. To be an American is to believe in both, and we continually debate over our history what the right "mix" of the two is in terms of our priorities, with some fairly wide swings over time. (See SP Huntington, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony). Personally, I tend to think liberty should predominate in that mix, while many others here think equality should, and that's fine. What is dangerous is to believe that one of the two must "win", and to disrespect or not recognize the completely American validity of the other value.

That’s fair, as long as one understands fully thay equality cannot and must not be the paramount goal. It is self defeating and a destructive belief to incentivize envy in this way.

Any Cuban that fled that island can explain this to anyone from experience.

 

[seminole97]

Central planning and authoritarianism is a common misconception, under pure communism, there is no government.

You didn't address my question.
What's the path from central planning to 'pure' communism (can we call it True Scotsman Communism?) where there is suddenly no government to direct how much of what and from whom?
Clear up the misconception of how one gets from the full bore central planning, and consequently necessary authoritarianism to enforce the former, to the anarchy of 'pure' communism, and how does mankind in this 'pure' state decide how much of what to whom?

Here's where your mind really gets blown - marxism is actually more democratic than capitalism. Currently, most workplaces are dictatorships. You do what your boss tells you, or you get fired.

One thing I noticed about seeing the dictatorships of communism up close in Berlin, was that you couldn't leave.
Have you never left a job because the boss wouldn't let you?
Or would shoot you for trying to?

The very definition of marxism, if anyone cared to understand, is democracy in the workplace. Bosses, boards and executives are elected on merit, not because of who they know.

How does this 'workplace democracy' function between firms?
How does Boeing decide how many planes to build for United?
Do Boeing and United employees vote on it?
Do Airbus employees get a vote?

How do you imagine this works in the real world™, ignoring the ways that communism has been practiced in the real world™?

 

[1inamillion]

Marx recognized the value of labor in producing things, and further acknowledged the ownership of that labor by the worker. He believed that workers had common (class) interests so that, for example, it didn't make sense for workers to go to war to defend the unshared profits of capitalists and entrepreneurs.

Pretty straightforward notions that the rich and powerful don't want people thinking about too much.

I don't get why so many Americans are scared about Marxism and use "Marxist" and "Marxism" to vilify some people and scare others.

Can someone explain that to me?

Move to Russia. What a dunce.

 

[seminole97]

The problem, imo, is that Marx thought people could ultimately be content with what they had, and completely underestimated how competitive we are.

The problem is seeing competition as a bug, and not a feature.
Competition is what makes things better.
In Nature and the market.

The 'democracy' of the market is that every dollar has the same voting power.
Jim Crow needed to be passed as laws, because you can't count on greedy merchants to enforce discrimination when there's a buck to be made.

 

[Ree4]

The problem is seeing competition as a bug, and not a feature.
Competition is what makes things better.
In Nature and the market.

The 'democracy' of the market is that every dollar has the same voting power.
Jim Crow needed to be passed as laws, because you can't count on greedy merchants to enforce discrimination when there's a buck to be made.

Collaboration doesnt make things better? Competition barely exists in our country (among some small businesses, sure), lets not pretend that it does. Power and money in almost every industry have been concentrated among very few corporations. They use that power to buy policy to increase barriers to entry among potential rivals. Competition is nearly dead.

I see how people constantly tout the market as some infallible creation, but it too has inherent flaws. Sure it has the banana vendor that sells to the wool vendor - but what about the guy who shows up with only money? He buys low and sells high to and from vendors, creating absolutely nothing in the process, only wealth for himself to the detriment and increased costs to the rest of the consumers. A leech on the economy. Billions of dollars are spent trying to figure out how to be the best leech. This is something that the market does not account for, a contradiction.

 

[Ree4]

Here's how Marxism / Communism (the 2 are the same thing, right? If not, please educate me) always function in the real world:

An entrenched tyrannical clique consisting of 0.01% of the population has an iron fisted grip on power. They talk about equality constantly, but in reality they have hidden vast, obscene wealth.

They own the media, and their media only tells lies and propaganda.

If any wealth is created (which there will be very little because people have no motivation) the "elite" clique ruling party keep 90% of it, and split the remaining 10% amongst the population.

There's no freedom. And you can't vote yourself out of the tyrannical hell.

And I haven't even mentioned the genocide that always accompanies communists coming into power...

Funny, it seems like you're describing America.

 

[seminole97]

Collaboration doesnt make things better? Competition barely exists in our country (among some small businesses, sure), lets not pretend that it does. Power and money in almost every industry have been concentrated among very few corporations. They use that power to buy policy to increase barriers to entry among potential rivals. Competition is nearly dead.

Everything is competing for the consumer's dollar. Not just in industry (e.g. Ford against Honda), but the car competes with everything else someone can buy with their money from ice cream to a nicer house.

How do you 'collaborate' exchange between firms and between firms and consumers in the anarchy of 'pure' communism?

How do you get from the necessary authoritarianism of central planning in communism as practiced to the anarchy of communism as imagined?

How does it actually work?

I see how people constantly tout the market as some infallible creation, but it too has inherent flaws. Sure it has the banana vendor that sells to the wool vendor - but what about the guy who shows up with only money?

Who can do that? A counterfeiter?
Or are you indicting the deficit spending politician who shows up with 'only money', having produced nothing for people to be able to consume, but giving them access via largesse to the production of others?

He buys low and sells high to and from vendors, creating absolutely nothing in the process, only wealth for himself to the detriment and increased costs to the rest of the consumers. A leech on the economy. Billions of dollars are spent trying to figure out how to be the best leech. This is something that the market does not account for, a contradiction.

Someone who moves a resource to a higher value enriches the economy.
Computer manufacturers who can pay a higher price for copper bid supply away from the making of musical instruments, or some other use that consumers put less value on than a new computer.

Under 'pure' communism, how will firms 'collaborate' how much copper to send to make motherboards vs tubas?
Who will get to vote to downsize the tuba manufacturers and expand motherboard production?
Without a market setting prices, how do you even know what people place higher value on - the tuba or the computer?

You're not addressing any of this. It's why in practice communism never escapes central planning, and central planning never comes close to meeting consumer demand.

 

[Aardvark86]

Everything is competing for the consumer's dollar. Not just in industry (e.g. Ford against Honda), but the car competes with everything else someone can buy with their money from ice cream to a nicer house.

How do you 'collaborate' exchange between firms and between firms and consumers in the anarchy of 'pure' communism?

How do you get from the necessary authoritarianism of central planning in communism as practiced to the anarchy of communism as imagined?

How does it actually work?



Who can do that? A counterfeiter?
Or are you indicting the deficit spending politician who shows up with 'only money', having produced nothing for people to be able to consume, but giving them access via largesse to the production of others?



Someone who moves a resource to a higher value enriches the economy.
Computer manufacturers who can pay a higher price for copper bid supply away from the making of musical instruments, or some other use that consumers put less value on than a new computer.

Under 'pure' communism, how will firms 'collaborate' how much copper to send to make motherboards vs tubas?
Who will get to vote to downsize the tuba manufacturers and expand motherboard production?
Without a market setting prices, how do you even know what people place higher value on - the tuba or the computer?

You're not addressing any of this. It's why in practice communism never escapes central planning, and central planning never comes close to meeting consumer demand.

collaboration is great until it becomes a monopoly or cartel

 

[seminole97]

collaboration is great until it becomes a monopoly or cartel

As I understand it the ‘pure’ communism pinnacle means everyone is collaborating, to which I ask, by what mechanism?

In a market economy the property owners decide at what price to sell, consumers what price to buy. The entrepreneurs read clues of what to produce by using market prices to find out where more production is profitable, and as importantly, where less can be sustained.

How do we accomplish this ‘democratically’ across industries and the whole economy?

At what point does the budding Marxist ask, ‘but how does all of this actually function’?

Absent a market setting prices reflecting supply and demand, how does the anarchist, ‘pure’ communist society calculate how much and to whom of each good and service that could be produced?

That’s the paradox, and why communism languishes as authoritarian central planning. There’s no evolution to another stage because there is mechanism to drive it.

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Collaboration doesnt make things better? Competition barely exists in our country (among some small businesses, sure), lets not pretend that it does. Power and money in almost every industry have been concentrated among very few corporations. They use that power to buy policy to increase barriers to entry among potential rivals. Competition is nearly dead.

I see how people constantly tout the market as some infallible creation, but it too has inherent flaws. Sure it has the banana vendor that sells to the wool vendor - but what about the guy who shows up with only money? He buys low and sells high to and from vendors, creating absolutely nothing in the process, only wealth for himself to the detriment and increased costs to the rest of the consumers. A leech on the economy. Billions of dollars are spent trying to figure out how to be the best leech. This is something that the market does not account for, a contradiction.

“Sure it has the banana vendor that sells to the wool vendor - but what about the guy who shows up with only money?”

Huh. That guy sounds suspiciously like the Fed Reserve and their money printer(s). 😁

 

[Ree4]

Everything is competing for the consumer's dollar. Not just in industry (e.g. Ford against Honda), but the car competes with everything else someone can buy with their money from ice cream to a nicer house.

How do you 'collaborate' exchange between firms and between firms and consumers in the anarchy of 'pure' communism?

How do you get from the necessary authoritarianism of central planning in communism as practiced to the anarchy of communism as imagined?

How does it actually work?



Who can do that? A counterfeiter?
Or are you indicting the deficit spending politician who shows up with 'only money', having produced nothing for people to be able to consume, but giving them access via largesse to the production of others?



Someone who moves a resource to a higher value enriches the economy.
Computer manufacturers who can pay a higher price for copper bid supply away from the making of musical instruments, or some other use that consumers put less value on than a new computer.

Under 'pure' communism, how will firms 'collaborate' how much copper to send to make motherboards vs tubas?
Who will get to vote to downsize the tuba manufacturers and expand motherboard production?
Without a market setting prices, how do you even know what people place higher value on - the tuba or the computer?

You're not addressing any of this. It's why in practice communism never escapes central planning, and central planning never comes close to meeting consumer demand.

I don't need to address any of this, I'm not advocating for anything as you seem to assume. This is a conversation about what marxism and communism are, not how they can be implemented or that they should.

Even Marx didn't advocate for communism to replace capitalism, he simply devoted himself to criticize capitalism. He predicted that capitalism would inevitably fail because of its contradictions - something every other economic system throughout history has done.

Considering it's been basically blocked from being discussed or taught for most of the last century (remember McCarthyism?), you're really too far ahead asking those, albeit good, questions. I wish I had the time and the expertise to devote to it. You're looking for information on a final polished essay when we don't even have an outline. I'll leave that to the economists and philosophers. I'm sure you can find some answers with google if you're that interested.

A person who buys up computers or PS5s and sells them at a markup is does not enrich the economy, not sure how you got to that conclusion. They contribute nothing. Day traders, speculators etc.

 

[seminole97]

I don't need to address any of this, I'm not advocating for anything as you seem to assume.

It's not whether you need to, it's whether you can.
In short, are there actual answers to my questions, or is 'true' communism such a navel gazing exercise that you can't explain how it will function in practice?

This is a conversation about what marxism and communism are, not how they can be implemented or that they should.

I posit that "true" communism, as you've defined it, cannot be implemented.

It's Wolkenkuckucksheim.

If you cannot answer whether it even can be implemented, how do you even get to the point of deciding it should be implemented?

A person who buys up computers or PS5s and sells them at a markup is does not enrich the economy, not sure how you got to that conclusion. They contribute nothing. Day traders, speculators etc.

Wrong.
When other people see that there are profits to be made the consequence in the market is competitors for those profits. Increased production means supply meets demand farther down the price curve, benefitting consumers.
Without profits, there is no "true" indication of what the consumer demands.
There is no way to tell if more copper production should be diverted from tubas to motherboards, absent market prices and profits.
The speculator is the one who helps us discover that.
It's an invaluable contribution to increasing the value of things, by finding their more valuable uses.

 

[Ree4]

It's not whether you need to, it's whether you can.
In short, are there actual answers to my questions, or is 'true' communism such a navel gazing exercise that you can't explain how it will function in practice?



I posit that "true" communism, as you've defined it, cannot be implemented.

It's Wolkenkuckucksheim.

If you cannot answer whether it even can be implemented, how do you even get to the point of deciding it should be implemented?


Wrong.
When other people see that there are profits to be made the consequence in the market is competitors for those profits. Increased production means supply meets demand farther down the price curve, benefitting consumers.
Without profits, there is no "true" indication of what the consumer demands.
There is no way to tell if more copper production should be diverted from tubas to motherboards, absent market prices and profits.
The speculator is the one who helps us discover that.
It's an invaluable contribution to increasing the value of things, by finding their more valuable uses.

A cooperative is how it would function, it really isn't that complicated.

Marxism is a fundamental change to who does what with the surplus they produce. Serfs produce the surplus, the lords own it and decide who to distribute it. Slaves produce the surplus, masters own it and distribute it. Employees produce a surplus, employers own it and distribute it. Marxism is when the people who produce the surplus own it and decide how to distribute it.

You're completely avoiding my entire point and moving the goalposts, asking questions about implementation of communism which I've barely even considered. I'm not interested, at all. You're looking at it from a government perspective instead of a workplace perspective. Transform the workplace, democratize it. Ever hear of a cooperative? Grocery stores and farmers? They seem to work just fine despite what you might believe. Do they require some sort of central planning? Of course not.

 

[Randall Stanhope]

Funny, it seems like you're describing America.

Sadly, you're right.

It's why the top 0.01% of successful capitalists become marxist.

When they're at the top, you think they want true and fair competition, when the only way they could possibly go, is down?

"Competition is a sin." -JD Rockefeller

 

[seminole97]

A cooperative is how it would function, it really isn't that complicated.

It is complicated.
How does the mining cooperative decide how much copper goes to the tuba maker and to the motherboard manufacturers?
No matter how much the public wants motherboards over tubas, we're going to let the miners vote on it?
Is that what you foresee?
Again, how this works in practice matters.
People starve when communists ruin production because they're allocating resources blind to demand.
You can't just hand wave these realities away.

You're completely avoiding my entire point and moving the goalposts, asking questions about implementation of communism which I've barely even considered. I'm not interested, at all.

You should focus on the important part: how does/can it work?

You're looking at it from a government perspective instead of a workplace perspective. Transform the workplace, democratize it. Ever hear of a cooperative? Grocery stores and farmers? They seem to work just fine despite what you might believe. Do they require some sort of central planning? Of course not.

No, I'm looking at it from the consumer perspective.
How do I trust the mining cooperative will end their deals with the tuba making cooperative and start shipping tons of copper to the motherboard cooperative?
Right now grocery stores put prices on their items and the public buys them, or chooses not to.
Value in the end is defined by the consumer, not the worker.
Grocers compete on price, selection and service, and the ruthless consumer constantly weeds out the least desired for elimination by withholding from them their resources in exchange.

 

[Aardvark86]

It is complicated.
How does the mining cooperative decide how much copper goes to the tuba maker and to the motherboard manufacturers?
No matter how much the public wants motherboards over tubas, we're going to let the miners vote on it?
Is that what you foresee?
Again, how this works in practice matters.
People starve when communists ruin production because they're allocating resources blind to demand.
You can't just hand wave these realities away.



You should focus on the important part: how does/can it work?



No, I'm looking at it from the consumer perspective.
How do I trust the mining cooperative will end their deals with the tuba making cooperative and start shipping tons of copper to the motherboard cooperative?
Right now grocery stores put prices on their items and the public buys them, or chooses not to.
Value in the end is defined by the consumer, not the worker.
Grocers compete on price, selection and service, and the ruthless consumer constantly weeds out the least desired for elimination by withholding from them their resources in exchange.

Indeed, communism is not some mere German workers council at the factory.

 

[HawkeyeHitman]

A cooperative is how it would function, it really isn't that complicated.

Marxism is a fundamental change to who does what with the surplus they produce. Serfs produce the surplus, the lords own it and decide who to distribute it. Slaves produce the surplus, masters own it and distribute it. Employees produce a surplus, employers own it and distribute it. Marxism is when the people who produce the surplus own it and decide how to distribute it.

You're completely avoiding my entire point and moving the goalposts, asking questions about implementation of communism which I've barely even considered. I'm not interested, at all. You're looking at it from a government perspective instead of a workplace perspective. Transform the workplace, democratize it. Ever hear of a cooperative? Grocery stores and farmers? They seem to work just fine despite what you might believe. Do they require some sort of central planning? Of course not.

You’ve spent your whole life being worthless.

 

[Ree4]

Sadly, you're right.

It's why the top 0.01% of successful capitalists become marxist.

When they're at the top, you think they want true and fair competition, when the only way they could possibly go, is down?

"Competition is a sin." -JD Rockefeller

They take government handouts, to be sure! They do love socialism.

 

[Ree4]

It is complicated.
How does the mining cooperative decide how much copper goes to the tuba maker and to the motherboard manufacturers?
No matter how much the public wants motherboards over tubas, we're going to let the miners vote on it?
Is that what you foresee?
Again, how this works in practice matters.
People starve when communists ruin production because they're allocating resources blind to demand.
You can't just hand wave these realities away.



You should focus on the important part: how does/can it work?



No, I'm looking at it from the consumer perspective.
How do I trust the mining cooperative will end their deals with the tuba making cooperative and start shipping tons of copper to the motherboard cooperative?
Right now grocery stores put prices on their items and the public buys them, or chooses not to.
Value in the end is defined by the consumer, not the worker.
Grocers compete on price, selection and service, and the ruthless consumer constantly weeds out the least desired for elimination by withholding from them their resources in exchange.

You completely misunderstand me, yet again. I'm here to help people understand definitions, not implementations. I am not advocating for these things and don't have the time nor the inclination to research implementation strategies. This is a thread related to marxism which most people don't understand. Biden is called a marxist constantly, which is hilarious. I have no desire to discuss central planning or its' implementation since I am opposed to it.

As to your last paragraph, how is it any different than current arrangements? Currently corporations have a board who oversees most of the decisions of a company. Many times, the members have absolutely no expertise (Hunter Biden?) to make qualified decisions. In a coop, the people who produce the goods either elect board members or have votes themselves.

Just like in government, in corporations currently a very small group of elite , deep state, whatever you want to call them make decisions for the large majority of people. Over time, those decisions further their own interests at the cost of everyone else. Money and power are what makes policy in this country, not people.

People starve when capitalism decides it isn't profitable to feed them.

 

[Ree4]

You’ve spent your whole life being worthless.

Nah, I do just fine. Judging by your contributions to this board, I'll take that as a compliment.