|
What are the central tenats of Marxism? I realize there are many diverse schools of thought that are ostensibly Marxist, but what's the unifying element that makes them all Marxist?
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What are the central tenats of Marxism? I realize there are many diverse schools of thought that are ostensibly Marxist, but what's the unifying element that makes them all Marxist? We're really into ghosts but, paradoxically, we don't like abstractions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:04
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:This is from a couple of pages back, but could you explain how outsourcing does not fit into the standard comparative-advantage model? Outsourcing is comparative-advantage. To begin with, Typical Pubbie posted:There's also the matter of them arguing that a socialist economy wouldn't be driven to grow, or that outsourcing and affordable consumer technology aren't related to comparative-advantage, or that a summer home for everyone under communism is an absolute guarantee, and not a highly dubious marketing ploy. You're not actually asking this question in good faith, so I'm pissing straight into the wind here, but how comparative advantage is taught is through the exchange of goods and services and countries or partners specializing in particular things. In the case of outsourcing, the things which are being specialized in by the one country are cheap labor, lax environmental standards, and/or low taxes. The actual goods or services produced by the outsourced facilities are not controlled by people within the country and are mainly traded internally by the multinational owner. You could argue that it's a standard case of comparative advantage, but it's not really so in terms of international trade, because the exchange of traditional goods or services is internal within a multinational. Technology is not comparative advantage unless you assume that technology is kept to itself and not shared around, which is false. The closest thing possible would be having particular universities and companies specialize in given technological fields, but this requires an economy that uses lots of central planning and still doesn't actually keep technology within the developer's home country. Technology does allow certain countries to have comparative advantages, but then we get into the nasty end of comparative advantage, where countries that are at a disadvantage are supposed to never develop their economies beyond possibly specializing. This is not what any defender of it would support, but it is inevitable in the first case if the outsourcing does provide a real increase in the standard of living, because eventually the advantages will disappear as the country becomes richer. tbp posted:So if Im reading effectronicas posts right, I have no reason to care about being communist and also there is no moral failing in being capitalist because it in fact is making me good money and nice conditions, and being communist will just make my life worse for little to no gain. Seems like that's a bad idea, all things considered. There are moral failings involved in supporting capitalism in my opinion, but you either disagree about whether these are immoral or failings, and in many cases don't really care. Nor am I really inclined to harangue you into supporting it, even if that could work. I mean, if your life is going well, that's great for you! Hopefully you can still have an equally good life without it being supported by poverty both in your home country and around the world, someday.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Calm down cowboy, I am totally agreeing with you. One of the four fundamental pillars of Marxism is a summer home for all. This egregious transgression must be accounted for. so you're saying that people ITT didn't actually say that dachas in the USSR were a common thing most people had? do you want me to dredge up those posts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:10
|
|
icantfindaname posted:so you're saying that people ITT didn't actually say that dachas in the USSR were a common thing most people had? People said that, other people disagreed with them and provided evidence, and you flailed about because someone told you that your sexploitation show wasn't really feminist and you've been bugfuck insane ever since.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:To begin with, My life is not supported by poverty though I work for my money
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:50
|
|
tbp posted:My life is not supported by poverty though I work for my money It is if you accept the premises of socialism generally, and even if you don't, the lifestyle of the first world is supported by the flow of cheap goods from overseas, which can only happen because of poverty. If China were as rich as the USA, Apple products would not be as cheap as they are now.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It is if you accept the premises of socialism generally, and even if you don't, the lifestyle of the first world is supported by the flow of cheap goods from overseas, which can only happen because of poverty. If China were as rich as the USA, Apple products would not be as cheap as they are now. Maybe they shouldn't agree to sell them at that price then if its such a big issue
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:58
|
|
tbp posted:Maybe they shouldn't agree to sell them at that price then if its such a big issue That only works if everyone does it, if some compelling interest prevents them from doing it in the first place, or if they're able to use it to appeal to people. Only the third case is at all likely, and it's not actually one which solves the problem. But yeah, whatever, you're playing games here and I wish you'd be more forthright instead of leading people on. It's also only an example, but you know this and are just being an rear end.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That only works if everyone does it, if some compelling interest prevents them from doing it in the first place, or if they're able to use it to appeal to people. Only the third case is at all likely, and it's not actually one which solves the problem. But yeah, whatever, you're playing games here and I wish you'd be more forthright instead of leading people on. I'm not leading anyone on and it's just easy of you to dismiss it by saying that. The Chinese, or whoever in the example, are fully capable of choosing at what price they sell their products, labor, etc. They have free will just like everyone else it's not my nor capitalisms fault if they choose otherwise!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 03:05
|
|
tbp posted:I'm not leading anyone on and it's just easy of you to dismiss it by saying that. The Chinese, or whoever in the example, are fully capable of choosing at what price they sell their products, labor, etc. They have free will just like everyone else it's not my nor capitalisms fault if they choose otherwise! If I was dismissing it, I would have just said that you're being an rear end, which you were, and not written an actual response. They are "free" to do so. They are not, in practice, free, because there are people who are competing with them, which in turn drives down the effective value of said labor (though not to the point where it doesn't pay more). So they are free to do so in the same way that I am free to demand a $250,000 salary for making coffee, posting on Facebook, and pretending to do work, and eventually starve to death. Or, for that matter, the same way speech is free in a police state as long as you don't tell anyone else. It's a mockery of actual freedom.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
It's funny how you can say things that are 100% true then turn around and say 'but that can't be, that's ridiculous' People are free to starve, yep. Sucks I guess, but true
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What are the central tenats of Marxism? I realize there are many diverse schools of thought that are ostensibly Marxist, but what's the unifying element that makes them all Marxist? The course of history is driven by economic forces rather than ideologies (historical materialism), the capitalist system is inherently exploitive (surplus value), the current stage of history is characterized primarily by the conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat (class conflict). The communist objective is to ensure the proletariat succeeds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
tbp posted:My life is not supported by poverty though I work for my money You work at a nice job that provides for all your possible needs and most of the world lives on a few dollars a day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:To begin with, Trade initiated by multi-nationals is trade and differing levels of technology are certainly a source of comparative advantage. This post is irredeemably inaccurate. Bold: but they're richer - that's the point. There is a basically never a "previously impoverished people are richer BUT.." Wikipedia posted:The theory of comparative advantage is an economic theory about the potential gains from trade for individuals, firms, or nations that arise from differences in their factor endowments or technological progress.[1] Effectronica posted:It is if you accept the premises of socialism generally, and even if you don't, the lifestyle of the first world is supported by the flow of cheap goods from overseas, which can only happen because of poverty. If China were as rich as the USA, Apple products would not be as cheap as they are now. First, the U.S. would be rich independent of trade with China because of high levels of human and physical capital. But also this is where non-zero sum comes in. For example China is better off with the U.S. being rich because we design intel microprocessors and make high end industrial equipment they can import and put to use. Likewise if China was rich it would be because it was producing similar levels of technology that would circulate and provide value throughout worldwide economy. We'd all be better off in absolute terms if China (or any other currently poor country) was rich and producing useful products for the world market. This has already happened with South Korea for example - its major companies like Samsung and Hyundai got their start making things like T-shirts. Now they're designing the phones in our pockets. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:40
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's funny how you can say things that are 100% true then turn around and say 'but that can't be, that's ridiculous' Okay. You are free to say whatever you want under a police state, you'll just get kidnapped, tortured, and possibly killed for saying it. But you're still free to say whatever you like. You can choose whatever color you like so long as it's black. asdf32 posted:Trade initiated by multi-nationals is trade and differing levels of technology are certainly a source of comparative advantage. This post is irredeemably inaccurate. You just lied about what I said. Blatantly. I said that the advantages of globalization include the spread of technology. This has nothing to do with comparative advantage. Nothing. They are richer, but they are not supposed to get as rich as the first world, and cannot come anywhere near without losing the advantage that attracts outsourcing and will lead them to lose outsourcing. The only way for them to sustain this rise in the standard of living is through economic development that exists outside of globalization entirely. EDIT: It's also more than a little heinously evil to say that technology should be hoarded by the rich countries, but you lack the self-awareness to understand that this is what you have just said.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You just lied about what I said. Blatantly. I said that the advantages of globalization include the spread of technology. This has nothing to do with comparative advantage. Nothing. Ok so you don't understand what you're talking about. Name a country that has "lost" outsourcing and suffered. Do you realize this doesn't make sense? If companies abandon Chinese factories to move to Thailand then suddenly China has a bunch of well trained employees and nice empty factories - guess where investment will flow: China. In real life this balances out such that outsourcing just doesn't really leave or only leaves when it's been replaced with local industry which can pay more. This is an actual pattern followed by actual countries like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong (not a country), Taiwan. Technology shouldn't be hoarded but differeing levels of technology are an actual reality. Bangladesh isn't going to develop a semiconductor or aerospace industry just because you think hoarding isn't fair. Trading for those things in the meantime represents comparative advantage and is actually the best way to level the playing field.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Behold, bourgeois "freedom."  "Well you don't have to work for me, but if you don't freely perform non-compulsory labor for someone then you'll die."JeffersonClay posted:What are the central tenats of Marxism? I realize there are many diverse schools of thought that are ostensibly Marxist, but what's the unifying element that makes them all Marxist? Marxism without qualifiers is relatively simple. The basic idea is that history is driven by class conflict. Exploiters vs. producers, oppressors vs. the oppressed. And not just the period defined by the capitalist mode of production, but all class societies (i.e. all of civilization since the "primitive communism" of tribal, hunter-gatherer cultures) can be described this way. This is the division of labor stuff you hear about in grade school. The productivity of civilization is such that not everyone has to produce food. Some people can do other things (or nothing) instead. The surface characteristics of a society (its culture, laws, customs, ideologies, etc.) are greatly influenced by its mode of production. When a civilization develops enough to outgrow its old mode of production, class conflict boils over and you get a revolution. The class hierarchy is reshuffled along with the mode of production. For example, the advent of capitalism brought with it a wave of bourgeois revolutions that overthrew the old feudal order. Not just economically, but politically and culturally. Marxism posits that capitalism is not the end-state of human civilization. Rather, it is a discrete historical epoch like those before it and tied to its own peculiar mode of production. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie (descended from the medieval merchant class) has supplanted the aristocracy as the ruling class. The productive base of society has shifted from peasant agriculture to large-scale industry. A new class, the proletariat, the industrial working class, has been created. Marxist theory is a critical analysis of the capitalist system. The conclusions born out by it are that, through various mechanisms, capitalism will eventually outlive its usefulness. The proletariat will inevitably revolt, overthrow the bourgeoisie and supplant it as the new ruling class. This is (Marxian) socialism. The actual end-state of civilization would then be a truly classless society: communism. Pope Fabulous XXIV fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You work at a nice job that provides for all your possible needs and most of the world lives on a few dollars a day. That's not really my problem though if I wasn't paid what I wanted I wouldn't work there
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
tbp posted:That's not really my problem though if I wasn't paid what I wanted I wouldn't work there 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Like one thing I am noticing I think is that Marxism is definitely dead in Western countries, it seems, because all of us are enjoying our nice quality of life, but some of us feel really good about ourselves by posting a lot about it on the internet saying that we're totally communist, which I am sure all the 3rd World Workers in Terrible Conditions that support the lifestyle that we are extracting from them appreciate. It's some sort of bizarre self delusion and is on pathetically shaky legs, in The West, as far as I can tell - may be why there is no real teeth behind any of the rhetoric
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
tbp posted:Like one thing I am noticing I think is that Marxism is definitely dead in Western countries, it seems, because all of us are enjoying our nice quality of life, but some of us feel really good about ourselves by posting a lot about it on the internet saying that we're totally communist, which I am sure all the 3rd World Workers in Terrible Conditions that support the lifestyle that we are extracting from them appreciate. It's some sort of bizarre self delusion and is on pathetically shaky legs, in The West, as far as I can tell - may be why there is no real teeth behind any of the rhetoric Hahaha the developing world has some of the strongest Marxist movements and always has for this reason, trying to paint it as a bourgeois delusion that the global south rolls their eyes at is hilariously out of touch and ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You start off with an unstated assumption that you want to reduce inequality. Ok. Like I said I don't think inequality is a primary metric. I think making poor segments of the population is #1 (who cares about the rich either way). No, I start off with the assumption that you made a lot of statements about inequality in this post. which I addressed in this post based on the historical evidence. You can assume that you want to reduce inequality or assume that it is okay to drown beggars in a ditch, either way the actual points you raised are incorrect and you have done nothing here to back them up rather than to try and frame the arguement a little differently while simply repeating your claims. Not only that but now you've started to do exactly what you've been accusing Marxists of. You're the one who is not only making assumptions about how free trade works (suddenly it is the only panacea to global inequality because...?) but you are now also talking in abstracts with no real world applicability. However you might want trade to theoretically work, it is not how it works now. tbp posted:Like one thing I am noticing I think is that Marxism is definitely dead in Western countries, it seems, because all of us are enjoying our nice quality of life, but some of us feel really good about ourselves by posting a lot about it on the internet saying that we're totally communist, which I am sure all the 3rd World Workers in Terrible Conditions that support the lifestyle that we are extracting from them appreciate. It's some sort of bizarre self delusion and is on pathetically shaky legs, in The West, as far as I can tell - may be why there is no real teeth behind any of the rhetoric Nah, there's still a presence. I'm in the UK for instance and for a long time Labour was nominally a socialist party, but this was dropped under Blair relatively recently. In countries which have been crisis stricken it is often opens the door to Socialism somewhat and gives us an opportunity, the socialist sister party of the one I support having a few TDs in Ireland (think MPs or Senators or whatever) and in the last Greek elections Syriza, a socialist-communist-anarchist coalition came close to winning and is now the main opposition (with the KKE a separate goddamn Stalinist party also still placing decently!). team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
"If I didn't like this job I would just get another, NBD. Now let me tell you why you're living in some ivory tower bubble, commies, because I am in touch with wage slaves in Bangladesh" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:"If I didn't like this job I would just get another, NBD. I don't think that was what he was saying at all. What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if the capitalist system is horrifying, as long as he is nominally on top! Why are you picking on poor capitalism after all it did for you? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Tiberius Thyben posted:I don't think that was what he was saying at all. What he is saying is that it doesn't matter if the capitalist system is horrifying, as long as he is nominally on top! Why are you picking on poor capitalism after all it did for you? If only we had a catchphrase to describe this kind of attitude...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:No, I start off with the assumption that you made a lot of statements about inequality in this post. which I addressed in this post based on the historical evidence. Poor countries are poor because they lack capital and trade is the fastest way to get capital. In the case of high technology like semiconductors and transportation it's literally the only realistic way and these things are necessary for reasonably fast economic growth. What don't you agree with here? Socialism doesn't help trade. Politically driven economic systems won't be interested in outsourcing or hiring poor workers generally if they lack the profit motive to do so. What don't you agree with here? If you disagree with the general idea that socialism makes the 3rd world worse off (and I mean either a socialist first world or a socialist 3rd world or both) I invite you to explain how it leads to capital accumulation in, say bangladesh. Ogmius815 posted:If only we had a catchphrase to describe this kind of attitude... FYGM?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The course of history is driven by economic forces rather than ideologies You know that's quite funny, considering that Marxism is an ideology. I guess that's my main problem with Marxism, the idea that their economical model is a historical inevitability, and thus regardless of everything it must be right. I think this conviction would also partly explain why communism so readily turns into tyranny and terror.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
The popular western conception of tyranny and terror is a cold war artifact and shouldn't be taken at face value at all. It's impossible to discuss the actual problems of socialist states when you're still working off the red scare fantasy version. Like, hell yeah, The People's Republic of Fill In The Blank is really messed up! However we can't discuss why that is until you stop believing every sensationalist unsourced story about dear leader's girlfriend being executed as if it's gospel. Christ knows every north korea news story GBS goes wild for turns out to be literally false. It was no different with the USSR or China. On the flipside, anyone who discusses the positive things that happened under the same regimes are accused of supporting the horrible things. It's happened in this very thread. I think it's a weird double standard that people are free to talk about their appreciation for Hitler's autobahn and his Volkswagen but talking about the Stalin era literacy campaigns makes you a monster. America's downright friendly relations with Nazi Germany have nothing to do with that though, no sir... HorseLord fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:The popular western conception of tyranny and terror is a cold war artifact and shouldn't be taken at face value at all. It's impossible to discuss the actual problems of socialist states when you're still working off the red scare fantasy version. Weren't you literally a stalinist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Weren't you literally a stalinist? Stalinist as in "eliminating illiteracy and creating a world class education is cool", or Stalinist as in "YOU GET TO GO TO GULAG*! AND YOU GET TO GO TO GULAG! EVERYBODY GETS TO GO TO GULAG!"? (*there's literally more people in US prisons today than there was in the gulags.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Stalinist as in "eliminating illiteracy and creating a world class education is cool", or Stalinist as in "YOU GET TO GO TO GULAG*! AND YOU GET TO GO TO GULAG! EVERYBODY GETS TO GO TO GULAG!"?  I don't think I want to talk to you anymore
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
I asked a question, and then I mentioned it with a fun fact that's often left out. Why does that make you uncomfortable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
You gotta give it to him, Hitler did make some nice highways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The course of history is driven by economic forces rather than ideologies (historical materialism), the capitalist system is inherently exploitive (surplus value), the current stage of history is characterized primarily by the conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat (class conflict). The communist objective is to ensure the proletariat succeeds. This is so hegelian my veins are literally popping right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:You gotta give it to him, Hitler did make some nice highways. People do talk about how much autobahns rule, like, all the time. America is full of people who love the VW Beetle even though it's honestly a lovely car even by the standards of the time. Nobody gets up in their case over it, ever. Yet you mention anything positive about the USSR and you're immediately labeled a cultist worshipping stalin at his skull throne. Remember that there was anticommunist hysteria at the same time the US was very friendly with Nazi Germany, and that that hysteria kept going for decades, while at the same time even "progressive" media like star trek was doing weird poo poo like having people attempt to use nazism to control a planet due to it's "positive" aspects. Now excuse me if this sounds crazy or anything but it's almost as if racist capitalist power structures are going to be biased towards racist capitalists instead of anti-racists who want to end capitalism. Perhaps you can't take what they say as gospel. Just thinking out loud here. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Hahaha the developing world has some of the strongest Marxist movements and always has for this reason, trying to paint it as a bourgeois delusion that the global south rolls their eyes at is hilariously out of touch and ignorant. It's a delusion in the countries that aren't there.. I'm pretty sure the global south doesn't really care about all the times you post about how cool and good being communist is when you don't ever practice what you preach, is what I think
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
tbp posted:It's a delusion in the countries that aren't there.. I'm pretty sure the global south doesn't really care about all the times you post about how cool and good being communist is when you don't ever practice what you preach, is what I think What exactly would a communist living in a capitalist country "practicing what he preaches" look like? It's kinda hard to redistribute wealth and nationalize businesses when you're not the government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
pinoche was a dictator but he was a relatively benign one like palpatine
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:People do talk about how much autobahns rule, like, all the time. America is full of people who love the VW Beetle even though it's honestly a lovely car even by the standards of the time. Nobody gets up in their case over it, ever. Yet you mention anything positive about the USSR and you're immediately labeled a cultist worshipping stalin at his skull throne. People talking about how great the autobahn is in the context of defending Hitler will be called cultist nazi worshipers actually. Every version of history regarding Stalin leads to the conclusion that Stalin was bad. Not just the propagandized versions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 18:40
|
|