|
Looks like Marxism died.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
ded posted:Looks like Marxism died. The discussion of it did, until you brought back to life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
A spectre is haunting D&D - the spectre of communism chat. While this is here though, any good socialist analysis of Greece, Syriza and their elections? As I've been saying in other threads I think Syriza are in for a really rough time but I'd like to know more about how well they're retaining their links to the people rather than becoming a ruling party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Has anyone else read Main Currents of Marxism? In it Kolakowski makes the contention that the keystone factor of a Communist mode of production in Marx's eyes would be the abolition of the division of labor, not private property. He points out that private property, in Marx's view, is only a consequence of the former rather than the proximate cause of the proletariat's immiseration and that most Marxists and Anti-Marxists have gotten this wrong throughout the various movements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
TheIneff posted:Has anyone else read Main Currents of Marxism? In it Kolakowski makes the contention that the keystone factor of a Communist mode of production in Marx's eyes would be the abolition of the division of labor, not private property. He points out that private property, in Marx's view, is only a consequence of the former rather than the proximate cause of the proletariat's immiseration and that most Marxists and Anti-Marxists have gotten this wrong throughout the various movements. Counterpoint: You can't get rid of division of labor and live at a state beyond the stone age, and not even really the stone age, honestly. Can you elaborate a bit more because that sounds whacky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Maybe they're talking about division of labor in the sense of "most people do all of the work so a few don't need to do any" and not "people have different jobs" but yeah I'm p.  over here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:55
|
|
Also, on the other hand:The Communist Manifesto posted:In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. TheIneff posted:Has anyone else read Main Currents of Marxism? In it Kolakowski makes the contention that the keystone factor of a Communist mode of production in Marx's eyes would be the abolition of the division of labor, not private property. He points out that private property, in Marx's view, is only a consequence of the former rather than the proximate cause of the proletariat's immiseration and that most Marxists and Anti-Marxists have gotten this wrong throughout the various movements. This is a classic example of someone just playing academic games by trying to seem original by a slight change of emphasis. To say that the physical system of social relations creates the ideology of social relations (e.g. bourgeois concept of private property) is such basic Marxism that only a real idiot didn't get that on day 1 of reading Marx. If you want to find someone who really hates the division of labour, ask Adam Smith. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
This thread has shown that way-too-common phenomenon, people angrily denouncing Marx's unrealistic views of capitalism that are actually Adam Smith's (and completely realistic).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
He has a summary on Marx's intellectual antecedents and the most salient aspects of "Marxism" which, in his reading, has the chain of causation flow as division of labor -> alienated labor-> existence of private property. Chapter IX: Recapitulation "3. Alienated labour is a consequence of the division of labour which in its turn is due to technological progress, and is therefore an inevitable feature of history. Marx agrees with Hegel against Feuerbach in seeing alienation not merely as something destructive and inhuman but as a condition of the future-all-round development of mankind. But he dissents from Hegel in regarding history up to the present time not as the progressive conquest of freedom but as a process of degradation that has reach its nadir in the maturity of capitalist society. However, it is necessary for man's future liberation that he should undergo the extremes of affliction and dehumanization, since we are not concerned with regaining a lost paradise, but with the re-conquest of humanity. 4. Alienation means the subjugation of man by his own works, which have assume the guise of independent things. The commodity character of products and their expression in money form (cf. Hess) as the effect that the social process of exchange is regulated by factors operating independently of human will, after the fashion of natural laws. Alienation gives rise to private property and to political institutions. The state creates a fictitious community to replace the lack of real community in civil society, where human relations inevitably take the form of a conflict of egoisms. The enslavement of the collectivity to its own products entails the mutual isolation of individuals." and yeah I mean this isn't even necessarily all that inconsistent with my own understanding of how Marx would envision a Communist world as one where a man could fish in the morning, write poetry in the evening and bake a cake or whatever at night without in turn being a fisher, poet or baker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
I think the arguments are subtly misstated, but I might have to summon up a bit of  to put it right without being glib.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think the arguments are subtly misstated, but I might have to summon up a bit of Do it please, I'm a dumb person who's easily misled!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:28
|
|
TheIneff posted:Do it please, I'm a dumb person who's easily misled! Well the obvious first point to make which is immediately connected to the argument you've quoted is: Estranged Labour posted:True, it is as a result of the movement of private property that we have obtained the concept of alienated labor (of alienated life) in political economy. But on analysis of this concept it becomes clear that though private property appears to be the reason, the cause of alienated labor, it is rather its consequence, just as the gods are originally not the cause but the effect of man’s intellectual confusion. Later this relationship becomes reciprocal. Which is already a slightly more refined argument than Kolakowski's, even if it's not contradictory. To talk about how there is no abolition of private property is pointless. The point he is making is that if you, like Proudhon, become obsessed with this feature in isolation, you will make a mistake, because private property is a realization of alienation, and they are mutually supporting one another. The abolition of the one necessitates the abolition of the other, though alienation is causative. But that's 'private property' by Marx's definition, obviously. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This thread has shown that way-too-common phenomenon, people angrily denouncing Marx's unrealistic views of capitalism that are actually Adam Smith's (and completely realistic). Aside: Adam Smith is just as [ir]relevant as Marx.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:23
|
|
asdf32 posted:Aside: Adam Smith is just as [ir]relevant as Marx. That is to say, not irrelevant at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That is to say, not irrelevant at all. This has been covered before. In the sense that we'd treat them as authority figure in a modern economic context - no, absolutely not relevant. As historical figures, yes. There is a big difference. Freud, Darwin, Aristotle etc are all great historical figures. But you should be laughed out of the room if you're reading Freud verbatim and suggesting it should be applied in a modern psychology context. Likewise to Marx (or Adam Smith) in a modern economic context. Also literally no one invokes Adam Smith to defend capitalism or pretends that citing him would be a way to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:08
|
|
asdf32 posted:Also literally no one invokes Adam Smith to defend capitalism or pretends that citing him would be a way to do that. Meet your new friends. That think tank has been extremely influential in British conservative policy and uses Adam Smith directly in its free market rhetoric all the time. This rhetorical battle has also been transacted at the academic level, amongst historians of political ideas, some of whom have tried to recuperate Smith a more altruistic figure (largely unsuccessfully). So, this invocation actually happens all the time - just maybe not in your experience. Marx is also not just a figure in economics. Marx is probably the most indispensible figure in the modern social sciences. He is a direct touching point still for a lot of people, not merely a historical figure whose work has been built upon by others. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Aside: Adam Smith is just as [ir]relevant as Marx. Completely agreed and thank you for demonstrating the depth of your knowledge yet again. quote:Freud, Darwin, Aristotle etc are all great historical figures. But you should be laughed out of the room if you're reading Freud verbatim and suggesting it should be applied in a modern psychology context. Likewise to Marx (or Adam Smith) in a modern economic context. Because 'relevant' and 'you can read them verbatim and they still apply' are the same thing. quote:Also literally no one invokes Adam Smith to defend capitalism or pretends that citing him would be a way to do that. Which is probably because Adam Smith wasn't really interested in defending capitalism, but more about analyzing it. Have you read him? Edit: But yes he still gets invoked and cited all the time, both by idiots just using the name and serious scholars. Likewise, anytime someone cites the principle of parsimony in the biological world, they're invoking Aristotle. That part, by the way, you could actually read verbatim and still apply: "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses." Freud also gets quoted all the time. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Freud is still quoted in psychoanalytical theory contexts;
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:15
|
|
Fados posted:Freud is still quoted in psychoanalytical theory contexts; Also this. Like, just because it's not just Freud anymore, doesn't mean 'lol nobody in modern psychoanalysis is a Freudian anymore'. Obviously no one historical person has ever written the entirely definitive text on a subject to last for all times.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This has been covered before. In the sense that we'd treat them as authority figure in a modern economic context - no, absolutely not relevant. As historical figures, yes. There is a big difference. Money and wage labour are still the same thing they always were, private property is still the same thing it always was, financial wealth still has the same relationship to political power it always did. Nothing in the time since his death has changed in such a way as to invalidate Marx, either his work alone or it's descendants. Claiming Marx is outdated is like trying to claim a brick is. Surprise, rear end in a top hat, you still live in a house. asdf32 posted:Also literally no one invokes Adam Smith to defend capitalism or pretends that citing him would be a way to do that. People do this all the time. I get the feeling you're not good at whatever it is you think you're trying to do. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also this. Like, just because it's not just Freud anymore, doesn't mean 'lol nobody in modern psychoanalysis is a Freudian anymore'. Obviously no one historical person has ever written the entirely definitive text on a subject to last for all times. Lacan's project in the 60's was based on the premise of 'returning to Freud"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
In modern psychology, Freud is quite irrelevant to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Completely agreed and thank you for demonstrating the depth of your knowledge yet again. Right and the part of my post you left out is what directly addressed the fact that there a difference between "this person is an important historical figure" and "we should do what this person says today". Although perhaps sometimes subtle, it's not rocket science to differentiate between the two. And "person x still gets quoted" doesn't mean the latter if the quotes are deliberately trying to invoke a historical context. quote:Which is probably because Adam Smith wasn't really interested in defending capitalism, but more about analyzing it. Have you read him? Ok clarification: anyone who invokes Adam Smith in a non-historical appeal to authority is an idiot who should be laughed out of the room.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:27
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok clarification: anyone who invokes Adam Smith in a non-historical appeal to authority is an idiot who should be laughed out of the room. That has nothing to do with the question of relevance, as there could be a lot of these idiots (hint: there are).
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That has nothing to do with the question of relevance, as there could be a lot of these idiots (hint: there are). They're idiots because he's irrelevant [in a contemporary "what should we do now" context like frued it irrelevant in a "how should we treat this patient" context].
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Money and wage labour are still the same thing they always were, private property is still the same thing it always was, financial wealth still has the same relationship to political power it always did. Nothing in the time since his death has changed in such a way as to invalidate Marx, either his work alone or it's descendants. Claiming Marx is outdated is like trying to claim a brick is. Surprise, rear end in a top hat, you still live in a house. Heh, yes actually lots of really important things have changed in 150 years of economic history. A few off the top of my head: -Public corporations (existed, not widespread) -Middle class (same) -Survival/growth of democratic capitalism -Rise and collapse of various Marxist states -Sophisticated state regulation -Data Like I've said before, in all honesty if you think Marx wouldn't witness these things and not change his opinions at all you think less of him than I do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Right and the part of my post you left out is what directly addressed the fact that there a difference between "this person is an important historical figure" and "we should do what this person says today". "Relevant" does not mean 'we should do what this person says.' quote:Although perhaps sometimes subtle, it's not rocket science to differentiate between the two. And "person x still gets quoted" doesn't mean the latter if the quotes are deliberately trying to invoke a historical context. They're not. They all get straight-up quoted for the things they were talking about. I'm sorry, man, this is really just your ignorance here. quote:Ok clarification: anyone who invokes Adam Smith in a non-historical appeal to authority is an idiot who should be laughed out of the room. Completely and utterly false. Adam Smith observed a lot of the basic elements and truths of capitalism and his observations of them are as relevant as they ever were. Again, this is just your ignorance talking. I have no idea why you think he's been so totally superceded. Can you explain? How is: quote:The quantity of every commodity which human industry can either purchase or produce naturally regulates itself in every country according to the effectual demand, or according to the demand of those who are willing to pay the whole rent, labour, and profits which must be paid in order to prepare and bring it to market. As a generalization, not true? How is that laughable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:They're idiots because he's irrelevant [in a contemporary "what should we do now" context like frued it irrelevant in a "how should we treat this patient" context]. Marx was not just an economist, he came from an Hegelian school of philosophy and applied a lot of that in his work. He can be said to be the father of critique of ideology and a lot of his insights such as market fetishism are still very much appreciated in fields such as cultural studies or critical theory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh, yes actually lots of really important things have changed in 150 years of economic history. A few off the top of my head: You are wrong, and these are particularly wrong. Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie continuing to exist, and the petite-bourgeoisie getting a bit bigger aren't going to make Marx's beard pop off in shock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
What about the asiatic mode of production. Has history provided any additional insights there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 23:03
|
|
asdf32 posted:What about the asiatic mode of production. Has history provided any additional insights there? Assuming this is intended as a joke. It's pretty discredited, but then again Marx wasn't working with a lot of information. His understanding of Western medieval history was pretty bad too - inescapably so given how bad the standard of professional history was at that time comparatively.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What about the asiatic mode of production. Has history provided any additional insights there? Just as a hint, 'relevant' doesn't mean 'everything they ever wrote is relevant' either. Seriously, dude, look back at what I posted from Adam Smith. You will find that, or the equivalent, in every econ 101 textbook.. How is that not Adam Smith being relevant?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Just as a hint, 'relevant' doesn't mean 'everything they ever wrote is relevant' either. Adam Smith is quoted multiple times in the introduction of my old macro econ textbook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Adam Smith is quoted multiple times in the introduction of my old macro econ textbook. Same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What about the asiatic mode of production. Has history provided any additional insights there? The Class Structure of Pakistan makes the case that "Asiatic mode of production" is a better descriptor of production relations in South Asia than is "feudalism." JacobinMag posted:Q: How did the mode of production in pre-colonial South Asia differ from European feudalism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
History, data and academic consensus mean nothing to Marxists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:History, data and academic consensus mean nothing to Marxists. Okay. You've been presented with plenty of evidence that Adam Smith is still taught, directly, in econ class. You made a really silly claim, that Smith wasn't 'relevant', which really showed your ignorance of the academic area. Yet instead of accepting you were wrong and thinking about, like, why and how you were so wrong, you're doubling-down with sheer bluster. Doesn't this eventually get embarrassing? Edit: Also talking about "Marxists".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:31
|
|
asdf32 posted:History, data and academic consensus mean nothing to Marxists. Let's break this down. quote:History Just one drat thing after another. quote:data Didn't you get the memo? You've gotta put "big" in front of data now, although capitalizing is still optional. quote:and Not sure what this means. Seems to be a conjunction of some kind. quote:academic Academia, my boy, is an ivory tower. quote:consensus Collectivist nonsense. quote:mean Rude. quote:nothing This needs a bit more context. Perhaps a verb of some kind, and a way to tell if it's the subject or the object? quote:to Prepositions. Good. quote:Marxists. Well, that's the first thing you've said I can agree with. "Marxists". Classic.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:History, data and academic consensus mean nothing to Marxists. This is my favorite asdf32 quote, though it only works in the context of the tens of thousands of words (and countless more in documents) spent in good-faith efforts to explain the above to an ideologue constitutionally incapable of intellectual honesty. Out of context, it loses some of its punch. You had to have been there, I guess. (For those who were not there: Spare yourselves a headache and just ignore these outbursts.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. You've been presented with plenty of evidence that Adam Smith is still taught, directly, in econ class. You made a really silly claim, that Smith wasn't 'relevant', which really showed your ignorance of the academic area. Yet instead of accepting you were wrong and thinking about, like, why and how you were so wrong, you're doubling-down with sheer bluster. What's bluster? Which one of those things matters to Marxists?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:08
|
|