TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Curious that Marx's truth disadvantaged him [and me] then?
The Economic Crisis: Is it the end?
- Thread starter LLETSA
- Start date
actually its the middleclass who are doing the lubing still as you all were...
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I'm not sure I understand your points.
The advantage of Karl Marx model of capitalism and his model of class struggle in history, is that it explains how human society has evolve, predicts how it will evolve to either socialism or barbarism, and informs revolutionaries actions to achieve the former rather than the latter.
Yes. The transfer of wealth over the last 20 years has been very successful.
e2a: 30, 40, 100 years...
These actions don’t seem to be working out quite as hoped. I’d suggest it’s because the pejorative meaning of barbarism is essentially contestable. A matter of marginalized arbitrary values or beliefs, like a secular version of the temperance movement.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
NO mate, coldly logical and observant of human evolutionary fact.
bar 1, hunter gatherer, Every form of society, slave society, feudalism, and capitalism etc have had groups/classes. They have had a specific set of class relationships, which are identifiable to each epoch. In every form of society, slave society, feudalism, etc, there has been a social revolution to a more productive set of class relations, or a collapse into barbarism. " the common ruin of the contending classes". Can you name of one form of society where, revolution or barbarism hasn't been the outcome?
And yes mate, these actions don't seem to be working, that's why I said quite a few post back, I thought barbarism, the common ruin of the contending classes, was the more likely possibility. Unfortunately, with the industrial magnification of human beings destructive abilities, I fear this time we may not just destroy our society, but the planet as well.
I’m not convinced that society takes on different actual forms outside the models used to describe it. Depending on one’s values, revolution is barbarism. It’s a cliché I know, but did the Chinese not regard Westerners as barbarians? Rome declined under its own political weight, but weren’t its sackings in 387, 410 and 455 at the hands of barbarians? From the perspective of some people today, Rome itself would be described as a barbaric society. Revolutions, in the meaningful sense, belong to the pre-democratic age. A significant number of citizens may not individually agree with what social institutions do, but at the same time have good reason to believe that those institutions adequately reflect the public will, at least to the extent armed insurrection is unnecessary, dangerous and democratically indefensible.ResistanceMP3 said:
Well it’s ours to destroy, I doubt you’re suggesting we’re obliged to keep the planet going for some higher purpose or being. You’ve no reason to be afraid, it’s an irrational negative emotional response, a limiting belief. Those of us who aren’t afraid, are we evil, brainwashed or stupid? No comrade, we are none of those things.ResistanceMP3 said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
with respect, your wrong! Different societies, definitely employed different tactics/class relationships, as defined by many historians from all the political spectrum. That's why they have different names, because they are different. Are you saying feudal society is the same as hunter gathering society? What's more, look at feudalism and capitalism, capitalism isn't just different, it's an advancement.
Exploitation of the land in feudalism, is basically a protection racket. All peasants have a small piece of land INDIVIDUALLY. Each year the lord comes round and says pay me so much of your crop, and I will protect you. The peasant says from whom, and the landlord replies, well from me for a start. In times of crisis, the lord needs to look after the peasants, as the Shephard looks after his sheep, or he has no means of exploiting the land.
In capitalism, the capitalis landowner exploits the land with a different set of class relationships. The landowner buys waged labour when needed, and fires it when not. These different tactic of employing labour to exploit the land allows economies of scale straight away without need for great technological advancement[1], and the capitalis relationship also allows an accumulation of 'social surplus', that feudalism could never have achieved. Accumulation that can be spent on consumption by the capitalists yes, BUT also an investment in research and development that feudalism could never have achieved. [it does a lot more to revolutionise the workings of the economy, but we'll leave it for now.]
Now there's no point trying to assess whether these changes of tactic/class relationships are good or bad, there is no moral issue. What we have is evolution, the most natural phenomena. Those tactics which make it easiest for that species to exploit its environment survive, those that can't, don't. Capitalism has made it possible for six billion people to survive on exploiting the planet's environment, and so is dominant, where as hunter gathering couldn't, and survives solely on the margins.
I've already explained my admittedly vague use of the term barbarism, was meaning " mutual destruction of the contending classes", a term borrowed from Karl Marx, what this means is the complete collapse of society to a kind of mad Max situation, a war of all against all. Can you name a society where such collapse of class society, eg rome, has led to an evolutionary advance? In fact, can you name a society where the collapse of class society hasn't led to a MASSIVE evolutionary retrograde step. Whereas political revolutions enabling SOCIAL revolutions, such as the English revolution, the French revolution, have propelled societal evolution forward at a great rate of knots.
Evolution is an eternal law. Just like nature abhors a vacuum, it abhors stasis. I can absolutely guarantee you, at some time this society capitalism will either evolve or destruct. and if you look at six billion years of evolution, there is usually some kind of revolution involved in periods of great evolutionary leap. [ Jared Diamond is the author of "Guns, Germs and Steel" and the current New York Times' best selling "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail" is a apolitica place to start. In fact i soon will be putting on my website a documentary " Guns, Germs And Steel".]
ps. before you discard something as meaningless, should we not agree upon its, revolutions, meaning?
[1] Ironically, it was the King within feudalism who was amongst the first people to exploit waged labour, on a larger land area, because it yielded higher returns. Unfortunately for him, he tended to block this kind of and for others, and acted as a fetter upon the productive potential of society in many other ways. [nature abhors stasis]
I’m can entertain any notion that pays its way. I’m certainly suspicious of the idea that history passes through discrete epochs along Marxist lines, because I can’t fathom what it actually brings to the table other than a quaint take on social justice.ResistanceMP3 said:
You say that, but the emotive and melodramatic notion of the exploitive protection racket, the idea that social collapse is evolutionarily retrograde, the idea of a war-of-all-against-all as necessarily a doomsday scenario and so on is thoroughly value laden. But tell me, what’s really at stake in all this? Some abstracted philosophical superiority or something we can take to the bank, so to speak?ResistanceMP3 said:
Admirable sentiments. What does a photograph of a contemporary revolution look like? Romania 1989?ResistanceMP3 said:
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
that's all I can ask, That You try to understand something properly, before you discard it.
we all read other people's words, through the lens of our own experience. In future, automatically subtract any hint of moralism from my words, I can assure you, none is intended. [As an aside, I would say Marxism is 'moral', but it doesn't need any moralism AT ALL.]
It is a fact, not a moralism, that throughout class history some people have exploited and some have been exploited, in the same way it is a fact human beings exploit the land. Marx argued, this exploitation has been completely necessary to social evolution. Marx along with Jared Diamond, see the development of class exploitation as the great leap forward for human society, social evolution.
There are many examples of societies which have collapsed into some kind "domesday scenario". In fact as I have said several times, every form of society that has existed as either collapsed/"domesday scenario" or evolved. Just like Darwins observation of the natural world, observation of 10,000 years of class history suggests capitalisms chances of bucking that trend are limited, Marxism explains why.
can you take Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to the bank? Human beings are distinct from the animal world, in that they can evolve as a species to exploit their environment by use of the mind and labour, rather than chance mutation. In order to exploit something, you have to understand it. I would argue Charles Darwin is probably the most important practical revolutionary of the last 200 years. He didn't just explain natural evolution, he contributed to changing the way we think about everything. Marx does for social evolution, what Darwin did for natural evolution. As Marx said, philosophers observe the world, revolutionaries change it.
the importance of a revolution, to social revolution/evolution, is debatable. As far as I understand it, whilst recognizing that the ruling class won't give up power without a fight, anarchsts believe you don't need revolution as in the Leninist model, Russia, to create a social revolution. I think it would be beneficial at this point to understand what is social revolution/evolution, it happens, before getting into the debate about revolution.
As I said, the Diamond book, is a very good apolitical starting place. You could them build on that with Chris Harman, A People's History Of The World.
PS. I will let you know when I have put that documentary online, if you want.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Christians
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Certain left-wing ideas are in the minority, such as a nationalised industrial base. Other left-wing ideas are dominant, such as comprehensive schooling, "liberal" intervention, speech policing and a bloated "public sector". Labour wants over 50% of people to have a university education. The egalitarian instincts of a government packed with "ex" communists, Troskieites and student revolutionaries are undimmed: they're just trying to achieve the same ends in a different way. This gets them labelled "right-wing", which is just what they want.
If you want to really hurt them, start praising them for their left-wing actions.
Oh, and as for the collapse of capitalism, there's been economic crises aplenty. I doubt the system will implode over a panic triggered by some dodgy mortgages stateside. It may develop, but personally I suspect it'll be business as usual in due course.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I know a lot of people have read determinism into Karl Marx's Works, such as technological determinism, but I have never understood how they have done that. There is absolutely no determinism in dialectical materialism, the future is dialectical, not determined. Hence, the choice is either socialism or barbarism.
What is a cast iron theory of decadence?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Hmm...doesn't explain why hierarchies exist nor why in mass societies they are relatively quick to reassemble in a new shell quite quickly after the 'environmental shock' a revolution gives to a society; and aside from Marx saying 'Capitalism will be the last form of hierarchy' there's no actual evidence that this is the case - cap could end and simply be replaced by another form of hierarchy - we could go back to the feudal arrangement or variation thereof, could move into one imagined by a thousand sci-fi writers from one based around normality to some genetic pattern, having your DNA altered etc. This notion that the development and change of human societies is in any way 'progressive' toward some notional concept of 'freedom' isn't one I share - there have been developments that potentially create the foundation for a freer, fairer and fishier (going for the alliteration) society, but there aren't any determinants that say it will have to go one way or another.
Hmm x 2. You're getting your terms mixed up here. As far as can be told, homo sapiens hasn't evolved as a species (i.e achieved speciation, split from itself) ever. Also, many animals use tools to exploit their local environments, and are you trying to argue that behavioural characteristics are biologically determined in some way? Quite a strange position to take for a Marxist...
Going back to the opening post’s theme, I think these questions are only meaningful to those with some kind of sympathy with the left wing tradition. It assumes the state of the left presents some kind of material dilemma. Working class people have a completely different set of goals to the ones their supposed liberators so fancifully address.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
that's the first time I have looked up the word decadence. I'd always assumed from its context usage, it meant opulent consumption of wealth etc. I didn't realise it was interchangeable with degeneration.
Determinism. People have read into Marx he's deterministic, because of what he wrote about technology. They inferred from his writing, that once a certain level of technology was developed, capitalism was inevitable. thtt once a certain level of development took place in capitalism, socialism was inevitable. There is no such simple inevitable determinism. It's quite possible capitalism may never have happened, and it's quite possible by now more efficient social systems.
However, there is an unescapable logic in evolution isn't there? Those species who best exploit their environment prosper, yes? As time has passed species have become more adept at exploiting the environment to prosper. It's pretty much the same with social evolution. We could evolve to social system capable of human need, or degenerate to a society less able to satisfy human need. Once again, I think six billion years of evolution shows stasis isn't an option. I categorical believe at some point capitalism will end, do you believe it will go on for ever and ever? An awful long time? I suppose in the end I'm saying, is not a Marxist determinism, but natural laws that say nothing lasts for ever.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
No, it's because he said that communism will inevitably follow capitalism. Of course cap will eventually change, but into what who knows?
Plus, socialism, communism, anarchism - they share one overriding similarity in that they are all products of rational thought; they are all rational societies, based around rational principles of thought and being. This is why I always find the notion that cap is 'unnatural' funny - capitalism has evolved from previous models of hierarchical socials systems, the great thing about communism etc (at least on a massive society, non-scarcity scale - the primitive forms of anarchism/communism you see in small groups is a very, very different beast to the kind that would be required to inform the self-governance of a society of billions) is that they are all conscious efforts to remove humans social affairs from the unthinking competitive model we live in now.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Excellent post. I've said many times that I believe capitalism will evolve into something else, and I don't pretend to know what it is. What I'm against is applying a pre-planned economic system on the world, by whatever means. Or for that matter, imposing any system planned in the abstract, however "rational" it may be. You'd have thought that people would have learned from the Cult of Reason ...
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I didn't say human beings have evolved genetically, evolving genetically would be as I said evolving by "chance mutation". I was counter posing to chance mutation/genetic evolution, to social evolution. That is that we have evolved the way we exploit the environment to satisfy our needs, by applying our minds and our labour to the task, and evolving the various social structures we employ. In short, society has evolved, not human genetics.
However social evolution is still locked into natural evolution, because we are still part of our environment, as our destruction of the show's. Even though human beings may have not evolved genetically, they are still in the evolutionary process, the struggle with nature, the orgin of species.
you actually repeating a lot of what I have said above.
My starting point, that carousel challenged, was the choice that faces humanity is either socialism or barbarism, " some kind of mad Max situation". So yes, capitalism could regresse.
And yes, there is no moralism involved, no notion of a progressiveness, NEEDED. It is purely a question of logic, what is the best way the species, human beings, can best exploit their environment. As both Marx and Diamond explained, "the birth of inequality" was absolutely necessary for humans to better exploit their environment. That's not very progressive,,,, is it?
The problem is now, it is those very features which liberated humans from hunter gathering, that now chain human beings to environmental destruction and the economic depression. To bring the thread full circle, it is because society production is based upon that the tiny minorities 'need' for profit, rather than the vast majorities need for a symbiotic relationship with our environment, that we face economic depression and environmental destruction. So unless your science fiction writers square that circle, to some form of classless society that basis human production on human need, they don't have a solution.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
yup
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
way to go creating a marxist version of social darwinism, RMP3
nope, in social Darwinism we are genetically driven. I'm arguing that we have an intellectual choice, socialism or barbarism.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Or neither
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
for me anarchism and communism are the same thing. Am willing to learn, if somebody can teach me the difference.
I shouldn't have really used the term socialism, but haven't bothered changing it yet, because nobody is challenged it. Just didn't want to muddy the waters with Carousel.
I don't think he's very useful to talk about it being unnatural capitalism. I suppose it's strictly true, when 90% of human existence has been within the " primitive communism", and it now being of fetter on human development.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
how is stasis possible?
I've just admitted, I shouldn't have used the term socialism, but that wasn't for any nefarious reasons, just being practical, horses for courses etc.
What about or if we use the term "anarchism/communism or barbarism"
Similar threads
