Historical context of Marxism - Page 19 - Historum

**Solidaire** · October 18th, 2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosicrucian

Not all of them, but many of them. Those that started businesses. There are so many variables involved in success -- it's not just "toil". There's vision, imagination, commitment, sacrifices, and of course long hours. For every business that makes it there are 9 or 10 that fail, I read somewhere. So yes, there's a lot of heartbreak involved in it too. Those who start a business, who stand at the starting line of a generation, seldom have anything handed to them on a platter. You have to give it to those who stick their neck out; they take the risks, they reap the rewards. It's also only natural that their successive generations often continue to reap the benefits.

They do not all lie, cheat, and exploit their way to riches. There are many ways to get rich now, unlike during the days of Marx and Engels, when it was perhaps justified to equate the rich with exploitation, and the poor with the exploited.

A man starts a small business taking out a loan from a bank, he endures whatever hardships come his way, he syncs himself with the economy, grows with it, employs people, maybe one day the company is big enough to be listed on a stock exchange, he makes a killing in a bull market, ends up a really rich man. What exactly in this process did he do wrong, or that which he should apologise for? Is not giving people employment a contribution to society? Some of these businesses fund charities, academic institutes, art galleries, sports teams, etc. (Incidentally, the patronage of the super-rich families of the American East Coast was responsible for the rise of institutes such as the Princeton and the Harvard, and eventually for the shift of centre in the world of science from Europe to America. I read that in A Beautiful Mind.) Bill Gates is going to give away most of his billions, that should make up for a lot of millionaires who never gave a penny away.

Besides, there are actors, writers, sports persons, who go on to be mega rich. Ideas related to technology, such as the internet, have spawned millionaires. Would you say those people exploited someone too? Would you not say they worked harder than the others who were content with a semi-decent wage? Did they not contribute to the society? On paper these opportunities are available to everyone now unlike a century or two ago when Marx was tweaking his theory. So not all riches are a product of exploitation, and hence to vilify the rich is no more appropriate.

Of course, Rosi, not every apple is a rotten one. I didn't mean that. I am self-employed myself (though hardly a millionaire

) and I know first hand how difficult it is to run your own business. People outside this sector cannot even begin to suspect the hard work it requires.
But, Showbiz aside (and I include sports there too), where rewards are excessive in my opinion, there are many who haven't lifted a finger for their good fortune. And others who did step on people to get to the top.
And technically speaking, everyone employing people is exploiting them (a basic concept of Marxism). I have one employee in my business; fortunately, I am spared of any consciousness clashes, since that person is my wife.

But this is not my point. I don't care to judge people and deem who is entitled to wealth and who is not. I care to judge excessive wealth itself. And say that it is meaningless, unethical and actually harmful.

Meaningless, because, as I said, there is a limit to how much happiness money can buy; beyond a certain point it can even become a burden, in trying to maintain and enlarge it. When it becomes an end in itself, to become richer just for the sake of it, it borders on perversion. It certainly is a deviation from the universally acknowledged human needs.

Unethical, because it's a shame to have people so stinkingly rich that they are unable to spend their money, even if they wanted to, while nearly 1 billion people worldwide starve.

And harmful, because money begets power, excessive money begets excessive power. Concentration of power in a few hands is a danger to democracy.

Putting a cap, or redistributing excessive wealth through extreme taxation, would not hamper ambition or creativity; the goal of a better, even luxurious life will always be there and waiting to be reached.
What it would do would be a reversal of capitalism to a more primitive stage. An ideology, or a system, if applied to its extremes can lead to nightmares. Capitalism has taken that road. The middle class is dying all over the Western world. Corporations rule supreme. I believe the American dream is dead; hardly any opportunities left for a small fish to survive in an ocean dominated by sharks. Earlier, Beetle mentioned something very important: The abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act. I have read other Americans posting the same thing, and I suspect that this action had a huge impact on our present worldwide financial predicament.

Admittedly, the essence of capitalism is the financial growth through the investment of amassed capital; I am not sure if it requires this capital to be colossal, or concentrated in a few hands. I believe smaller, but far more dispersed capitals, with a much wider base of owners, would produce the same economical growth. (It sure would produce a more qualitative one, and a far better society). Capitalism doesn't have to expand through its peaks necessarily, but through the widening of its base, also. But if that's not the case, if indeed capitalism requires the gigantification of capital, then in a few years we will all be praying for less of it.

In the recent financial crisis, the sales of 'Das Kapital' in Europe sky-rocketed. On the other hand, fascism is on the rise too (take a look at Hungary). Extreme situations push people to extreme reactions. I read today in the newspaper that 43 million people in EU and 49 million in USA are struggling to ensure adequate nourishment.
Meanwhile, all EU governments are promoting social cuts and austerity measures, trying to cope with a crisis that the banking capital created. The big capital has become untouchable; the new holy bishops of our system -- too sacred to be judged, too strong to be restrained. No one puts a finger on their earnings, not even now in these times of need. Their profitability continues, despite the crisis, and as far as banks are concerned, after being rescued by the governments -- via taxpayer's money. Governments now need money, but they are squeezing it from the common people, further deepening the social disparity, exactly the opposite from what I have earlier proposed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosicrucian

The crux of my argument is there are plenty more variables at play today than there were in mid-19th century, hence a wider appreciation of the problem of distribution of wealth is required. When Marx and Engels took up cudgels against capitalism they did not have today's multi-hued picture in front of them. What they saw, experienced, and rebelled against was rather black and white. Capitalism probably had few redeeming aspects to it back then, but it has evolved into something quite complex now and along the way has bettered lives of millions of ordinary folks around the world, something the two German thinkers would have believed to be impossible. And then on the other hand we have the ideology of Communism itself as it actually played out, the mutation of which they couldn't have seen either.

The cudgel became chisel; not to necessarily break, but to smooth.
Without the anchor of Marxism, Capitalism will wander off and drown (us) in its excesses. And then, another revolution will be due.

Ovidius · October 18th, 2010, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosicrucian

The crux of my argument is there are plenty more variables at play today than there were in mid-19th century, hence a wider appreciation of the problem of distribution of wealth is required. When Marx and Engels took up cudgels against capitalism they did not have today's multi-hued picture in front of them. What they saw, experienced, and rebelled against was rather black and white. Capitalism probably had few redeeming aspects to it back then, but it has evolved into something quite complex now and along the way has bettered lives of millions of ordinary folks around the world, something the two German thinkers would have believed to be impossible. And then on the other hand we have the ideology of Communism itself as it actually played out, the mutation of which they couldn't have seen either.

"If the second or third million was redistributed, it would mean a lesser number in an account book for one, but a life giving amount for many."

I absolutely agree.

Actually, this is untrue. Marx was pretty correct in his assertions on the development of Captialism. They were never rebelling against the structure of Capitalism, they were merely questioning the future. Their supposition was the impact of capitalism on the people of Britian and France would ignite into something quite severe.

the deviations from the theory are irrelevant and would have been to Marx, although perhaps not Engels. The derailment was inevitable in nations like Russia, where Marx's theories were counter to the theories of the Socialists of the day.

Anyhow, the true derailment of Marx is the Welfare state. Marx would have told you that the Bourgoisie, was going to get bigger and that a large amount of people were going to gain dominance. The true failing of Marxism is a lack of understanding of the ability of the Rich to keep people moderate. The fear of extremism, change and disruption has powered the masses to keep in check. Obviously, this was influenced by Fascism and Eastern European Communism, but I think the growth in the power of the Media, the increased comfort of society etc, these are things that mean that the importance of mass economic situation has all but evaporated.

As for rebelling against Black and white, I feel that you should understand the complexity of 19th Century Capitalism before you make such a sweeping judgement! It really wasn't much different! Speculators and Spivs were all too present in that period. The difference in 19th Century was you may not be able to afford to eat, in the 21st Century you just lose your house.

As for wealth distribution, its meaningless. Inflation would just make us all poorer.

Beetle, Just a quick question: Are you actually anti-Marx or is it just that you haven't actually read any of his work?

**Rosi** · October 21st, 2010, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ovidius

Actually, this is untrue. Marx was pretty correct in his assertions on the development of Captialism. They were never rebelling against the structure of Capitalism, they were merely questioning the future. Their supposition was the impact of capitalism on the people of Britian and France would ignite into something quite severe.

the deviations from the theory are irrelevant and would have been to Marx, although perhaps not Engels. The derailment was inevitable in nations like Russia, where Marx's theories were counter to the theories of the Socialists of the day.

Anyhow, the true derailment of Marx is the Welfare state. Marx would have told you that the Bourgoisie, was going to get bigger and that a large amount of people were going to gain dominance. The true failing of Marxism is a lack of understanding of the ability of the Rich to keep people moderate. The fear of extremism, change and disruption has powered the masses to keep in check. Obviously, this was influenced by Fascism and Eastern European Communism, but I think the growth in the power of the Media, the increased comfort of society etc, these are things that mean that the importance of mass economic situation has all but evaporated.

As for rebelling against Black and white, I feel that you should understand the complexity of 19th Century Capitalism before you make such a sweeping judgement! It really wasn't much different! Speculators and Spivs were all too present in that period. The difference in 19th Century was you may not be able to afford to eat, in the 21st Century you just lose your house.

Thanks for your interest, Ovidius.

As regards Marxism, the only work I've read is the Manifesto, which does make the state and the bourgeoisie look evil and the workers the ultimate sufferers. That does look black and white to me. You have a point though, I perhaps do not understand the complexity of the 19th century capitalism; I haven't read anything about it.

**Rosi** · October 21st, 2010, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solidaire

Of course, Rosi, not every apple is a rotten one. I didn't mean that. I am self-employed myself (though hardly a millionaire

) and I know first hand how difficult it is to run your own business. People outside this sector cannot even begin to suspect the hard work it requires.
But, Showbiz aside (and I include sports there too), where rewards are excessive in my opinion, there are many who haven't lifted a finger for their good fortune. And others who did step on people to get to the top.
And technically speaking, everyone employing people is exploiting them (a basic concept of Marxism). I have one employee in my business; fortunately, I am spared of any consciousness clashes, since that person is my wife.

But this is not my point. I don't care to judge people and deem who is entitled to wealth and who is not. I care to judge excessive wealth itself. And say that it is meaningless, unethical and actually harmful.

Meaningless, because, as I said, there is a limit to how much happiness money can buy; beyond a certain point it can even become a burden, in trying to maintain and enlarge it. When it becomes an end in itself, to become richer just for the sake of it, it borders on perversion. It certainly is a deviation from the universally acknowledged human needs.

Unethical, because it's a shame to have people so stinkingly rich that they are unable to spend their money, even if they wanted to, while nearly 1 billion people worldwide starve.

And harmful, because money begets power, excessive money begets excessive power. Concentration of power in a few hands is a danger to democracy.

Putting a cap, or redistributing excessive wealth through extreme taxation, would not hamper ambition or creativity; the goal of a better, even luxurious life will always be there and waiting to be reached.
What it would do would be a reversal of capitalism to a more primitive stage. An ideology, or a system, if applied to its extremes can lead to nightmares. Capitalism has taken that road. The middle class is dying all over the Western world. Corporations rule supreme. I believe the American dream is dead; hardly any opportunities left for a small fish to survive in an ocean dominated by sharks. Earlier, Beetle mentioned something very important: The abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act. I have read other Americans posting the same thing, and I suspect that this action had a huge impact on our present worldwide financial predicament.

Admittedly, the essence of capitalism is the financial growth through the investment of amassed capital; I am not sure if it requires this capital to be colossal, or concentrated in a few hands. I believe smaller, but far more dispersed capitals, with a much wider base of owners, would produce the same economical growth. (It sure would produce a more qualitative one, and a far better society). Capitalism doesn't have to expand through its peaks necessarily, but through the widening of its base, also. But if that's not the case, if indeed capitalism requires the gigantification of capital, then in a few years we will all be praying for less of it.

In the recent financial crisis, the sales of 'Das Kapital' in Europe sky-rocketed. On the other hand, fascism is on the rise too (take a look at Hungary). Extreme situations push people to extreme reactions. I read today in the newspaper that 43 million people in EU and 49 million in USA are struggling to ensure adequate nourishment.
Meanwhile, all EU governments are promoting social cuts and austerity measures, trying to cope with a crisis that the banking capital created. The big capital has become untouchable; the new holy bishops of our system -- too sacred to be judged, too strong to be restrained. No one puts a finger on their earnings, not even now in these times of need. Their profitability continues, despite the crisis, and as far as banks are concerned, after being rescued by the governments -- via taxpayer's money. Governments now need money, but they are squeezing it from the common people, further deepening the social disparity, exactly the opposite from what I have earlier proposed.

The cudgel became chisel; not to necessarily break, but to smooth.
Without the anchor of Marxism, Capitalism will wander off and drown (us) in its excesses. And then, another revolution will be due.

Well, when you put it that way it's hard to disagree. I accept your arguments; however, I remain unsure if putting a cap on earnings is a good idea. If you make billions and give away billions then you would not think capitalism is excessive. Problem is people do not routinely give their "excesses" away. The excess is not a problem, what you do with it is a problem. Hence to blame it all on the system would be too simplistic. Besides, a cap could have untoward effects if you think the whole thing through. Not everyone is good at making money. So let those who have a knack for it make whatever they can and then put in a system in place that encourages that money to go to those who need it the most. If the state started caring for everyone in a way that made sure they all got enough money, and discouraged them from earning beyond a certain amount, chances are it might produce a populace not very conducive to risk-taking which could be detrimental to certain types of achievements.

**beetle** · October 21st, 2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solidaire

I am glad you agree on free higher education. This is a crucial element of my program.

Perhaps this coalition government of ours could work after all.

Regarding health care, I have to ask what do you consider as basic one.

I would consider a basic health care which should be provided by government to needy families is regular and proper dental maintenance for their children. I selected that for an example as an attempt to show how complex the matter of providing health care is. To go farther into the matter I'd have to see what our state medicaid and federal medicare programs currently cover (but I really don't have the time to do that.)

Government providing universal health care to everyone which is comprehensive in regard to all medical needs sounds great to me. I'm for it. But is it realistic? Technological specialization, aging populations, and expensive pharmaceutical medications make the matter even more complex. And attempts to control health care costs carry the risk of creating shortages (together with long, waiting lists.)

What I'm trying to say is that it's one thing to call for governments to provide a comprehensive, universal coverage, but it's quite another thing when one considers the complexity of the matter. It is not at all as simple as it sounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solidaire

Most of the banks here were public in the past. A couple of them still are. They are doing OK. People trust them more, because they are less of a vulture than private ones. I don't know why major national banks were privatised. But all of them are like ants compared to the great international banks (especially US ones). My post had exactly those banks, like Goldman Sacks in mind. Those are that really matter.

In the US we've got a few giant banking conglomerates and 1000s and 1000s of small, private banks. I previously said "off the top of my head" I couldn't think of a reason why the state couldn't take over banking. On second thought, it risks creating one gigantic banking monopoly. Monopolies tend to create a host of problems.

In regard to "international banks (especially US ones)", I agree with you. The majority of US citizens are furious about the federal bailout of the big banks. And get this - now that the big banks have been saved, they are refusing to loan out their capital. Instead, they are using it to purchase treasury notes and high-yielding, high-risk corporate bonds, otherwise known as "junk bonds." It is infuriating.

I'd like to mention one thing. Whenever there is a discussion about capitalism, etc., Canada is never mentioned. Canada has weathered the international financial crisis in very good shape. The country has six large banks, but these banks have a higher degree of regulation. Canada also has much tighter regulation in regard to mortgage lending, a big reason why the country has weathered the storm (the whole crisis started with a housing bubble in the US.)

**beetle** · October 21st, 2010, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iolo

Beetle - I just discovered this:

'You must mean "synthesizing" Hegel, Feuerbach, Proudhon, and a few tidbits from some Brits. What you might call a synthesis others might call a mismatched hodge-podge. Also, throughout your entire post you have ignored Engels' significant contribution to Marxist philosophy.'

This is the sort of stuff that makes serious discussion of Marx entirely impossible unfortunately. It is like discussing science with hillbilly fundamentalists, eager to score off the modern world. You are in favour of capitalism, I gather. Oh, good!

Heh. Iolo, you are a hoot. What makes serious discussion of Marx (and Engels) impossible are persons who refuse to do it. In my post I requested that you provide a few examples and I asked you some questions. You completely ducked that.

I thought you would at least object to the phrase "a few tidbits from some Brits." I included that phrase on purpose because it's roadkill for anyone to drive a truck over. But you can't even do that.

Instead you present your subjective opinion, and if someone disagrees, instead of addressing their argument, you resort to accusation and name-calling. Not very sporting of you, old sport.

**beetle** · October 21st, 2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ovidius

Beetle, Just a quick question: Are you actually anti-Marx or is it just that you haven't actually read any of his work?

What sets me in disagreement with Marx is that I have read many of his and Engels works. And whenever a modern marxist or marxian tries to re-interpret what they wrote, or tries to soften Marx's call for violent revolution, or tries to say Marx and Engels did not object to the "structure of capitalism" but were only talking about "future problems", well, I merely refer persons to read what Marx and Engels themselves wrote.

Would you mind telling more about the commune where you work? Way, way back early in the thread I mentioned the Kibbutzes in Israel which were successful for a very long time. But none of the marxists or non-marxist socialists made any response to that. Makes me wonder why. The common goal is a better society, isn't it? I mentioned the Kibbutzes as one example of a place where people had apparently created such a society at least in their local communities. And no one took that up. (???)

Ovidius · October 22nd, 2010, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beetle

What sets me in disagreement with Marx is that I have read many of his and Engels works. And whenever a modern marxist or marxian tries to re-interpret what they wrote, or tries to soften Marx's call for violent revolution, or tries to say Marx and Engels did not object to the "structure of capitalism" but were only talking about "future problems", well, I merely refer persons to read what Marx and Engels themselves wrote.

Would you mind telling more about the commune where you work? Way, way back early in the thread I mentioned the Kibbutzes in Israel which were successful for a very long time. But none of the marxists or non-marxist socialists made any response to that. Makes me wonder why. The common goal is a better society, isn't it? I mentioned the Kibbutzes as one example of a place where people had apparently created such a society at least in their local communities. And no one took that up. (???)

I don't work in a Commune, I work for a Worker Cooperative. So a Capitalist Business that is owned by the Workers who work for it. So all Profits of the business are shared by the Workers and the Workers have input on the direction of the business - including having a majority on the Board of Directors. (We have 5 Worker Directors and 4 Executive Directors). As for a Business, we have exceptionally high worker retention and employee happiness rates. We also have a significant amount of passion from the people that work for us. Everyone is not only looking at getting their salary, they are also looking to their future and the development of the business. As a Socialist, as apposed to a Marxist, it is this sort of environment that I support.

I don't understand why Marx's call and belief in the inevitable changing of the guard through violent revolution is so hard to grasp? The reason why I questioned your particular discussion is that connecting Marx to "Communism" is, in my opinion, rather unfair to the text and context of Marx work. Russia is the most poignant example, for which Marx very specifically said that his work was not applicable to the situation in Russia and probably never would be. His letters to Vera Zasulich are pretty clear in this. In addition to this, the work Marx was working on for Russia was allegedly destroyed by Engels, on request by Lenin. So I'd actually suggest that Communism is a derailment and Anti-Marx situation, not the personification of Marx in action.

My main disagreement with his work is actually his inability to understand the British mentality. From since the Revolution and Glorius Revolution the mentality of the British people was a lot different to what Marx suggests. As he was not British, I don't believe he could ever understand the ability of British people to complain until they are blue in the face, but never actually act!

Ovidius · October 22nd, 2010, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosicrucian

Thanks for your interest, Ovidius.

As regards Marxism, the only work I've read is the Manifesto, which does make the state and the bourgeoisie look evil and the workers the ultimate sufferers. That does look black and white to me. You have a point though, I perhaps do not understand the complexity of the 19th century capitalism; I haven't read anything about it.

The Manifesto is really not the best place to start. It is not different to other texts of that type - a propaganda document.

Depending on your level of Comprehension (ie, how old you are!) I'd suggest reading some of the more significant works by Marx.

In terms of Historical Context try starting with his Brumaire - its fairly short and easy to read. Other Historians to look out for, Hobsbawn has been mentioned but realistically. E.P Thompson is the Starting point for the British Marxist Historical movement. But my absolute favourite, is George Rude. He really pioneered History from below. That should give an understanding of the impact of Marx on Historical studies. Which is really the best place to start to understand Marx!

This will not give you an understanding of the questions you ask, perhaps, but will give you an understanding of the meaning! It may also give you an idea why you are asking the wrong questions!

**Iolo** · October 22nd, 2010, 05:32 AM

'He really pioneered History from below.'

Well said, Ovidius. I am at a loss to know how to discuss anything with people who want to prove that Marx had bad breath and was Hitler's maiden aunt: I can't say they are necessarily paid hacks, but I don't know what I can say to them except very rude words in a Marxian mixture of languages. Rudé pioneered the writing up of history from below: it was our martyred ancestors in their thousands and millions who pioneered the thing itself, and their drugged-up descendants who accept beetles, God help 'em!