I agree with socialism (kind of) but not Marxism

Started by zarus tathra, November 20, 2013, 04:57:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

zarus tathra

One of the founding obsessions of Marxist "political economy" is the division between mental and physical labor. I feel that this is a gigantic waste of time, primarily because it is a "division" that is impossible to resolve in a society in which mass production is dominant.

Let's take the example of a nuts and bolts factory. To design a nut takes like 2 people. Maybe 5, 10, it doesn't really matter, because to produce enough nuts to fill a significant portion of the market would require orders of magnitude more people. That means there will always be a mass of people building things that were not involved in their design. Simple mathematics dictates that there can be no resolution of this "conflict" without the collapse of the industrial system.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Solitary

How about democratic socialism?  This seems to help the most people.  Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

stromboli

Karl Marx was a bright guy, but too far on the wrong end ideologically and not savvy about humanity in general. I'm told some of his axioms are still in use business model wise, but don't have any sources.

You can make the argument that Christianity in its truest form is socialism. The early Mormon settlers in Utah tried it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orderville,_Utah

QuoteOrderville was established at the direction of Latter-day Saint leader Brigham Young in 1875 specifically to live United Order, a voluntary form of communalism defined by Joseph Smith. Orderville was settled primarily by destitute refugees from failed settlements on the Muddy River in Nevada. The extreme poverty of these settlers likely contributed significantly to their devotion to the principles of the United Order.
Although the United Order was practiced in many Utah communities during the late 1870s, Orderville was unique in both the level of success it experienced under the communal living style, and in the duration of the experiment. In the course of a few years, Orderville grew into a thriving, self-sufficient community. The success and relative wealth of the community attracted more settlers and Orderville grew to about 700 people. Orderville not only provided for the needs of its population, but produced a significant surplus for sale to other communities, which was used to purchase additional land and equipment.
The Order continued in Orderville for approximately 10 years. During the early 1880s, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost interest in the experiment, but Orderville attempted to continue it. In 1885, the enforcement of the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 effectively ended the Order by jailing many of the Order's leaders and driving many of the others underground.

It works if everyone contributes and there is no corruption. But under Soviet leadership. particularly Stalin, the system as practiced was riddled with corruption, bribery, nepotism and any number of failings.

mykcob4

Quote from: "zarus tathra"One of the founding obsessions of Marxist "political economy" is the division between mental and physical labor. I feel that this is a gigantic waste of time, primarily because it is a "division" that is impossible to resolve in a society in which mass production is dominant.

Let's take the example of a nuts and bolts factory. To design a nut takes like 2 people. Maybe 5, 10, it doesn't really matter, because to produce enough nuts to fill a significant portion of the market would require orders of magnitude more people. That means there will always be a mass of people building things that were not involved in their design. Simple mathematics dictates that there can be no resolution of this "conflict" without the collapse of the industrial system.
Ah you have ignored the first fundemental of Marxism. You assume that it takes a certain number of people to produce a nut, but what you ignore is that takes the same number to mass produce that product.
In Marxism the goal is to enable the person that produce that product to be able to afford that product i.e. the flaw in capitalism (one of them anyway). Socialism dictates that no matter how many is produced of said product they shall be evenly distributed among all. That in itslef is not the goal. It is about distributing assets evenly that all may benefit by the many efforts of all instead of the many producing and only a few...very few benefiting by efforts of the many.
In fair trade capitalism the idea is to afford everyone the oppertunity for success instead of redistribution.
In our system the way it exist right now the few that own all the assets benefit by the efforts of the masses, even though it's called "free trade." It is not even close to being free unless you call blantant criminality being free from regulation or responsibility.
Marxism is an ideal that has never been practiced....not even close.
Socialism is a derivative of marxism but in reality has never been practiced.
The only true form of free trade that has been practiced is corrupt monopolized capitalism which is a form of facism.

Sal1981

Pretty much any communal system works in small units, as long as there is mutual consent across the board.

It's when it goes from libertarian/anarchists wet dreams of small units towards huge cities, nations, that you have to employ quite different civics than what they think of. It's actually analogue to physics in surface tension of water; surface tension of water is easy to break when you're a human, not so easy for a small insect, just in inverse.

I take a lot of my political ideals from (European) Social Democracy, but I'm allured to much of Technocracy too.

_Xenu_

Quote from: "Sal1981"Pretty much any communal system works in small units, as long as there is mutual consent across the board.

It's when it goes from libertarian/anarchists wet dreams of small units towards huge cities, nations, that you have to employ quite different civics than what they think of.
This. Communism can work in small communities with voluntary membership, where those who don't like the system can leave. Unfortunately, it doesn't scale very well when you try to include everyone.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/ars/home

Brian37

Quote from: "zarus tathra"One of the founding obsessions of Marxist "political economy" is the division between mental and physical labor. I feel that this is a gigantic waste of time, primarily because it is a "division" that is impossible to resolve in a society in which mass production is dominant.

Let's take the example of a nuts and bolts factory. To design a nut takes like 2 people. Maybe 5, 10, it doesn't really matter, because to produce enough nuts to fill a significant portion of the market would require orders of magnitude more people. That means there will always be a mass of people building things that were not involved in their design. Simple mathematics dictates that there can be no resolution of this "conflict" without the collapse of the industrial system.

I am catching shit at another website, from Ayn Rand ass kissers, always accusing me of wanting a Stalin like nanny state.

You will always have more workers than ceos or even investors. Point out the pay gap though all the sudden you are a dirty communist.

It is bad enough you have dumb religious people watching Fucks News, but when atheists fall for the same failed economic policies for the past 30 years, it pisses me off.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
Poetry By Brian37 Like my poetry on Facebook Under BrianJames Rational Poet and also at twitter under Brianrrs37

Mermaid

Quote from: "_Xenu_"
Quote from: "Sal1981"Pretty much any communal system works in small units, as long as there is mutual consent across the board.

It's when it goes from libertarian/anarchists wet dreams of small units towards huge cities, nations, that you have to employ quite different civics than what they think of.
This. Communism can work in small communities with voluntary membership, where those who don't like the system can leave. Unfortunately, it doesn't scale very well when you try to include everyone.
Yup.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Brian37

Quote from: "stromboli"Karl Marx was a bright guy, but too far on the wrong end ideologically and not savvy about humanity in general. I'm told some of his axioms are still in use business model wise, but don't have any sources.

You can make the argument that Christianity in its truest form is socialism. The early Mormon settlers in Utah tried it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orderville,_Utah

QuoteOrderville was established at the direction of Latter-day Saint leader Brigham Young in 1875 specifically to live United Order, a voluntary form of communalism defined by Joseph Smith. Orderville was settled primarily by destitute refugees from failed settlements on the Muddy River in Nevada. The extreme poverty of these settlers likely contributed significantly to their devotion to the principles of the United Order.
Although the United Order was practiced in many Utah communities during the late 1870s, Orderville was unique in both the level of success it experienced under the communal living style, and in the duration of the experiment. In the course of a few years, Orderville grew into a thriving, self-sufficient community. The success and relative wealth of the community attracted more settlers and Orderville grew to about 700 people. Orderville not only provided for the needs of its population, but produced a significant surplus for sale to other communities, which was used to purchase additional land and equipment.
The Order continued in Orderville for approximately 10 years. During the early 1880s, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost interest in the experiment, but Orderville attempted to continue it. In 1885, the enforcement of the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 effectively ended the Order by jailing many of the Order's leaders and driving many of the others underground.

It works if everyone contributes and there is no corruption. But under Soviet leadership. particularly Stalin, the system as practiced was riddled with corruption, bribery, nepotism and any number of failings.

I hate to drill this into people but ANYTHING run by humans, which all things are, be it religion, political party or business, when left without checks and balances can become abusive. Money is what creates wealth for all those human run institutions.

Monopolies of power are the issue.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
Poetry By Brian37 Like my poetry on Facebook Under BrianJames Rational Poet and also at twitter under Brianrrs37

zarus tathra

Quote from: "mykcob4"In Marxism the goal is to enable the person that produce that product to be able to afford that product i.e. the flaw in capitalism (one of them anyway). Socialism dictates that no matter how many is produced of said product they shall be evenly distributed among all. That in itslef is not the goal. It is about distributing assets evenly that all may benefit by the many efforts of all instead of the many producing and only a few...very few benefiting by efforts of the many.
In fair trade capitalism the idea is to afford everyone the oppertunity for success instead of redistribution.
In our system the way it exist right now the few that own all the assets benefit by the efforts of the masses, even though it's called "free trade." It is not even close to being free unless you call blantant criminality being free from regulation or responsibility.
Marxism is an ideal that has never been practiced....not even close.
Socialism is a derivative of marxism but in reality has never been practiced.
The only true form of free trade that has been practiced is corrupt monopolized capitalism which is a form of facism.

I'm pretty sure that GM factory workers are easily able to afford cars, and that McDonald's workers are easily able to afford eating there. But I do agree that the managerial class in America is overbuilt. Their jobs constitute the "bread" part of the "bread and circuses" equation.

And there can't be "fair chance for success" if demand isn't sufficient to support an industry at a given size.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

Aupmanyav

One system will not work in all places at all times. What US requires may not be what a third world country needs.
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

zarus tathra

I also think that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" will always necessitate a corresponding "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." Proletarian behavior is not something that occurs naturally. It can only arise where the proletariat have been conditioned into industrial serfdom by the bourgeoisie and their servants in the government. If proletarian "culture" is to dominate, then the conditions that are necessary for the emergence of that culture, that is, subjugation by a bureaucratic overclass, must also dominate. The proles can not be liberated so long as they remain proles. Thus, the cruel irony of the subjugation of workers in the Soviet Union seems less of a betrayal and more of a natural result of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" becoming a reality.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.

mykcob4

Quote from: "zarus tathra"I also think that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" will always necessitate a corresponding "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." Proletarian behavior is not something that occurs naturally. It can only arise where the proletariat have been conditioned into industrial serfdom by the bourgeoisie and their servants in the government. If proletarian "culture" is to dominate, then the conditions that are necessary for the emergence of that culture, that is, subjugation by a bureaucratic overclass, must also dominate. The proles can not be liberated so long as they remain proles. Thus, the cruel irony of the subjugation of workers in the Soviet Union seems less of a betrayal and more of a natural result of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" becoming a reality.
We get caught up too much into poltical discription.
The fact is that people being governed verses individual freedom is a complicated thing that cannot be simply designed on a large scale to be fair and or effective. The fact is that the most effective way to govern people is by dictatorship but the flaw is that one person cannot have all the answers, nor can that person take into account the needs of everyone. Eventually it fails, because even if one dictator is very successful for his/her nation, the next dictator's abilities or motives are never a guarantee.

zarus tathra

QuoteWe get caught up too much into poltical discription.

I understand why you might believe that of my statement, but it's not merely a matter of semantics. Proletarian culture is the culture of being managed, of being part of a vast industrial machine that you did not have a hand in designing. If you want to preserve proletarian culture and have it dominate society, you have to preserve that aspect of the culture, since it is so vital.
?"Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, when there is a lack of will." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Ideals are imperfect. Morals are self-serving.