Ask a Marxist

[Debater Slayer]

I think dialectical materialism is quite an appealing theory. In principle, I think it's completely true.

But I do offer some pushback against Marx's (extreme) thinking on the implications of dialectical materialism. I think he becomes a bit too abstract. For instance, Marx thinks that ideas of individual freedom arise due to the economic environment. He thinks similar things about greed and exploitation.

So, according to Marx, the reason we value "individual freedom" the way we do is because our ideas are a product of our capitalist environment. I think Marx is correct to some extent, here. Our ideas about what individual freedom means is shaped by the social structure in which we find ourselves. But I also think something more properly basic is going on as well. Our desire to be free is also something that can be traced all the way to our biological organism.

Marx seems to think that greed and the desire to exploit other humans springs solely from social conditions. And by organizing society in a certain way, it is inferred that Marx thinks that greed and exploitation will disappear. I'm not quite so optimistic. Like our ideas of human freedom, I think societal conditions shape our desire to exploit, but... at the same time... our inclination to exploit arises independently of social constructs... at least to some degree.

But (as I said at the outset) dialectical materialism is a compelling idea for a number of reasons. Think about how a dialectical materialist would fight crime. Rather than rounding up criminals and putting them in jail, a dialectical materialist would observe the social conditions in which crime arises (namely, impoverished urban centers). To reduce crime, the dialectical materialist would organize those communities in such a way that resembled communities with less crime. Such would be a novel and effective approach to dealing with crime, IMO.

But the problem comes when we reduce crime to those specific social conditions and claim that no person would commit a criminal act were it not for those specific environmental cues. That's not quite true either. Social AND biological factors come to bear on explaining human behavior. If I were to criticize Marx's ideas concerning dialectical materialism, I would say that he puts too much emphasis on social conditions to explain our ideas. Even without X social conditions, people will commit crime and exploit each other. These are innate biological tendencies we have... social conditions merely exacerbate the problem.

Marx didn't exist in a vacuum. I think dialectical materialism is a good counterpoint to traditional "liberal" values about the origin of human ideas. Liberalism assumes all individual agents act of their own accord, thinking independently of social structures. This is obviously false. But so is the extreme form of dialectical materialism argued by Marx. The truth is somewhere in the middle, I think.

I completely agree with your analysis. Marx didn't have the insights of modern psychology, evolutionary theory, or biology. He sometimes seemed to think that reasoning alone could lead him to truth, but we now know that reasoning must be supplemented by empiricism for measurable claims, such as the assertion that economics and economics alone could explain greed or human desires.

 

[Debater Slayer]

From my understanding Marxism is a philosophy and Communism is the ideal state achieved when Marxism is lived out, is that correct according to your perspective?

This is what Marx believed, but I don't share that view. I don't think communism (a classless, stateless society) is practically feasible, as I said earlier in this thread.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If I understand correctly....
Socialism is a stage of marxism, not really a sub-set.
Analogy...
Incision is a stage in appendectomy, not a sub-set.
Without the subsequent of removing the appendix,
it's not an appendectomy.


I realize that this is wallowing in minutae.
Feel free to ignore this post.

"Marxism" has no one fixed definition. We're a varied bunch just like everyone else.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Marxism" has no one fixed definition.

Nothing does in this post-dictionary age.
I'm a "socialist" now it seems.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Nothing does in this post-dictionary age.
I'm a "socialist" now it seems.

You might be surprised to know that I don't envision a realistic way to implement full-blown socialism within my lifetime.

Focusing on curbing the worst excesses of capitalism through regulation and reforms is the best option we have for now. I'll continue to play by the rules and pursue my own wealth in the meantime.

 

[icehorse]

With that out of the way, feel free to ask me anything about my views and I'll do my best to answer it.

I'd need to start by understanding some definitions you might be using here:

- i think you're advocating for socialism not communism?
- how does your vision differ from what we see in Scandanavia?
- how do you right-size what government controls?
- how do you incentivize invention and innovation?
- would there be a few specific initiatives that you think are steps towards your vision?

thanks

 

[Revoltingest]

You might be surprised to know that I don't envision a realistic way to implement full-blown socialism within my lifetime.

It might happen somewhere.
Where might you intend it.

Focusing on curbing the worst excesses of capitalism through regulation and reforms is the best option we have for now. I'll continue to play by the rules and pursue my own wealth in the meantime.

If you do achieve socialism somewhere,
how would you envision curbing its worst
excesses?
Follow-up question....
Given that socialism would necessarily have
power such that it could prohibit all free economic
association, how could this power be prevented
from becoming fascism?

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you do achieve socialism somewhere,
how would you envision curbing its worst
excesses?

By balancing it with democracy and a measure of capitalist principles.

Follow-up question....
Given that socialism would necessarily have
power such that it could prohibit all free economic
association, how could this power be prevented
from becoming fascism?

See above.

 

[Revoltingest]

By balancing it with democracy and a measure of capitalist principles.

That's a desire, not a mechanism or structure
that would tend towards democracy. Moreover,
if capitalism is made illegal, how would capitalist
principles be employed.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'd need to start by understanding some definitions you might be using here:

- i think you're advocating for socialism not communism?

Yes.

- how does your vision differ from what we see in Scandanavia?

Scandinavia doesn't have as many people as, say, India or China, where the Nordic model could be unsustainable in the longer term if it could even be realistically implemented to begin with. My vision would focus on more sustainability and reduction of poverty.

- how do you right-size what government controls?

That depends on the context and on whether a need arises for government intervention. For example, if I could, I would impose far higher taxes, stricter labor laws, and higher minimum wages in the US. On the other hand, I would loosen up a lot lof China's policies.

- how do you incentivize invention and innovation?

Either through proportional subsidies by the state or through private entrepreneurship. I wouldn't go out of my way to abolish the latter.

- would there be a few specific initiatives that you think are steps towards your vision?

That also depends on which country we're talking about. Each has different circumstances and levels of regulation.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's a desire, not a mechanism or structure
that would tend towards democracy. Moreover,
if capitalism is made illegal, how would capitalist
principles be employed.

Who said capitalism would be made illegal?

 

[Revoltingest]

Who said capitalism would be made illegal?

Oh, you mean the kind of socialism
that's capitalism. Never mind.

Yer no Marxist.
Pbbbbbtttttt!
(Pardon my French.)

 

[vulcanlogician]

Nothing does in this post-dictionary age.
I'm a "socialist" now it seems.

I bet some hardcore conservatives would have no qualms about calling you a socialist. In some conservatives' views, even social safety nets qualify as "socialism."

FWIW, I think capitalism has its uses. It's very good at producing an abundance of consumer goods and instigating growth in economies. Ideally, we could capture what is good about capitalism without subjecting the working class to its temperamental nature (boom and bust). I think its possible that one day we can form a society which is not ruled by capitalism, but squeezes every ounce of positive impact out of capitalism whilst leaving the bulk of human welfare and quality of life (ie. basic needs) outside of the purview of the free market.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Oh, you mean the kind of socialism
that's capitalism. Never mind.

Yer no Marxist.
Pbbbbbtttttt!
(Pardon my French.)

You acknowledge that Marx's original vision has a lot of elements that are both outdated and mismatched with more recent developments, but then you say that an evolved variant of socialism is "capitalism"?

Socialism isn't confined to Marx's vision. It would be pretty hard to argue that the exact theory he laid out almost two centuries ago could be reasonably applied today without significant modifications based on modern knowledge. The same goes for the theories of older capitalist economists too.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think its possible that one day we can form a society which is not ruled by capitalism, but squeezes every ounce of positive impact out of capitalism whilst leaving the bulk of human welfare and quality of life (ie. basic needs) outside of the purview of the free market.

This is exactly what I think would probably be the best solution as well. Communism is too impractical and divorced from empirical knowledge, but capitalism in its most widely implemented forms today is extremely exploitative and unsustainable. We need a more realistic option than either.

 

[Revoltingest]

I bet some hardcore conservatives would have no qualms about calling you a socialist. In some conservatives' views, even social safety nets qualify as "socialism."

That's possible.
But I've never had it happen.
When discussing the issues, they come around
to my view. Maybe they're more pro-dictionary?

FWIW, I think capitalism has its uses. It's very good at producing an abundance of consumer goods and instigating growth in economies. Ideally, we could capture what is good about capitalism without subjecting the working class to its temperamental nature (boom and bust). I think its possible that one day we can form a society which is not ruled by capitalism, but squeezes every ounce of positive impact out of capitalism whilst leaving the bulk of human welfare and quality of life (ie. basic needs) outside of the purview of the free market.

I don't think an elected government has the wisdom to
avoid booms & busts. Politicians are rewarded with
election & re-election by making promises that sound
good, but aren't necessarily based upon economic
expertise.
For example, real estate booms & busts are actually
exacerbated by regulation & taxation. I've covered
this in detail before. If really needed I can dredge
it all up again.
So I prefer that regulation be more about protection
from fraud. Less potential for mischief there.

 

[Revoltingest]

You acknowledge that Marx's original vision has a lot of elements that are both outdated and mismatched with more recent developments, but then you say that an evolved variant of socialism is "capitalism"?

Socialism isn't confined to Marx's vision. It would be pretty hard to argue that the exact theory he laid out almost two centuries ago could be reasonably applied today without significant modifications based on modern knowledge. The same goes for the theories of older capitalist economists too.

I only address Marx's views cuz you identified as a Marxist.
But perhaps the definition is now so broad that I'm a Marxist too.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I only address Marx's views cuz you identified as a Marxist.
But perhaps the definition is now so broad that I'm a Marxist too.

"Marxist" doesn't mean one agrees with everything he said, though. I actually addressed this in multiple posts in this thread, including in the response to the question about neo-Marxism.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Marxist" doesn't mean one agrees with everything he said, though. I actually addressed this in multiple posts in this thread, including in the response to the question about neo-Marxism.

Now I'm possibly a "neo-Marxist".

 

[vulcanlogician]

That's possible.
But I've never had it happen.
When discussing the issues, they come around
to my view. Maybe they're more pro-dictionary?

Do you think Barack Obama was a socialist? Because a LOT of his opponents called him one. I don't think he was. Your mileage may vary depending on who you ask whether Obama was a socialist or not. In my view, he was a populist moderate. Others think he was the reincarnation of Vladimir Lenin.

As DS points out, the idea of socialism predates Marx. Marx spent a great deal of time criticizing forms of socialism that he viewed as inferior to his own vision of it. The term Marxism is even foggier since Marx had a plethora of ideas and not every "Marxist" accepts all of Marx's ideas wholesale. I particularly like Marx's thinking about wage-exploitation and alienation. ("Early Marx" as some would say.) I reject many of his later notions about authoritarianism and I also reject the idea that the working class can seize the means of production through revolutionary violence. So am I a Marxist or not? I don't think the dictionary is gonna help us sort that out. The dictionary tries to give us a one or two sentence definition of a word that most people agree on. It can't help us sort out the stickier issues about what socialism essentially is.

The ancient Greeks had a policy of ignoring the dictionary. When two or more people enter into a debate, the Greek idea was to work out definitions beforehand, and those definitions would be used during the debating process. I think that's WAY better than making ourselves beholden to the dictionary. (And, yes, the post-dictionary era started way back in 399 BC, so I think we just have to deal with it at this point.)

But (in fairness) we shouldn't make the word "socialism" a moving target, and just change the definition when it suits our purposes. That's worse than letting the dictionary decide.

A definition of socialism that I would propose is a system where citizens' basic needs (food, healthcare, non-poverty) are taken care of by public ownership. There is room for capitalism in such a system.

Let's call "communism" a system whereby the workers own the means of production. What I see as the most ideal system lies somewhere in the middle of all three of these things (capitalism, socialism, communism). I don't know if the dictionary considers me a Marxist or not, but I think "Marxist" gets the job done in explaining my basic political values. But, like Obama, it is up to each person to categorize what I am for themselves.

I don't think an elected government has the wisdom to
avoid booms & busts. Politicians are rewarded with
election & re-election by making promises that sound
good, but aren't necessarily based upon economic
expertise.

I agree with you there. But that's a problem with democracy... not capitalism or socialism. Democracy is an incredibly flawed system... but I tend to agree with Winston Churchill who said: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”