Ask a Marxist

[Debater Slayer]

How is the economic authoritarianism of Marxism
& socialism made compatible with libertarianism?

Not all varieties of Marxism propose economic authoritarianism. Libertarian socialism has some anarchist strains and ones that endorse direct democracy.

Libertarianism in this case primarily refers to having liberty as a core principle, not to the capitalist sense of the word that specifically denotes decreased economic regulations.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If one's views stray quite far from fundamentals
of a label, tis best to find a new label.

As I said, there's so much diversity within that umbrella label that saying one variety under it "strays far from fundamentals" implies there are universal fundamentals in the first place. This is only the case in extremely broad terms.

It avoids confusion.

I think no matter what label one uses, a subset of people will always jump to conclusions based on it without asking questions or trying to find out what the other person actually believes. Just look at the kinds of assumptions some people make about the labels of "atheist," "Pagan," "leftist," or even "conservative," where they assume uniformity of thought and attribute negative positions by default to people who adopt any of these labels.

Notice how I added "pragmatic" before "libertarian".
This is designed to say that I'm a libertarian, with all
the loopy beliefs about liberty gone wild, but to also
inspire doubt about my being doctrinaire.
Perhaps you could find something that doesn't
suggest the ultimate goal of communism?

It looks like I will have to, because Marxism has understandably but unfortunately become associated in many people's minds with Marxism-Leninism, dictatorship, purges, abolition of private ownership, and one-party states. As I said, one problem is that some people will assume what you believe based on a broad label (which they might not even recognize as broad) and run with the assumptions without asking you anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

So far, the only formally "socialist" countries have been based on Marxism-Leninism or an offshoot thereof (e.g., Stalinism and Maoism), so there haven't been any major examples where, say, democratic socialists have governed a country and then shaped its systems according to their political views.

That said, there are currently socialists in power in a few South American countries after winning democratic elections, such as in Bolivia, Chile, and Colombia.

Are the countries socialist (people own the MOP (means of
production)? I ask cuz politicians have adopted the label,
yet the economic system hasn't been socialist.

Yes:

You answered "yes" to the query about
examples of "libertarian socialism".
But I see none.

What is implied by the term ‘libertarian socialism’?

The idea that socialism is first and foremost about freedom and therefore about overcoming the domination, repression, and alienation that block the free flow of human creativity, thought, and action. We do not equate socialism with planning, state control, or nationalization of industry, although we understand that in a socialist society (not “under” socialism) economic activity will be collectively controlled, managed, planned, and owned.

To prevent private ownership of the MOP isn't
libertarian because it eliminates the individual's
freedom to run a business. The label, "liberal
socialism", would be a better fit because liberals
(N Am usage) favor such social goals, & want
less private control over the MOP.

What is Libertarian Socialism?

Ulli Diemer What is Libertarian Socialism? 1997 Originally published in Volume 2, Number 1 (Summer 1997 issue) of The Red Menace.

theanarchistlibrary.org

That linked article has some really disorganized thought.
It's not clear what's being advocated.

I align much more with democratic socialism because, among other things, I don't believe in anarchy or direct democracy, and I also think that some constraints on freedom of speech (e.g., hate speech laws) are necessary and useful.

Speech restriction does tend to be severe in
socialist countries. It's an emergent property.

The idea of a complete social transformation also strikes me as unrealistic, so my own views are essentially an amalgmation of different ideas rather than falling under one label that could express them all accurately or in detail.

The consumerism that inherently results from it, the excessive accumulation of wealth that enables disproportionate environmental destruction by few individuals, and the current acceleration of the climate crisis by the focus on economic growth and industrialization beyond the planet's capacity for natural resources and environmental health.

I brought this up in a previous post:

What is the US interest in Ukraine?

No, this isn't our first rodeo. Every single time, clarifications don't seem to make a difference to you, and you end up repeating the same arguments that don't remotely represent my position. Back at ya. As I've oft said, you & I don't communicate well. It always strikes me that you see a...

www.religiousforums.com

As for the abovementioned disproportionate impact:

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% – Analysis - IEA

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% - A commentary by Laura Cozzi, Olivia Chen, Hyeji Kim

www.iea.org

‘Wasteful luxury’: Private jet pollution more than doubles in Europe

As millions face fuel poverty, a Greenpeace study has found that number of private jet flights is soaring in Europe.

www.euronews.com

Climate inequality report 2023, Fair taxes for a sustainable future in the global South - WID - World Inequality Database

Climate inequality report 2023, Fair taxes for a sustainable future in the global South The source for global inequality data. Open access, high quality wealth and income inequality data developed by an international academic consortium.

wid.world

The outsized carbon footprints of the super-rich

Private flights have boomed since the pandemic. Are taxpayers picking up the tab?

The wealthiest flyers create a outsized amount of carbon pollution while barely contributing to the public aviation system, group says.

www.cbsnews.com

Flying shame: the scandalous rise of private jets

Last week, Rishi Sunak flew from London to Blackpool – his third private jet trip in 10 days. He’s far from the only one using air travel for short journeys. Just how much damage is this doing?

www.theguardian.com

I would ideally post an excerpt from each of these articles, but I'm posting from a phone.



I think we will have to figure out an alternative that can tackle our unprecedented issues, mainly climate change. We will never have a sustainable alternative if we refuse to try to change the most damaging elements of our current systems.



Exactly. Previous thinkers and theorists lived in different times, under different circumstances, and without the current existential threat we're facing due to climate change. I don't think we can rely on them for solutions.

Socialism, communism, Marxism, & capitalism....
None is fundamentally pro-environment.
That issue can be addressed (or not) under any
system. If a society chooses to, then it can. If it
chooses not to, then it won't.

Socialism does have the advantage of being
economically weaker, so that consumerism
is curbed by scarcity. I prefer regulation to
protect the environment. It has the advantage
of applicability also to industrial & military venues
(big sources of environmental degradation).

 

[Revoltingest]

Not all varieties of Marxism propose economic authoritarianism.

One can propose that it not be economically authoritarian,
but it doesn't mean the proposal will play out that way.
The very prevention of private ownership of the MOP is
arguably authoritarian. And the attendant power structure
to enforce that portends authoritarianism in social areas.
History shows this association.

Libertarian socialism has some anarchist strains and ones that endorse direct democracy.

How could an anarchist country prevent private ownership
of the MOP without government to enforce it?

Libertarianism in this case primarily refers to having liberty as a core principle...

To deny economic liberty isn't pro liberty.

...not to the capitalist sense of the word that specifically denotes decreased economic regulations.

That's a false premise.
Capitalism doesn't inherently denote decreased economic
regulations. It isn't even an emergent property in all
capitalist countries.
USA has been increasing regulation over business for well
over a century. The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
grows mightily & inexorably. Regulations at the local &
state level have also blossomed.
Yet we private business owners still compete with each
other in this regulatory environment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was wondering much the same thing. It'll be interesting to hear @Debater Slayer response.

(It sort of like saying I believe in 2 of the pillars of Islam, but not the rest.)

It was kinda where I was heading with the Proudhon question, since the need for violent revolution was a major difference between Proudhon and Marx.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Not all varieties of Marxism propose economic authoritarianism. Libertarian socialism has some anarchist strains and ones that endorse direct democracy.

Libertarianism in this case primarily refers to having liberty as a core principle, not to the capitalist sense of the word that specifically denotes decreased economic regulations.

You could even talk about "left libertarianism" which is explicitly non-Marxist in a way because of its (small "r") republican foundations and its tendencies toward social contract theory.

BUT, many if not most left libertarians take Marx's criticisms about capitalism and want to fix them. And many of them agree with a multitude of socialistic policies. They are just rather hard-nosed about sticking to social contract theory, which of course, Marx was not.

However, when you take a fully Marx-grounded theory like libertarian socialism, and set it next to left libertarianism, it's interesting to see the similarity in values and in vision. The difference between the two amounts to a few philosophical quirks.

That linked article has some really disorganized thought.
It's not clear what's being advocated.

Check out the Wiki article. If you are still confused, ask questions here about individual things that bug you or that need clarification. I am a huge advocate of libertarian socialism, and I am happy to explain myself.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am a huge advocate of libertarian socialism, and I am happy to explain myself.

How do you envision such a government,
eg, economic laws, social laws, enforcement?

 

[vulcanlogician]

How do you envision such a government,
eg, laws, enforcement.

I would envision such things as murder and violence to be prohibited. But instead of cops, who are out there to "bust" people and throw them in jail, it would be a team of civil servants. Yes, these civil servants stop the violence or detain the violent person (sometimes). But their main job is to look out for people.

This means that when you see this kind of civil servant you are free to wave them down and ask if they can find you a ride home. Maybe you are looking for work? "Hop in, we'll take you to the syndicate office and they'll get you into a union."

I think it would be fine for average folks to depend on this type of civil servants for a multitude of things. Thus we'd want a whole bunch of them. They wouldn't be expected to "arrest thugs" for their living. They'd first and foremost be out there to help people. At their job performance reviews, the amount of violence they prevented or murders they stopped would be one item among many upon which their performance is measured.

I think 16 hour work weeks should be the norm. Anything over that and you get overtime. The "cops" in my utopia would be there to handle such complaints of those rights being circumvented.

In my ideal system, cops wouldn't be afraid of people. Nor would we have anything like prisons we see in modern society. Dangerous people would be quarantined. Not punished.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would envision such things as murder and violence to be prohibited. But instead of cops, who are out there to "bust" people and throw them in jail, it would be a team of civil servants. Yes, these civil servants stop the violence or detain the violent person (sometimes). But their main job is to look out for people.

This means that when you see this kind of civil servant you are free to wave them down and ask if they can find you a ride home. Maybe you are looking for work? "Hop in, we'll take you to the syndicate office and they'll get you into a union."

I think it would be fine for average folks to depend on this type of civil servants for a multitude of things. Thus we'd want a whole bunch of them. They wouldn't be expected to "arrest thugs" for their living. They'd first and foremost be out there to help people. At their job performance reviews the amount of violence they prevented or murders they stopped would be one item among many upon which their performance is measured.

I think 16 hour work weeks should be the norm. Anything over that and you get overtime. The "cops" in my utopia would be there to handle such complaints of those rights being circumvented.

In my ideal system, cops wouldn't be afraid of people. Nor would we have anything like prisons we see in modern society. Dangerous people would be quarantined. Not punished.

That's about police reform, which could be under any
economic system. What about the structure of government,
economic laws, social laws, & enforcement?

 

[vulcanlogician]

That's about police reform, which could be under any
economic system. What about the structure of government,
economic laws, social laws, & enforcement?

Quite simply, the workers own the means of production. When you work at a business, you own x% percent of that business (and its profits). You aren't paid a wage. And my system does not tolerate shareholders, executives, or management taking large sums. You could weave that in with an investment system, where investors get certain rewards for the risks they took in conceiving of the business and helping it get where it is. But all that ends at a certain point. And when a firm becomes so large or successful, the investors (who might be fairly rich at that point from it) must hand full ownership over to the workers. THAT is the growth path of all organizations that depend on labor.

But you DON'T have ownership of a business where YOU allocate the wages of others and keep the profits for yourself. In a particular way I lean toward "syndicalism," a union owns any business.

If you alone are the only one working in a business, that would be fine. And you are also free to contract any labor you see fit. Much like in America today. And maybe with less taxes even!

Structure of the government: democracy. It could be a republican system like we have now or a different kind. But the people's votes would direct government. I am not a fan of dictatorships.

I, mean, I've done a lot of thinking on the subject, but I think my post is long enough. I'm not going to list a bunch of economic laws. That would be tedious.

If there's any thing about economic policy you want me to give my take on, ask about that.

 

[YmirGF]

Quite simply, the workers own the means of production. When you work at a business, you own x% percent of that business (and its profits). You aren't paid a wage. And my system does not tolerate shareholders, executives, or management taking large sums. You could weave that in with an investment system, where investors get certain rewards for the risks they took in conceiving of the business and helping it get where it is. But all that ends at a certain point. And when a firm becomes so large or successful, the investors (who might be fairly rich at that point from it) must hand full ownership over to the workers. THAT is the growth path of all organizations that depend on labor.

But you DON'T have ownership of a business where YOU allocate the wages of others and keep the profits for yourself. In a particular way I lean toward "syndicalism," a union owns any business.

If you alone are the only ones working in a business, that would be fine. And you are also free to contract any labor you see fit. Much like in America today. And maybe with less taxes even!

Structure of the government: democracy. It could be a republican system like we have now or a different kind. But the people's votes would direct government. I am not a fan of dictatorships.

I, mean, I've done a lot of thinking on the subject, but I think my post is long enough. I'm not going to list a bunch of economic laws. That would be tedious.

If there's any thing about economic policy you want me to give my take on, ask about that.

If your bio is correct, and you are only 43, I'm quite impressed with your thinking. The 16-hour work week did give me a chuckle. (Yeah, that'll work.)
But seriously, have you thought of going into politics and getting a chance to put your ideas into action? You might prove very good at the effort.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The 16-hour work week did give me a chuckle. (Yeah, that'll work.)

Why wouldn't it work? And if my numbers are too unrealistic, can't we tweak them upward a bit-- say toward 20 or 24 hours? I bet you at a certain point we'd have a broad workforce capable of providing pretty much everybody with what they want or need.

We have a society that creates a bunch of crap that we don't want or need. It is junk that quickly ends up in the trash can and was never really worth much to begin with. Capitalism is GREAT at that. And yes, you need 40 hour work weeks to create that amount of useless crap and then shove advertisements down people's throats to get them to buy it.

I'm not saying we do away with luxuries and useless trinkets. Nor am I saying no one should own a lamborghini. A hard-working person might deserve one. I'm just saying that capitalism doesn't have its priorities straight because it is based on the idea (THE DREAM) of being rich and doing nothing. But the idea should be that we all have comfortable, enjoyable, healthy lives where we are happy. THAT, I think, is achievable in a society where we have a 16 hour work week.

I'm a blue collar worker with a bach degree in philosophy. I have no intentions of going into politics. Maybe one day I'll write a book.

 

[Revoltingest]

Quite simply, the workers own the means of production. When you work at a business, you own x% percent of that business (and its profits). You aren't paid a wage. And my system does not tolerate shareholders, executives, or management taking large sums.

If workers get a % of profit, but no wages, how
would they survive during periods of no profit?
Businesses, especially new ones, lose money at
times....sometimes for years, eg, Amazon, Ford.

I've paid wages & contractors even when when not
profitable. I planned for it, using reserves & debt.
One must honor one's obligations.

You could weave that in with an investment system, where investors get certain rewards for the risks they took in conceiving of the business and helping it get where it is. But all that ends at a certain point. And when a firm becomes so large or successful, the investors (who might be fairly rich at that point from it) must hand full ownership over to the workers. THAT is the growth path of all organizations that depend on labor.

Consider a common scenario.....
If the company is profitable, passive investors (financiers
with no control) get a modest ROI. But if the company
is very successful, then they forfeit this income stream.

The incentive to put one's capital at risk is small. Most
new businesses fail, so their risk is high for strictly limited
returns. This disincentive for new or shaky businesses
portends a dearth of investors, & economic stagnation.

But you DON'T have ownership of a business where YOU allocate the wages of others and keep the profits for yourself. In a particular way I lean toward "syndicalism," a union owns any business.

If you alone are the only one working in a business, that would be fine. And you are also free to contract any labor you see fit. Much like in America today. And maybe with less taxes even!

Would the contract labor not own the business?
Would they get wages or a % of profits?
Would there be a limit on the size of this business?

Structure of the government: democracy. It could be a republican system like we have now or a different kind. But the people's votes would direct government. I am not a fan of dictatorships.

I, mean, I've done a lot of thinking on the subject, but I think my post is long enough. I'm not going to list a bunch of economic laws. That would be tedious.

You just did list some economic laws.
Now that wasn't so tedious, was it, eh.

Besides, you propose upending an entire
economic system that has done very well
compared to socialism's many failures.
Such a radical proposal has risks, & those
should be addressed in detail.
In short, you owe us....
Look before you make everyone leap.

If there's any thing about economic policy you want me to give my take on, ask about that.

See above.

 

[vulcanlogician]

If workers get a % of profit, but no wages, how
would they survive during periods of no profit?
Businesses, especially new ones, lose money at
times....sometimes for years, eg, Amazon, Ford.

I've paid wages & contractors even when when not
profitable. I planned for it, using reserves & debt.
One must honor one's obligations.

This is a good question. And it is where investment comes into play in my person way of solving this issue. Keeping a company that is in the red afloat is something that investors do. That's more-or-less how it happens under capitalism. Where my system changes is when growth reaches a certain point. When investment is no longer really needed and become superfluous. At this point, the investors can cash in what was (obviously) a successful venture-- otherwise, they wouldn't be forced to sell their shares to the workers.

Would the contract labor not own the business?
Would they get wages or a % of profits?
Would there be a limit on the size of this business?

Contract labor is a necessary and often more-than-fair arrangement. I would want to preserve it, especially for small family businesses and things like that.

But you are right, it would have to be wage-based. We'd need someone with a law degree to help us sort out any abuses that may take place under such arrangements, and how the general labor policy would protect contract workers.

In short, you owe us....
Look before you make everyone leap.

I'd never advise anyone to look before they leap. Nor do I think my ideas are perfect. Even I have have solved some problems, I've likely created others. And those would in turn need to be examined and solved.

You just did list some economic laws.
Now that wasn't so tedious, was it, eh.

Yes. It was tedious. And I expect you at some future time to do something equally tedious to return the favor, like list every plant in the genus in which daisies belong.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I expect you at some future time to do something equally tedious to return the favor....

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[RestlessSoul]

(Credit goes to @JustGeorge for the idea. Thanks!)

I have seen some overgeneralizations about Marxists or implications that all of us support the USSR, China, North Korea, or any other self-proclaimed socialist or communist state. This thread is to allow more room for questions and hopefully a clearer exchange of perspectives.

Some background to start with:

• I believe socialism is best arrived at gradually and incrementally rather than through widespread violence and repression like what Lenin, Stalin, and Mao exercised. Human nature and society are simply not amenable to such abrupt, forced transformation.
• As an extension of the above, I regard a hybrid economic model, even if mostly capitalistic, as a necessary stage toward the implementation of a fully socialist system. I wouldn't support such a system unconditionally but only as a temporary and realistic compromise.
• The aspect of Marxism that I most deeply agree with is dialectical materialism, because I see it as an overarching philosophical principle rather than a strictly economic one. It can be summarized thus:

Dialectical materialism | Definition & Facts

• It was not until last year that I took a serious interest in Marxism, so I have yet to read much of the work of some prominent Marxist theorists such as Engels, Trotsky, and Lenin. I believe this is worth noting in this thread.

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

If all history is the history of class struggle, why is it that the hoi polloi, who in most societies outnumber the hoi oligarchoi by several factors to one, seem no closer to the levers of power now than they were during classical antiquity, when experiments with republicanism and democracy seem to have begun? Is the struggle so unequal that it can never be won by the common people? Or are the common people so easily bought off with bread and circuses, that they are wont to forget the struggle altogether, except for those occasions when their basic needs are not met by the system?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If all history is the history of class struggle, why is it that the hoi polloi, who in most societies outnumber the hoi oligarchoi by several factors to one, seem no closer to the levers of power now than they were during classical antiquity, when experiments with republicanism and democracy seem to have begun? Is the struggle so unequal that it can never be won by the common people? Or are the common people so easily bought off with bread and circuses, that they are wont to forget the struggle altogether, except for those occasions when their basic needs are not met by the system?

Not bread and circuses, but social mobility.

The risk to society I think is the reduction of opportunity to the point where it becomes illusory. And obviously so.

When people can't make a better life for themselves...or even more impactfully, for their kids...the demand for change grows louder.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've read about some of his views but haven't explored them in any real depth yet. This is on my reading list:

System of Economical Contradictions, or The Philosophy …

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (15 January 1809 – 19 January 18…

www.goodreads.com

That said, I'm definitely not an anarchist, and I wouldn't say that I'm aligned with Marxism without a considerable number of stipulations. I see immense analytical value stemming from certain Marxist concepts, but I don't agree with communism, Marx's ideas of revolution (as I find them too rigid, focused on violence, and utopian), or some of his economic theories that simply don't map well onto our current world and its vastly different circumstances compared to Marx's time.

In my opinion, possibly the most valuable insight that Marxism provides is the concept of dialectical materialism and the notion that social changes are inseparable from economic and other material conditions. Conflict theory, which is currently prominent in sociology, borrows many concepts from Marxism, and I see a lot of merit to it, although I also wouldn't view it as some prophetic or impeccably reliable tool. It just has a lot of analytical and explanatory utility.

Sorry, I missed responding to this...

Just my recommendation, but I think you'd get a bit out of Proudhon. I'm not suggesting you're an anarchist, or even show anarchistic tendencies but;

- I'm not either, and I still found him an interesting read.
- His form of anarchism might be a little less forceful than some more modern versions you are familiar with.

The tension between he and Marx offers an interesting way to look at Marx through a contemporary and critical (but not capitalistic) lens, if nothing else.

Ultimately I'm not sure how tightly aligned you are with Marxism really. Aligning with it, but rejecting key concepts makes you a little less Marxist and a little more...something. looking at contemporaries might help clarify that.

(Just my opinion of course. Ultimately the labels aren't important in and of themselves)