here
The article from "MSNBC" is about how the American public has historically been opposed to those labeled 'socialist'. However, that relationship seems to be changing. A Seattle council women recently got elected despite the fact that she is a self proclaimed socialist.
In the article, she makes the point that the best way to describe socialism in a condensed medium is to contrast it with Capitalism. I agree. I also think that the best way to promote socialism is to show the negative results of Capitalism, the greatest of which is extreme wealth inequality.
I think it is taken for granted within our society that Marx was wrong. He wasn't. Most critics point to Russia, China, or Eastern Europe to show that the effects of communism are bad, therefore communism doesn't work. The reason why this is not proof indicating that Marx was wrong is because the governments in all 'communist' societies hitherto in history have actually not been Communist, at least in the original Marxist sense of the word.
Essentially, the idea of Communism is to use the riches resulting from both the Capitalist society before the proletarian uprising, and from the scientifically planned Socialist system occurring after, to provide for everyone equally. If everyone is equal, then there will not be any reason to need a police force, a military, any substantial amounts of government, organized education, or any other institutional organization. Essentially, pure-Communism is actually anarchy, that is complete lack of government.
The way in which Communism intends to make everyone equal is through abolition of all private property. Everyone's needs, including recreational needs, will be provided for. They will not be provided by the state, because in pure-Communism there is no state. Essentially, everything will be commonly possessed.
In anarchy what is preventing the criminals from committing crimes and the murderers from murdering? Basically, the lack of overall incentive is the reason an anarchy wherein everyone is equal isn't total chaos. The vast innumerable amount of the world’s problems have their synthesis in jealousy originating from a tangible, materialistic cause. The elimination of ownership will therefore truncate the coalescence of new jealousies. The rapaciousness of humanity ends with the eradication of jealousy. Ergo, the very fact Communism repudiates the concept of materialistic ownership, also leads Communism to be a vastly more safe than any other system thus far in history.
There is a school of neo-Marxists called the Frankfurt school if anyone is interested in contemporary Marxism.
Probably the biggest reason to be pro-socialism is the inherent flaws in pure Capitalism. The reason Capitalism, in the Smithsonian sense, is inherently flawed is it relies on the assumption that humanity is by-enlarge moral and incorruptible. Adam Smith after all was first-and-foremost a moral philosopher. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't take into account the tendencies of wealth to corrupt, or the fact that some people will act contrary to the interests of society. In laissez-faire capitalism (or rather the closest thing that there has been so far in history) the concentration of wealth will consolidate into fewer hands over time inevitably.
Capitalism, in a laissez-faire sense, is characterized by the wealthy lording over the non-wealthy. It is a system which becomes unfair, immoral, and is overall detrimental towards society. It suppresses the arts and freethinking, it is anti-reform, anti-regulation, and anti-involvement. It is a system designed to get the rich richer and poor poorer. Capitalism is a system in which the proletarians continually become more greatly in debt; in which the workers only further strengthen their own chains by conforming to the system by working under it; in which the hardest of workers, predetermined to live their lives in the slum from which they were born, only work there way deeper into that odious, rat-infested, repugnant death trap; in which the government is a mere puppet more than happy to follow every command, fulfill every whimsy, that the Capitalist asks of it; in which the ultimate destination for the system, the ultimate consequence of the practices aforementioned, is the complete and total divergence from anything resembling fair and balanced. The ultimate destination of Capitalism is a plutocratic, tyrannical, Social-Darwinian, pseudo-Democracy, where the injustices of the system are disguised behind a thin veil of false elections and false freedom. (mic drop)
Relating back to the original thesis, economic inequality is the underlying cause of a majority of our countries problems. Emancipation of humanity, of which economic equality is the largest part, is the goal of socialists. So, socialists seek to ameliorate the world's problems. Problems such as crime rates, health issues, drug addiction, poor education, decreased productivity, political corruption, and unfair treatment of other nations all have their synthesis primarily in economic inequality. Hence, a socialist seeks to relieve these problems.
@Ethan, I’m not going to profess that I know more about politics and such, but I do have a question. When essentially everything is given to people, because we are all “equal”, then where is the incentive to work? It seems to me that Marxism is based on everyone doing their fair share and everyone working very hard. I don’t see this happening. Let’s pretend that our school is its own little nation. Not to rag on the people of our school, but I can name plenty of people who would cut corners and be lazy, and I have to give them part of my share? No way. Also it appears to me that this idea of Marxism, while making everyone equal, would also limit the chance to excel and makes everyone live in “average” conditions. While I also don’t agree with pure un-regulated capitalism, I still think that capitalism is the best system. While you did point out that critics point to Russia and China etc, you can’t just ignore them because they aren’t pure Marxist. Those nations don’t even compare to America (yes that might be a little ignorant of me to say, I’ve been to other countries though and they really don’t come close)
ReplyDeleteTo address your thesis, converting America to a socialist country will not solve our problems, only worsen them. Taking from the “haves” and giving it to the “have not’s” without making people really work for it doesn't solve anything.
@Ethan, I’m not going to profess that I know more about politics and such, but I do have a question. When essentially everything is given to people, because we are all “equal”, then where is the incentive to work? It seems to me that Marxism is based on everyone doing their fair share and everyone working very hard. I don’t see this happening. Let’s pretend that our school is its own little nation. Not to rag on the people of our school, but I can name plenty of people who would cut corners and be lazy, and I have to give them part of my share? No way. Also it appears to me that this idea of Marxism, while making everyone equal, would also limit the chance to excel and makes everyone live in “average” conditions. While I also don’t agree with pure un-regulated capitalism, I still think that capitalism is the best system. While you did point out that critics point to Russia and China etc, you can’t just ignore them because they aren’t pure Marxist. Those nations don’t even compare to America (yes that might be a little ignorant of me to say, I’ve been to other countries though and they really don’t come close)
ReplyDeleteTo address your thesis, converting America to a socialist country will not solve our problems, only worsen them. Taking from the “haves” and giving it to the “have not’s” without making people really work for it doesn't solve anything.
The incentive to work, the incentive to excel at a craft, is something that is inherent within society. Freud said that one of the essential things humans need is something to occupy their time: work. In addition, if people are educated from a young age that altruism is desirable than that will cultivate an even stronger desire to help others and society.
ReplyDeleteThis theory holds true in the real world. In countries, such as those in Europe, where medical doctors aren't paid as much by nature, they don't subsequently do a worse job at their craft. They also aren't a shortage of said doctors. So, the "incentive" to work, if lessened doesn't result in lesser quality of work, at least upto to point tried thusfar.
People deserve to live in "average" material conditions. That does not equate to average conditions of other attributes: such as art, drama, music, sports, etc. Why does someone need material possessions beyond what is necessary? In fact, often times having material possessions in excess of what is necessary results in detriments to said person's mental health. Countries which have more rich people also have more mental disorders, such as anorexia or the like.
It's not that Russia and China were only partially Marxist; it's that they weren't Marxist at all. Marx's two most prominent and integral ideas in the application of practical Marxism are thus: One, "To each according to his need; from each according to his ability," and, two, under socialism the government necessarily is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat": The government is the people.
So, this isn't a case of a "no true Scotsman fallacy", this is a case of actuality. In actuality both Russia and China didn't meet either of these two fundamental tenets of Marxism. Hence, they weren't Marxist. They were Leninist/Stalinist and Maoist respectively.
Philosophically, neither Russia or China could have become Marxist. Marxism first requires Capitalism. Russia and China weren't Capitalist at the time of their pseudo-proletariat uprisings. Hence, since Marxism requires that Capitalism be present at the proletariat uprising (indeed there are no proletarians without Capitalism), and since Russia and China were backwards, then Marxism never had a chance in those two countries.
America has some of the largest amounts of economic inequality in the world. We are more inequitable than the Congo. Among western democracies, the U.S. is the most inequal by far. This is due to the fact that the U.S. has the most free-markets. Worldwide countries with free-er markets also have higher levels of inequity.
Capitalism's strength is supposed to be the amount of progress that is generated under it. Well, that isn't the case in the U.S. Europe, by-enlarge a democratic socialist society, has surpassed us with respects to technology, economy, and production-per-capita.
The philosophical reason Capitalism is flawed is because Adam Smith assumed that Humans would always be moral by nature. He was after all a moral philosopher. Sometimes Humans aren't moral.
Also, in pure-Marxist-communism, there is no government. Pure-Marxism is pure anarchy. So, how can two countries with large amounts of government be communist in any sense of the world. Not only do they have lots of government, but their governmental powers were expanding, not shrinking. They weren't even trying to be truly Communist.
One of the biggest things that has prevented me from accepting the idea of a Marxist revolution is the fact that Marx theorized that any proper installment of a Communist government would require a violent revolution.
ReplyDeleteMy aversion has been that I do not want to indirectly advocate violence (I realize that, inevitably, my vote will somewhere and somehow advocate a violent policy, albeit unconsciously -- I am a human). I cannot think of any realistic alternatives to this kind of revolution.
How do you think, realistically, a Marxist system could be constructed without requiring violence?
First off, Marx did make exceptions later in his life that some instances of a proletarian uprising wouldn't actually be violent. In places which were sufficiently democratic the changes that needed to take place in order to move towards Communism could simply be voted in.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Marx didn't advocate violence necessarily. The way he viewed the world - Historical Materialism - made it seem as though a proletariat uprising was inevitable. Historical Materialism has to do with Hegelian dialectics applied to history. I don't have time to explain Historical Materialism. So, with the seemingly inevitability of a proletariat uprising, Marx simply sought to guide those uprisings toward a desirable goal: the creation of a better society.
The are potentially many different reasons why a proletariat uprising was never successful in a suitable country, in fact that is what many modern Marxist theorists try to solve, but the political climate at Marx's time was considerably more volatile then it is now (the year Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, 1848, nearly every country in Europe had a revolution).
Realistically, the diminuation of various forms of oppression is the best way to be Marxist. Various Marxists have disputed what is the single greatest contributor towards oppression. They synthesized ending things such as oppressive ideologies (Marx along with most early Marxists), sexual repression (Marcuse), distorted communicative action (Habermas), the creation of voluntary docility through a panoptic effect (Foucault), and bringing to bear an egalitarianification of the economic climate of the world (pretty much every Marxist). Generally, things like combating arbitrary juridical inhibitions, racism, sexism, and any other dissymmetry between the treatment of groups; promoting cosmopolitanism and anti-patriotism; abhorring yuppie-culture, consumerism, and status oriented attitudes; the elimination of organized religion; and stripping, non-violently of course, Capital of its intrinsic value (essentially eliminating Capital), the Bourgeoisie of their excess wealth, and entitling everyone to a livelihood. Those aforementioned ideas are the policies that are generally considered appropriate for the strengthening of the Marxist cause.