Marxism is not the answer - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14808818
@ingliz
Of course it is reasonable to assume that the Church is not pushing the narrative that slavery is an evil entirely out of humanitarian sentiment. That at least initially the Church is forbidding only the enslavement of Christians with both heathens and muslims being fair game looks like a way to incentivise heathens and perhaps also muslims to convert.

What you are missing is that to the extent that in England / France that policy is successful in encouraging heathens to convert you will eventually run out of people who can be legally enslaved, so you then have a shortage of slaves to go with your shortage of coin, and it is this that results in the practice of both using land titles as means of payment for military service and serfdom as a means of extracting labour and / or rents which are the practices that modern people call feudalism.

With regard to the Church's policy of using exemption from slavery as a means to encourage conversion, with the side effect of causing a shortage of slaves, a similar thing happened in Muslim world too because the muslim rulers also had comparable policy where one could become tax exempt by converting to Islam. This policy creates a persistent financial incentive to become a muslim but which eventually leads to a shortage of tax revenues as the majorities of peoples under this policy eventually come to take advantage of it.

The Knights of Malta are in a different situation to those peoples in England / France as they are right on the frontlines with Islam, constantly engaged in military conflicts through which they have the opportunity to acquire slaves of a sort (muslims) which does not offend the church. Moreover those muslim slaves are very much less likely than heathens to try to legally escape slavery by converting to Christianity because Islam unlike heathen beliefs places great perils on apostasy.

I wonder how you think the Knights of Malta damages my thesis more than it does yours given they at least appear to be, depending on who they are dealing with at the time, feudalists, slavers and capitalists all at the same time. Apparently the Knights of Malta had not fallen under the spell of magical dialectics so that they by these metaphysical imperatives are slavers first then become feudalists and then to become capitalists..

See feudalism isn't a spiritual philosophy and for that matter neither is slavery, serfdom, tithing, tax, rents, monetary exchange using gold, monetary exchange using promissory notes, barter, wages and salaries, credit and debt, usury, arbitrage or whatever else. They are all just practical techniques to solve material economic interests. Which ones dominate in a particular time and place depends not on some mystical progression but only on the particular material contexts of that time and place ie: gold money will tend not to predominate for exchange where gold is vanishingly scarce - 11th century England. Waged labour will not tend to predominate where slavery is legally tolerated and slaves are plentiful due to a polity's streak of successful warring - Imperial Rome.
#14808831
metaphysical imperatives

"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love."

Marx and Engels, The German Ideology

I wonder...

Wonder no more.

Obviously, your thesis (magical dialectics and metaphysical imperatives), which, for some reason known only to yourself, you insist on calling my thesis, is not mine. Marx himself said, "to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself" is very silly.

Letter from Marx to Editor of the Otecestvenniye Zapisky, Nov. 1877 wrote:events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.


:)
#14809152
@ingliz
If that is your round about way of agreeing that capitalism does not follow feudalism which in turn does not follow slavery as a progressive sequence then fine I stand corrected on the beliefs of Marxists.

Surely though if this narrative of progression is not what you believe to be of the past then what of the corresponding narrative of progression into the future where socialism is supposed to follow capitalism which in turn is followed by communism which is what appears to be the claim of marxists?

Or is that also something marxists do not believe in contrast to what others believe they believe?
#14809223
agreeing

No.

Why would I? Marx's 'historical sketch' is historically correct.

slavery --> feudalism --> capitalism.

If

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas.

something marxists do not believe

I, a marxist of sorts, am not an economic determinist.

The German Ideology wrote:circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances [...] These conditions of life, which different generations find in existence, decide also whether or not the periodically recurring revolutionary convulsion will be strong enough to overthrow the basis of the entire existing system. And if these material elements of a complete revolution are not present (namely, on the one hand the existing productive forces, on the other the formation of a revolutionary mass, which revolts not only against separate conditions of society up till then, but against the very “production of life” till then, the “total activity” on which it was based), then, as far as practical development is concerned, it is absolutely immaterial whether the idea of this revolution has been expressed a hundred times already, as the history of communism proves.


:)
#14809338
ingliz wrote:Why would I? Marx's 'historical sketch' was historically correct.

slavery --> feudalism --> capitalism


It only works for France / England and even then only if you ignore good chunks of history and make essentially false distinctions between them.

Ancient Rome drifted away from waged labour to an increasing reliance on slavery because Rome's military proved particularly successful at winning wars and so produced plentiful slaves as booty of war. The Army that won those slaves however was not a slave army it was army of salaried men. Moreover the existence of slavery hinges on an essentially legal / moral issue.

So called "feudalism" requires a scarcity of coin with which to pay the military prompting the use of land grants instead.

Serfdom requires both a shortage of coin and a shortage of slaves.

So called "capitalism" is only different from these other two in that slavery is not legal and coin, or coin substitutes like credit and promissory notes are plentiful.

The point to take away is there is no whiggish progression, for western Europe it very loosely happened in that order but it could easily have happened in a different order.

Ancient Rome sometimes ran short of coin (well salt as it was used as coin), in these instances the Army were offered land grants on retirement, that's feudalism.

The Knights of Malta were in a unique situation where they could harvest a steady stream of slaves unprotected by the Church or the Christian kings.

The colonists of the Americas were far enough from the laws and morals of Europe to feel able to redefine the legality of slavery to allow it, even though "feudalism" was several centuries in the past.

The USSR arguably made very extensive use of slavery, of two kinds: soft and hard.

The hard slavery was the gulag system obviously. The soft slavery is a situation of fake free labour, fake because the only employer is the government, the government unilaterally decides the prices of labour and the prices of commodities. The government will also prevent escape and punish with lethal force protest of pay and conditions. In this environment "free" labour's ability to negotiate is reduced to zero which is a condition scarcely different from chattel slavery.
Last edited by SolarCross on 29 May 2017 13:10, edited 1 time in total.
#14809359
there is no whiggish progression

Marxism is not teleological.

The German Ideology wrote:History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations [...] This can be speculatively distorted so that later history is made the goal of earlier history [...] Thereby history receives its own special aims and becomes "a person rating with other persons" [...] while what is designated with the words "destiny", "goal", "germ", or "idea" of earlier history is nothing more than an abstraction formed from later history, from the active influence which earlier history exercises on later history.


:)
#14809385
ingliz wrote:Marxism is not teleological.

True but neither is the whig theory of history necessarily as the whigs didn't necessarily invoke god/s as the source of "progress".

Instead of god/s Marx has dialectal materialism determining the sequence of history.

Is this wiki page an incorrect representation of Marx's beliefs and that of his followers? Marx's theory of history

For extra fun I have just read an article by Rothbard on progressive theories of history which gives a brief mention of the Marxist take.

I should also say the Marxists are also, oddly enough, Whig theorists — although in a special, conflict version. Even though the Marxists don't believe in a step-by-step, linear approach upward, it's a dialectic approach upward, it's a sort of zigzag approach.

Then the Marxists, too, fall back on this historicist viewpoint. Marxists are very antislavery now (some forms of slavery, not their own), but slavery in the old days was good because it was better than whatever the other thing was. Serfdom was better than slavery.

So they too have this Whig theory, this historicist theory, and the revolution becomes inevitable.

By the way, this is why Marxists and semi-Marxists always use the terms "progressive" and "reactionary." I don't know if any of you have ever thought about the use of those terms.

To Marxists, the highest moral or the only moral truth is when you're in favor of the inevitable revolution, being in tune with the inevitable laws of events.

Progressives, then, are the people who are in tune with the next phase of the inevitable historical development, like the proletarian revolution. Reactionaries are those who are opposed to it.

In other words, the whole terminology of "progressive" and "reactionary" is one that is used on an implicitly ethical basis: it's really a question of who's in tune with the coming event and who isn't. Who's in touch with the zeitgeist (or the coming zeitgeist) and who's not in touch with it? That's the only standard.


The Progressive Theory of History
#14809435
Marx has dialectal materialism determining the sequence of history

The term dialectical materialism was never used by Marx (or Engels). Plekhanov’s philosophy of dialectical materialism was not and is not synonymous with Marx’s method.

J. Devine, Georgi Plekhanov and the roots of Soviet philosophy wrote:Plekhanov actually echoed Feuerbach and not Marx. Yet, what Feuerbach wrote was, in its turn, merely an echo of the argument Hegel made at the end of his Lectures on the History of Philosophy [...] Plekhanov was not a Marxist, but rather a neo-Young Hegelian.


determining

Dialectics is not a formula for generating predetermined outcomes.

the inevitable revolution

The revolution is not inevitable.

The Economists' determinism is "revolutionary phrase-mongering", vulgar Marxism, bait to lure the simple minded.

Engels quoting Marx, Letter to Bernstein, 1882 wrote:[If their politics represent Marxism] Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.


:)
#14857263
If the organization of labor increases the complexity of thought inside a human society, why does Marx ignore compartmentalization of occupation, information security, and state secrecy? Is Marx a moron?
#14857267
The epistemological value of any dialectic relies on the juxtaposition of two competing ideas. Did Marx theorize dialectical materialism in order to perpetuate capitalism? :eek:
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 29 Oct 2017 20:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14857272
RhetoricThug wrote:The epistemological value of any dialectic relies on the juxtaposition of two competing ideas. Did Marx theorize dialectical materialism in order to perpetuate capitalism?


Nope.

Simple thoughts often get wrapped up in the fact Marx often praised capitalism. But it doesn’t mean he thought it would last forever.

Because he is focusing on the means of production more than feelings. This is difficult for people that think simply to understand sometimes.
#14857290
The Immortal Goon wrote:Because he is focusing on the means of production more than feelings. This is difficult for people that think simply to understand sometimes.
Sure thing, dogma-darling... Just made a thread poking fun of how dislocated Marxist thinking can be, because it obsesses over efficient cause and ignores the rest of reality. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=171871 You're a pathological Marxist, TIG.

The Immortal Goon wrote:Nope.

Simple thoughts often get wrapped up in the fact Marx often praised capitalism. But it doesn’t mean he thought it would last forever.

I see this thread as just as simple-minded as anything else in the communism forum. :roll:
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

@FiveofSwords Also, don't get too hung up on g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

This post was made on the 16th April two years ag[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

https://twitter.com/hermit_hwarang/status/1779130[…]

Iran is going to attack Israel

All foreign politics are an extension of domestic[…]