Marxism 2.0 - Page 2 - 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.
User avatar
By Crantag
#14883105
@Victoribus Spolia, the sort of claims you are drawing up to then attempting to tear down are exactly the sorts of analysis I was rejecting as not Marxist.

The exposition of the evolution of society from feudal to the contemporary stage of capitalism, at the time of the anonymous publication of the political propaganda pamphlet (not theoretical treatise) The Communist Manifesto, was used to critique the accepted prevailing ideology of bourgeois historical revisionism.

If you want to continue to talk about the relation between materialism and ideology, I certainly don't think I can do any better on it than the private correspondence of Fredric Engels, which IG quoted.

What I see you doing is constructing straw mans, but at the same time, you are not refuting what I said. I reject your claim that Marxist analysis purports to explain the past, verbatim, in any way. To me, it is merely a mode of critical analysis.

So if you want to understand Marxism, try studying serious Marxist economic analysis. Capital vol. 1 is a good place to start. That would be better than trying to figure out how you might define some precise Marxist ideology, for to then attack.

But your post makes me suspect you are also dragging in Marxist-Hegelian debate, which is also not really too relevant to what I had said, other than perhaps in one way. If you are seeking to attack what I said from a Hegelian point of view, I'll just refer to David Harvey who has treated this somewhat in his study of Marx's economics treatise, and who argues that Marx inverted Hegel, with respect to the logic at play here. Or perhaps you are attacking Hegel as if it were attacking Marx? In which case, this applies even more so.

Mind you, I have far and away not interested myself very much in these sorts of controversies, as my interest has primarily been political economy.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14883112
@Crantag,

Does Marxism, as TIG claimed, argue that material conditions are the basis of ideology, yes or no?
User avatar
By Crantag
#14883115
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@Crantag,

Does Marxism, as TIG claimed, argue that material conditions are the basis of ideology, yes or no?


Yes, it certainly does.

That doesn't mean that it purports to know everything about everything that has been effected by material conditions, as you seem to try to extrapolate to construct your strawmans.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14883118
Crantag wrote:Yes, it certainly does.

That doesn't mean that it purports to know everything about everything that has been effected by material conditions, as you seem to try to extrapolate to construct your strawmans.


Either the relation is a correlation (which means that the term "basis" would be inappropriate) or such is the causal grounds (which is a fallacy). So which is it?

If the relation is merely correlative, nothing is proven, if it is claimed to be necessary (causal) its a fallacy unless you can establish a logical syllogism which would prove the claim as universal.

You can't have it both ways. Thats not a straw-man, thats logic.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14883120
Anyway, I got booze to drink, so i will not be posting until after the weekend. Cheers.
By Rugoz
#14883257
How can anyone seriously claim that the dramatic changes in material conditions in the past few hundred years had no impact on predominant ideology?

It's silly.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14883369
Rugoz wrote:How can anyone seriously claim that the dramatic changes in material conditions in the past few hundred years had no impact on predominant ideology?


Good thing nobody made that argument huh?
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14883373
Crantag wrote:@Victoribus Spolia, the sort of claims you are drawing up to then attempting to tear down are exactly the sorts of analysis I was rejecting as not Marxist.

The exposition of the evolution of society from feudal to the contemporary stage of capitalism, at the time of the anonymous publication of the political propaganda pamphlet (not theoretical treatise) The Communist Manifesto, was used to critique the accepted prevailing ideology of bourgeois historical revisionism.

If you want to continue to talk about the relation between materialism and ideology, I certainly don't think I can do any better on it than the private correspondence of Fredric Engels, which IG quoted.

What I see you doing is constructing straw mans, but at the same time, you are not refuting what I said. I reject your claim that Marxist analysis purports to explain the past, verbatim, in any way. To me, it is merely a mode of critical analysis.

So if you want to understand Marxism, try studying serious Marxist economic analysis. Capital vol. 1 is a good place to start. That would be better than trying to figure out how you might define some precise Marxist ideology, for to then attack.

But your post makes me suspect you are also dragging in Marxist-Hegelian debate, which is also not really too relevant to what I had said, other than perhaps in one way. If you are seeking to attack what I said from a Hegelian point of view, I'll just refer to David Harvey who has treated this somewhat in his study of Marx's economics treatise, and who argues that Marx inverted Hegel, with respect to the logic at play here. Or perhaps you are attacking Hegel as if it were attacking Marx? In which case, this applies even more so.

Mind you, I have far and away not interested myself very much in these sorts of controversies, as my interest has primarily been political economy.


I always have thought @Crantag that if one wants to argue well something you disagree with philosophically the first step is to read that philosophy well FIRST. What I find common with a lot of religious right people in this place? Is that they don't write or study a damn thing about Hegel, Marx, or even some basics in social science, they just presume to know what the left uses as a base for explaining capitalist economic theories, and go off on a tangent with little substance. Why?

I like all aspects of human thought, philosophy and behavior Crantag. So what do I do? After I get through with economic theory and so on? I move on to religion...the history of religion. Not because I am a convert--but because I want to understand how humans behave when they are believers. For me that is interesting. So? You study religious texts and religious scholars who interpret religious texts. Religion is indeed a part of human culture. What I find interesting is how many religious right Christians who love Trump and are into extreme Right/Fascist/National agendas refuse to learn about any religion, political theories outside of what they narrow know. Why come into a debate fora with a bunch of Commies, Marxists, socialists, and liberals without knowing a damn thing about the theories you are disagreeing with? It is poor form. Poor thought process and makes them look bad.

I don't understand what are the purposes of these lazy ass ways of arguing your perspectives? Explain it to me? As an academic please explain the way one wins arguments in debate platforms without knowing a damn thing about what one disagrees with? I need to understand this bizarre and illogical behavior?
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14883383
Somebody please tell me why individuals should be taken seriously who engage in presumption, ad-hominem, and hasty generalization while demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge regarding how academic disputation acutally works, how metaphysical claims are to be evaluated, and how logic is used. Also could someone explain to me, from their academic expertise, how dismissing a critique as "uninformed" constitutes a valid rebuttal? :lol:

Not talking about anyone specifically, just asking. 8)

Image
By B0ycey
#14883436
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Does Marxism, as TIG claimed, argue that material conditions are the basis of ideology, yes or no?


Surely you can't argue that ideology is not determined by material conditions. It is happening today by every nation with their political policies.

Look at US foreign policy for example. The US's need for oil and to retain the Petro-Dollar resulted in the destabilization of the ME and a proxy war. US allies are forged by what material gains can be achieved by said ally too. If an ally can't offer the US anything, they no longer retain ally status. Same logic can be applied with individual personas as well. Look at Conservatism. Conservatism is championed by those who want to protect their material gains. Socialism is championed by those who want some of that material gain. This results in ideological conditioning in the environment you are within. A wealthy and poor environment results in a left-right divide.

So what has this to do with Marx? Marx wasn't stupid. He knew material possession was essential for human existence but also knew it had to work for the benefit of the proletariat. His solution was non-possession and work being beneficial for society as a whole. This is a material condition for the environment at the time. The Victorian poor didn't have much possessions to begin with so they didn't have much to lose (but much to gain) if a revolution ever took place. So what was offered was just. So a carrot was dangled in front of the proletariat to bring the possibility of Communism forward. But times have changed. Capitalism has made the West wealthy and it can't be bought down the same way Marx envisaged in Victorian times. So yes, Communism needs a 2.0. Not just because society has moved forward but because it is system has been proven to be riddled by corruption - as proven by the Soviet project. It also doesn't promote human progression. I suspect a Capitalist-Socialist hybrid is perhaps a feasible solution that could be achievable in the right economic conditions.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14883440
B0ycey, at least you are understanding stuff. I am afraid some other people of the conservative or right type of monarchy advocacy don't get it. They don't because they want to not read. Should not be prideful and READ.

Hmm, I am going to argue with you another time my dear B0ycey. The best transition for now is to deal with the threat of gaps in wealth inequality getting to the point of implosion. And climate change forcing disparate interests to get aggressive. A topic for another thread.

You centrist B0ycey..... ;)
User avatar
By MrCredo
#14886439
Communism is the formation is linked to technical revolutions. Rather it is socialism and communism the top of his form. If it does not occur then there is a reaction of the previous regime.
Private property is gradually replaced by the lease of means of production, and personal property has been unchanged.

The era of idols has passed, the world has captured the mass culture that has affected the entire spectrum of society from the bottom to the top. Generation of feudal Rothschilds leaves, democratic billionaires with a conditional state who live as middle class come.
By Truth To Power
#14887144
MrCredo wrote:Stalin said that capitalism is not eternal formation of human society. That money and the commodity exchange was under feudalism and under the slave system, this means that capitalism is nothing more than a superstructure of feudalism ++.

More accurately, capitalism is feudalism + the state. Under feudalism, such government functions as are performed are performed by private landowners. Because there is no state to secure land tenure, land rents are entirely absorbed by the need to defend the private landowner's possessions against rival landowners. This leaves nothing to invest in advancing production, leading to economic stagnation. Capitalism solves this problem by relieving the landowner of the need to defend possession and funding defense instead by taxes on economic activity, enabling the landowner to pocket the land rent instead of spending it on defense. Rent then becomes a fund from which productive capital investments may be made. A more productive economy means the capitalist state can consequently afford more and better arms, and can field bigger and better trained armies. That is why capitalism beats feudalism. It also beats socialism, because when capitalists appropriate land as private property, it does not reduce the amount of land available for production; but when socialists appropriate capital goods as collective property, it DOES reduce the amount of capital goods available for production.
What do you think, will there be a new theory, similar to the Marxist, in terms of criticism of post-industrialism?

There is already a new theory -- the truth -- but as such it is not similar to the Marxist one.
Who will be the basis for the class struggle salariat or precariat?

Both. And the productive investors in capital goods. All the producers -- and consumers -- will have to rise against the privileged if capitalism is to be supplanted by a better system.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14887146
Truth To Power wrote:More accurately, capitalism is feudalism + the state. Under feudalism, such government functions as are performed are performed by private landowners. Because there is no state to secure land tenure, land rents are entirely absorbed by the need to defend the private landowner's possessions against rival landowners. This leaves nothing to invest in advancing production, leading to economic stagnation. Capitalism solves this problem by relieving the landowner of the need to defend possession and funding defense instead by taxes on economic activity, enabling the landowner to pocket the land rent instead of spending it on defense. Rent then becomes a fund from which productive capital investments may be made. A more productive economy means the capitalist state can consequently afford more and better arms, and can field bigger and better trained armies. That is why capitalism beats feudalism. It also beats socialism, because when capitalists appropriate land as private property, it does not reduce the amount of land available for production; but when socialists appropriate capital goods as collective property, it DOES reduce the amount of capital goods available for production.


This is an excellent point.
By Truth To Power
#14887155
The Immortal Goon wrote:More to the point, it goes under the fact that Marxists view material reality as important

No, they actually don't. Marxists view Marx's errors as being both more important and more true than objective facts of material reality. This began with Marx himself. Late in life, he realized that his entire economic analysis was factually incorrect, and admitted as much -- deep in Vol III of "Capital" where no one would ever read it. The profits he had claimed went to the factory owner as a result of underpayment ("exploitation") of workers were in fact all absorbed by land rent, and were taken by landowners, not factory owners. That is why owning a factory but not the land under it is a precarious living that occasionally gains a fortune but more often ends in bankruptcy, while owning land gets one a guaranteed, eternal, and relentlessly increasing flow of unearned wealth. But Marx said, in effect, that this fact of material reality should be ignored, because it would remove the rationale for violent seizure of the factories by the proletariat!
#14887170
Truth To Power wrote:No, they actually don't. Marxists view Marx's errors as being both more important and more true than objective facts of material reality. This began with Marx himself. Late in life, he realized that his entire economic analysis was factually incorrect, and admitted as much -- deep in Vol III of "Capital" where no one would ever read it.


Wow, this was really late in life. Marx died in 1883.

Kapital vol. III came out in 1894.

:lol:

It's fair to say that vol. III was written by Marx as it was his notes that Engels used (and I believe Kautsky was in the mix there too). But it's not really fair to say that he realized he was wrong and added some kind of cloaked admission into something that was published more than a decade after he was dead.

The profits he had claimed went to the factory owner as a result of underpayment ("exploitation") of workers were in fact all absorbed by land rent, and were taken by landowners, not factory owners. That is why owning a factory but not the land under it is a precarious living that occasionally gains a fortune but more often ends in bankruptcy, while owning land gets one a guaranteed, eternal, and relentlessly increasing flow of unearned wealth. But Marx said, in effect, that this fact of material reality should be ignored, because it would remove the rationale for violent seizure of the factories by the proletariat!


I'm assuming that you're asking for help again as you have trouble understanding these things.

It would help, of course, if you could cite what you were actually writing about. It generally helps ;)

I'm presuming you read someone on the internet that was going over part VI, but left out some of the qualifiers:

Marx wrote:The analysis of landed property in its various historical forms is beyond the scope of this work. We shall be concerned with it only in so far as a portion of the surplus-value produced by capital falls to the share of the landowner. We assume, then, that agriculture is dominated by the capitalist mode of production just as manufacture is; in other words, that agriculture is carried on by capitalists who differ from other capitalists primarily in the manner in which their capital, and the wage-labour set in motion by this capital, are invested. So far as we are concerned, the farmer produces wheat, etc., in much the same way as the manufacturer produces yarn or machines. The assumption that the capitalist mode of production has encompassed agriculture implies that it rules over all spheres of production and bourgeois society, i.e., that its prerequisites, such as free competition among capitals, the possibility of transferring the latter from one production sphere to another, and a uniform level of the average profit, etc., are fully matured. The form of landed property which we shall consider here is a specifically historical one a form transformed through the influence of capital and of the capitalist mode of production, either of feudal landownership, or of small-peasant agriculture as a means of livelihood, in which the possession of the land and the soil constitutes one of the prerequisites of production for the direct producer, and in which his ownership of land appears as the most advantageous condition for the prosperity of his mode of production. Just as the capitalist mode of production in general is based on the expropriation of the conditions of labour from the labourers, so does it in agriculture presuppose the expropriation of the rural labourers from the land and their subordination to a capitalist, who carries on agriculture for the sake of profit. Thus, for the purpose of our analysis, the objection that other forms of landed property and of agriculture have existed, or still exist, is quite irrelevant. Such an objection can only apply to those economists who treat the capitalist mode of production in agriculture, and the form of landed property corresponding to it, not as historical but rather as eternal categories.


You'll note that he's very specifically speaking about a certain form of landlord...But it continues to narrow down to us an example, specific to England, when there were Corn Laws and Irish famine relief was put onto landlords:

Marx wrote:Various circumstances, such as the depreciation of money and the manipulation of the Poor Laws in the agricultural districts, had made this operation possible at a time when the incomes of the tenants were enormously increasing and the landlords were amassing fabulous riches. Indeed, one of the main arguments of both tenants and landlords for the introduction of duties on corn was that it was physically impossible to depress farm labourers' wages any lower. This state of affairs has not significantly changed, and in England, as in all European countries, a portion of the normal wage is absorbed by ground-rent just as ever.


He then goes further, and specifies a single individual making a singular claim:

Marx wrote:When Count Shaftesbury, then Lord Ashley, one of the philanthropic aristocrats, was so extraordinarily moved by the condition of English factory operatives and acted as their spokesman in Parliament during the agitation for a ten-hour day, the spokesmen of the industrialists took their revenge by publishing wage statistics of agricultural labourers in the villages belonging to him (see Buch I, Kap. XXIII, 5, e [English edition: Ch XXV 5 e — Ed])("The British Agricultural Proletariat"), which clearly showed that a portion of the ground-rent of this philanthropist consisted of loot filched for him by his tenants out of the wages of agricultural labourers.


Presumably that is what you're referring to, though it's pretty clear in context that you are interpreting it completely incorrectly.

It also proves completely the opposite of your assertion that Marx said: "this fact of material reality should be ignored, because it would remove the rationale for violent seizure of the factories by the proletariat!"

I understand you have a difficult time with this stuff. Let me know if you need me to break any of it down for you even further :)
By Truth To Power
#14887574
The Immortal Goon wrote:Wow, this was really late in life. Marx died in 1883.

Kapital vol. III came out in 1894. :lol:

:lol: Marx could never quite bring himself to admit his error in print while he was alive, but the economic analysis presented in Vol III is unquestionably his, and it unquestionably concludes -- correctly -- that land rent absorbs the profit the capitalist gets as a result of workers being deprived of access to economic opportunity by landowners. Socialists blaming factory owners for the exploitation of workers is therefore exactly equivalent to abolitionists blaming the overseer -- a mere wage laborer -- for the execrable condition of slaves, when it is the slave owner who both owns their rights to liberty and consequently pockets their wages, without ever getting his delicate hands dirty.
But it's not really fair to say that he realized he was wrong and added some kind of cloaked admission into something that was published more than a decade after he was dead.

Actually, it is.
I'm assuming that you're asking for help again as you have trouble understanding these things.

Wrong again.
It would help, of course, if you could cite what you were actually writing about. It generally helps ;)

It is scattered through Part VI in various circumlocutions. It is a tremendous chore to tease it all out and put it together. Obviously his editors were extremely uncomfortable with the conclusion, and refused to permit Marx to state it directly and unambiguously, even if posthumously.
Presumably that is what you're referring to, though it's pretty clear in context that you are interpreting it completely incorrectly.

I am referring to a number of statements scattered throughout Part VI, but AFAIR, not the ones you quoted.
It also proves completely the opposite of your assertion that Marx said: "this fact of material reality should be ignored, because it would remove the rationale for violent seizure of the factories by the proletariat!"

There is a particular passage where he does effectively make that claim, but I don't have it to hand. It may take some time to find it.
I understand you have a difficult time with this stuff. Let me know if you need me to break any of it down for you even further :)

<yawn> If I can summon the motivation, I'll put some of the pieces together for you. Not that I have any expectation that you will find a willingness to know any facts.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#14887584
Truth To Power wrote::lol: Marx could never quite bring himself to admit his error in print while he was alive


Oh awesome, can I guess your sourcing on that since you don't seem to want to admit to it?

Image

You've admitted before that you have a lot of trouble with basic economics. But it helps to read it first :)

but the economic analysis presented in Vol III is unquestionably his, and it unquestionably concludes -- correctly -- that land rent absorbs the profit the capitalist gets as a result of workers being deprived of access to economic opportunity by landowners.


I've found about the only thing that would hint at that I know of, and—as shown—it displays the exact opposite. It would be a real help if you could cite a source so that we could chat about it.

That's how grown-ups tend to have these kinds of discussions :)

Actually, it is [okay to guess at Marx's feelings and then apply those against the writings that clearly say something different].


Most of us would consider that to be pretty childish. Try reading some other debates and see if you can see how your method is different than other people's.

Wrong again [I am not having difficulty understanding things].


It's very clear that your reading comprehension and grasp of numbers is a little challenged. Do you need help?

It [my evidence] is scattered through Part VI in various circumlocutions. It is a tremendous chore to tease it all out and put it together.


Since I'm pretty familiar with it, you could just point me in the right direction. But here's the thing, TTP, you have admitted to having a lot of trouble with basic economics. To the point that you think everybody else is lying to you when we have a grasp of it. I'm guessing that you read someone on the internet that said this stuff and you've never actually read Kapitol vol. III at all.

It's okay to admit this, because you do have a lot of trouble understanding these very basic things and I want to keep helping you.

Obviously his editors were extremely uncomfortable with the conclusion, and refused to permit Marx to state it directly and unambiguously, even if posthumously.


Now TTP, you didn't even know that he had editors until I taught that to you. How can this be obvious to you when you didn't even know the most basic facts about this work a day ago?

You're embarrassing yourself worse by pretending that these secret messages that only you know from a book you seemingly know nothing about proves your feelings.

It's okay to ask for help if you don't understand. I've offered my services many times. There's no shame in asking a grownup for help!

I am referring to a number of statements scattered throughout Part VI, but AFAIR, not the ones you quoted.

There is a particular passage where he does effectively make that claim, but I don't have it to hand. It may take some time to find it.


Which is it? Scattered statements that only you can divine, or a particular passage that is so vague that you don't know what it says?

Either way, neither of these are particularly compelling.

<yawn> If I can summon the motivation, I'll put some of the pieces together for you. Not that I have any expectation that you will find a willingness to know any facts.


Do you need a nap before you get cranky?

I look forward to the secret message Marx, or Engels, or Kaustky left when you make up your mind who; and the passage/several passages/secret general intonation that you provide when you figure out which one it is. I'll also enjoy reading the damning evidence that you can't remember/makes everything obvious when you remember what it does.

I look forward to helping you with basic reading comprehension of your own source/sources/feeling/memory, whatever you decide that it is!
User avatar
By Tainari88
#14887638
@The Immortal Goon I think Marx discussed how the material conditions determine how humans go about their social and economic relations. As such? Property and how it becomes the essence of power relations between social classes is very clear and unequivocal in Marxist thought. The bottom line is feudalism had to be replaced because the economy was restructured and that social/economic relationship of feudal lord and his serfs was no longer valid and or functional for capitalist economies.

Then the hybrid between capitalism and socialism evolved out of the need to stabilize capitalist boom or bust economic structures that created mass instability and threatened to change socioeconomic relations and power relations again. There will be the next stages in which the wealth and the productive harnessing of labor and information and technology and land and property will again have to be restructured to conform to changing material conditions.

In that? It all is following a smooth pattern. The argument then becomes if it will be fairly fast transition or a gradual one. I think it will happen quickly. The old structures will just bottom out due to the wealth inequality being so massively extreme that everything is explosive and change will be forced to come fast just to avoid catastrophe. What is your opinion?

Western Media is a bit tired of the protest by no[…]

I think you have it right. Capitalists are so fix[…]

Fiction

It's just to try and sully him before the 2020 el[…]

Ukrainegate

The problem with lies is the truth.. I watched a[…]