This is just a shallow poisoning of the well, the fallacy of guilt by association as well as a stawman. Is anyone on this thread advocating or defending Maoism? I join you in celebrating the condemnation of his violent regime. Clearly then, we have a problem here. TRY INTERACTING WITH THE QUESTIONS I POSED IN THE SECOND PRIVATE PROPERTY POST (you can find it on pg4 of this thread).

But it's even worse because the defenders of capitalism play with two cards: neo-Darwinism and contractualism. When it suits them, they appeal to the contractualist card to show off capitalism's pacifying virtues (Steve Pinker). When things don't work out, they claim the competitive Darwinian basis of capitalism. — David Mo

Spot on friend. Tragic that so many have swallowed Pinker uncritically. There is a deeper social problem which I believe has to do with rational instrumentality and an outdated logic that has begun to function as an ideology. Do you have any ideas on how this could be countered?

So why would we shy away from criticism? — NOS4A2

You have to first know how to do it before you can perform it. What you are engaged in IS NOT criticism, it is simply a form of confirmation bias.

What has Marx to do with democracy?

Marx isn't talking about democracy, especially not as an safety valve for society, but as a means for proletarian dictatorship in the class struggle. Proletarian dictatorship is a way to eradicate private property, the final goal for Marx. Marx doesn't give a shit about democracy, only if it furthers the exact cause of the proletariat: — ssu

Yeah what could Marx, the most prominent political thinker in the 19th century, have to do with democracy, the most contemplated political idea of the 19th century.

Of course Marx wrote quite a bit on democracy; advocating and organizing the formation of class conscious proletariat classes and organizations, and a political form that would appear alien to most inhabitants of the 21st century, much less to those that lean economically conservative. Marx's rendition of democracy that would be of value to the proletarian class is Hegelian in concept: abolishing private property in order to socialize the benefits of productive property for the proletarian class to legitimately unite the universal (i.e. the form of government) with the particular (the interest of individuals or a class). Besides the fact that the proletarian (i.e. wage laborers) make up the majority of voting citizens it's curious that you think democracy dissolves into a literal dictatorship if a class conscious citizenry gains legitimate power and leverages it to further their own goals by reorganizing pre-existing property arrangements. In form, it's no different than a "capitalist dictatorship" furthering their own cause by destroying labor unions, overturning or blocking environmental regulations, etc.

by the way, no one is forcing anyone to respond to NOS

American is actually the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth. This is not my opinion, this is an empirical fact. America redistributed 4.5 Trillion dollars into the stock market. And the Pentagon cannot account for a whopping 21 Trillion dollars! — JerseyFlight

Marx would be rolling in his grave over this stance. Socialism does not equal government intervention tout court.

"Only by forcible overthrow" doesn't seem like this "disappearance" would be peaceful. Stop trying to make Marx some kind of benign social democrat when he clearly isn't one. — ssu

Marx oscillated throughout his lifetime between violent insurrection and peaceful democratic regime change, often as a result of whatever was going on in Europe, but if you can't grapple with the fact that a 64-year-old man changed his mind here and there during the course of 40+ years of a highly intellectually active life than you demonstrably can't handle this thread

Marx would be rolling in his grave over this stance. Socialism does not equal government intervention tout court. — Maw

Here I am simply using the Neoliberal schema, thus reflected back in on itself.

Even if he's not I can assure you that you are a socialist, and would never pack up your goods and move to a purely capitalist country. American is actually the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth. This is not my opinion, this is an empirical fact. America redistributed 4.5 Trillion dollars into the stock market. And the Pentagon cannot account for a whopping 21 Trillion dollars! But you know, a medical system for your aging grandmother is too expensive, it could end up costing 1 Trillion dollars! America has engaged in more wealth redistribution than all the Marxist and Socialist countries combined!

It’s just not true that the US is a socialist country. The vast bulk of the means of production is privately owned.

by the way, no one is forcing anyone to respond to NOS — Maw

This is true, but tragically his fallacious and emotional approach to this topic is probably the approach of most people, at least in America. I understand the position of the intellectual who sees himself above it, there is truth to it, but it is also a form of arrogance. The Left has been obliterated precisely because its repose to people like NOS4A2, has simply been to declare them ignorant. And no doubt they are, but the error, even though it is incredibly juvenile, must be refuted. Simply dismissing people like him leaves them with with the impression that they have a powerful argument that cannot be refuted. Tragic, and fallacious as it is, it leaves them with the impression that their negative stance is both comprehensive and true. It is simply not good enough for intellectuals to use an ad hominem, believing it gives them an excuse to evade their responsibility of refutation. No doubt, there is a time to walk away and leave ignorance to itself, precisely because it wastes time, but in this case, the very likely fact that NOS4A2's position is common, provides good grounds to refute it.

Human Nature" does not exist, human brains exist, and they are exceedingly sensitive, what your brain experiences and how it develops determines who you are and what you become — JerseyFlight

The claim "Human nature does not exist" has never made sense to me. All other animals come loaded with a range of characteristics that does not finally or totally define them. I do not accept the idea that humans, evolving along with other primates, have no characteristics arising from their genetic heritage (which is rooted far deeper than primate species).

Granted, our intellectual capabilities exceed other species--indeed, put us in a category by ourselves--as we like to remind ourselves quite often. But pliable intellect isn't all of human nature. There are also the powerful emotional properties of human beings which are malleable only to some extent. In all, the way we exist as physical beings owes much to our genetic inheritance--that is, our nature.

The mention of "human nature" seems to be a triggering event for some people. True enough, there are unhelpful doctrines out there that excuse a lot of bad behavior, like original sin, war-like human nature, unsatisfiable acquisitiveness, and so on and so forth. We can ditch original sin and like theories if it helps (though we humans seem to validate the doctrine that we are prone to error (and major error at that) a good share of the time).

Obviously, the environment in which we experience the world is a factor in our individual realities, apart from what we inherit. Environment and experience are important--no denying that.

We have had a lot of experience of these "other democracies" and how democracy is killed by this method when there isn't actual representation of any others than those firm believers of the right cause. — ssu

Democracy is also perverted when it is controlled by a social group. If all the candidates for elections represent the interests of the industrial-military complex, as Eisenhower called it, and the possibilities of an alternative are blocked by the system, democracy is nothing but a sham. We elect the same people to do what others we have not elected demand of them. This is capitalist democracy, according to Marx. Was he right? In large part, I'm afraid.

All I have to do is to look at my conservative party in this country and how it supports the welfare state — ssu

You live in the Land of Cocaigne, surely. All the efforts of the conservative parties in Europe, especially since the fall of the communist bloc, are aimed at widening the gap between the rich and the poor, at degrade working conditions and at dismantling social services. To put it euphemistically, this is the neoliberal programme. According to reports from international bodies, this is exactly what is happening.
If ever there was anything that resembled the welfare state, it was due to the push of trade unions and left-wing parties -communist among others. As these have less and less strength, we are heading towards a wild capitalism if capitalism does not finish the planet first. This seems more likely.

"Only by forcible overthrow" doesn't seem like this "disappearance" would be peaceful. — ssu

If you don't read what the rest of us write, the debate becomes a Marx's dialog -- Groucho Marx,of course. I repeat:

But he did not think that the process would be very peaceful. Exploiters don't like to have their means of exploitation taken away from them and they have enough power to defend themselves violently. The way he had done it in Europe (France especially during the communes of 1848 and 1871) made this very clear. — David Mo

Marx wanted class distinction to disappear by adjusting social and economic rules in such a way everyone becomes part of the same class. — Benkei

Correction: no private property, no classes. Not one or three. Marx believed that after a period of the dictatorship of the proletariat there would be no classes. This would imply the existence of the true unity among men -Humanity- which class division makes impossible. On how this would happen and what it would imply Marx was not very precise because he thought that this would not be the same history and he explained history.

They may benefit from the current economic hegemony, — NOS4A2

If they defend capitalism, they can't be Marxists. It would be contradictory to everything Marx wrote and predicted. Whether or not they benefit from it is another matter. We're discussing whether Marx was right, not whether he was honest. Don't get off topic.

I denied that those parties that call themselves communist a) are communist (that is, to defend the communist revolution); b) have the slightest power to do so.

Are you a Marxist? — NOS4A2

Why do you want to know? Would anything happen if I was? I think you should know from what I've written. There are some things I think Marx was right about and some things I don't. Does that make me a Marxist?

I think the problem with arguments that stem from “human nature”, the objection to such arguments, is that the picture of “human nature” being put forth is usually hopelessly simplistic. “Competition is human nature” vs “cooperation is human nature” arguments are dumb because humans are a complicated bag of nature and nurture that includes both competition and cooperation in a very nuanced and ever-changing way. Sure you can do science to human behaviors as a species, but the patterns you come up with aren’t going to be so simple as “humans are naturally x”, for any x.

The fact is that functioning capitalist societies have not impoverished the physician, the lawyer or even the man of science (with poets I don't know). — ssu

And that will be so as long as the capitalists can leave them some of the crumbs from the feast. If there are no crumbs left, white-collar workers will pay the price also. In fact, the degradation of working conditions is reaching the social strata you mention. Not all lawyers and doctors are like those on TV shows. There are overworked ones too. And not a few.
What is characteristic of advanced capitalist society is that, unlike the 19th century, where wealth and poverty lived side by side, it has managed to conceal the sewers. As I said in another commentary, sewers are at the marginal limits of the system.

We can all move to them easily. They are poor neighbourhoods full of rubbish on the streets, shanty towns where illegal farm workers survive, semi-ruined housing buildings, immigrant concentrational camps in Greece or Italy. You don't have to go to Gambia to see something like the worst of Africa. But that is also hidden: we don't see slums on TV, we see places where bad people sell drugs until the good policeman arrives and... But we don't stop to think that drugs are the crust of poverty. Behind them is the wealth of the upper classes and the crumbs they leave for us subordinates.

America has engaged in more wealth redistribution than all the Marxist and Socialist countries combined! — JerseyFlight

I don't get the idea. Socialism equals equality and the US is one of the most unequal countries. 30% of Afro-American children live on the edge of poverty. That's not socialism, as far as I know.

Are you being ironic?

Do you have any ideas on how this could be countered? — JerseyFlight

Ideas, lots of them. But you know what Marx said: enough of thinking about the world. Now we have to change it.
And there, certainly, things are not easy.
We have to follow moral impulses rather than effective ones.

↪Bitter Crank I think the problem with arguments that stem from “human nature”, the objection to such arguments, is that the picture of “human nature” being put forth is usually hopelessly simplistic. “Competition is human nature” vs “cooperation is human nature” arguments are dumb because humans are a complicated bag of nature and nurture that includes both competition and cooperation in a very nuanced and ever-changing way. Sure you can do science to human behaviors as a species, but the patterns you come up with aren’t going to be so simple as “humans are naturally x”, for any x. — Pfhorrest

I'd agree that it not as simple as saying human are X. But at the same time, even if it is complex, there is still something there. And I think that is important and fundamental, because any theory that doesn't jive with that something, whatever it is, isn't going to work. So it seems like a mistake to just ignore the whole issue, because it's complex.

Isn't it strange that I would be arguing this point, as a moral constructivist, against a moral objectivist ;-).

Isn't it strange that I would be arguing this point, as a moral constructivist, against a moral objectivist ;-) — ChatteringMonkey

Only if you think moral objectivism has anything to say about what people do in fact value as part of "human nature", which it doesn't necessarily.

Only if you think moral objectivism has anything to say about what people do in fact value as part of "human nature", which it doesn't necessarily. — Pfhorrest

I'm not sure I follow, so you are saying that it is possible that all people happen to value the same things, but that that doesn't come from what kind of beings they are? Then how did they all come to value the same thing? I mean, how do you come to some objective morality then? I'm assuming here that you are not referring to God....

I don't mind, but this is probably a bit of a divergence from the thread.

Sure you can do science to human behaviors as a species, but the patterns you come up with aren’t going to be so simple as “humans are naturally x”, for any x. — Pfhorrest

Why not (for a sufficiently specific definition of x)?

The debate about human nature and aggression is interesting but has nothing to do with Marx. Let us suppose that aggression is a natural characteristic of human beings. It is not the same as saying that a particular type of aggression - exploitation, for example - is a natural trait. It is difficult to present evidence of the former. It is almost impossible to prove the latter.

It seems quite relevant. The argument against Marx is rarely "we don't want a fairer society", rather it is "such a system wouldn't/hasn't work(ed)". Since the system in question is one of governing and manipulating (or leaving free) human behaviour, it seems absolutely central to any assessment of it to question whether the assumptions about human behaviour are accurate.

I agree.

It seems quite relevant. The argument against Marx is rarely "we don't want a fairer society", rather it is "such a system wouldn't/hasn't work(ed)". — Isaac

I don't understand the relationship.
If the gene for aggression exists you can't stop husbands from hitting women. Therefore, let's make gender violence be legal.
A bit strange logic, isn't it?

If the gene for aggression exists you can't stop husbands from hitting women. Therefore, let's make gender violence be legal.
A bit strange logic, isn't it? — David Mo

Yes. Very strange. For a start if a gene for aggression existed (it doesn't) why would that make us unable to prevent people from beating their wives? They cant beat their wives whilst in prison, gene or no gene.

More to the point though, if a gene for aggression existed (again, it really doesn't), then it would, without doubt influence our strategies for dealing with domestic violence. We might screen for such a gene, create therapies known to help, we'd look into the environmental conditions which trigger it and see if they could be minimised, we'd avoid costly strategies based only on removing purely negative environmental influences as a cause.

Marx's theories are social, political, and economic primarily. They're not legal. So if he says "situation x will bring about situation y" he's relying on assumptions about the responses of human beings to situation x. It's their behaviour which will (or will not) bring about situation y, and so his theory's success hinges entirely on whether those assumptions are right.

So if he says "situation x will bring about situation y" he's relying on assumptions about the responses of human beings to situation x. It's their behaviour which will (or will not) bring about situation y, and so his theory's success hinges entirely on whether those assumptions are right. — Isaac

Marx's materialism is neither biological nor psychological. He thought that the laws of dialectics, which in nature were concretized in one way, in history were concretized in another. But his theory of history, as you well say, is primarily economistic, although it is dialectical and not mechanistic. That is why what men do in history is governed by the laws of history (mainly the class struggle) and not by Mandelian laws. In other words, human nature would be aggressive in one way in nature and in a different way in history, if it existed at all.

That said, politics and justice are superstructures that have much to do with the march of history. Although Marx was ultimately a determinist, the manner and rhythms with which one passes from one historical period to another depend largely on non-economic factors such as politics, culture, or law. This may not be important for the total march of history in the abstract, but for the men and women who live and suffer the particular vicissitudes of history it may be of vital importance that things happen sooner or later and in one way or another. It is our lives that count first and foremost, not the remote future of communist society that is not even visible on the horizon. That is why Marx urges the working classes to make revolution. For themselves.

All this assumes that, even if human nature exists and is violent, the impulse to exploit is like the abuse of women: it can be corrected and ultimately repressed. All that is needed is the will and the strength to do it. And that is a political and legal decision that only the working class in power can make.

All this assumes that, even if human nature exists and is violent, the impulse to exploit is like the abuse of women: it can be corrected and ultimately repressed. All that is needed is the will and the strength to do it. — David Mo

This seems like an untenable position to defend in the face of what we know, because there are enough things that seem difficult, if not impossible to correct or implement.

Say for whatever reason, we want to forbid sexual intercourse between people... all the will and strength in the world wouldn't be able to repress that impulse.

The abolishion of alcohol maybe is a good example of something that they actually tried and failed to implement.

I can sum up other examples.... but the point is, it seems hard to deny that there are limits to what we can reasonably expect to work, because of what kind of beings we are. It's an open question as to what these limits are I think, but flat-out denying that there are any, and refusing to even consider the issue, seems like a glaring mistake to me.

If they defend capitalism, they can't be Marxists. It would be contradictory to everything Marx wrote and predicted. Whether or not they benefit from it is another matter. We're discussing whether Marx was right, not whether he was honest. Don't get off topic.

I denied that those parties that call themselves communist a) are communist (that is, to defend the communist revolution); b) have the slightest power to do so.

Trying to draw a circle around who is or isn’t a Marxist or communist is a fools errand. If people call themselves Marxists or communists, however, it is a good indication that they are or are at least trying to be.

I thought the topic was Marx’s “The Nationalization of the Land”, which I said has been tried and failed to result in anything Marx predicted in that piece.

Why do you want to know? Would anything happen if I was? I think you should know from what I've written. There are some things I think Marx was right about and some things I don't. Does that make me a Marxist?

I was asking because I didn’t want to assume that you were.