An american marxist would agree that all people are born equal and free, and that the state infringes on our freedom because we accept that control as part of our citizenship. — frank

They would? News to me.

Any social contract is a tradeoff of benefits and sacrificed self-interests.

That's how the bottom of the housing market works. Reform it? No. Do away with it altogether. — Bitter Crank

That's what I meant earlier, that marxists reject the world we presently inhabit. They're basically looking for a revolution.

They would? News to me.

Any social contract is a tradeoff of benefits and sacrificed self-interests. — Bitter Crank

Do they believe people are born equal and free? If they start there, it means any state interference has to be justified. People who believe in a social contract think laws are justified by our implicit agreement to live together as a society.

How do marxists imagine laws are justified? I was just looking to understand the varying perspectives. I guess I have little interest in a marxist's critique of any injustice that may exist in a capitalist society because of the depth and breadth of suffering caused by states whose leadership honestly embraced Marxism.

Build a society that works, and then we can discuss the facts on the ground. Until then, the discussion can only be about ideas, right?

That's what I meant earlier, that marxists reject the world we presently inhabit. They're basically looking for a revolution. — frank

Show me one who wants to do so and live as the average person after appointing former capitalists they convinced by logic alone as leadership and then maybe it's something to consider.

What are the differences between Marxism and Communism? — Outlander

Marx said, "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre." in 1844, in the Communist Manifesto. The "communism" that we think of was in the future. There was social and labor unrest at the time, and various polemics were being batted around. The Communist Manifesto introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to "meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself".

But when Marx wrote the Manifesto, 1844, there was no more than a handful of communists in the world.

Sometime in the 1880s, Engles was asked to define Marxism. He said, "In four words, 'Marxism is a method'". It's a method of analyzing developments in political economy. It isn't a movement. "Socialism" or "communism" came later on - both for Karl Marx, and for the world. His thinking on instituting changes in the world ("Philosophers have striven to understand the world; the point is to change it.") developed over time.

"Communism" came into being in Russia in 1917. Socialism, and social democracy, were advocated prior to 1917, and sometimes put into practice. Over time, other people in various places, like Antonio Gramsci in Italy during (and against Mussolini) the 1930s contributed importantly to the understanding and practice of socialism/communism.

As I said above, Marx is probably spinning in his grave over what has been done in his name.

Do they believe people are born equal and free? — frank

If Marxism is a method of analyzing the nature of society, the answer would have to be a resounding "NO". Clearly we are born into established conditions that curtail both our equality and freedom. The son or daughter of an office cleaner does not have the same opportunity as the son or daughter of the billionaire that owns the office. The idea that technically everyone is equal and free to pursue whatever dreams they wish to pursue runs into the implacable brick wall of reality. A few people might get over the brick wall, but most (the vast majority) do not.

How do marxists imagine laws are justified? — frank

In the existing system (and previously existing conditions) laws are justified on the basis of their serving the needs of the ruling class. Take the law the establishes a meagre minimum wage (or a more generous one). The law wouldn't be there if it didn't serve the needs of the ruling -- employing -- class. The meagre minimum wage is too low to keep a family alive, so it clearly isn't in the interests of the working class.

Sometimes the state is sort of generous because the pressure boiling up from below is dangerous. One aim of the various social welfare programs put in place in the US (and elsewhere) is to pacify the working class--the better to prevent them from revolting. Even so, very conservative parties in the US (southern Democrats, conservative Republicans) opposed social welfare programs in court -- Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Disability insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc. have all been opposed in court and legislatures by politicians who would rather not spend a dime on those in need.

It is a bitter realization to come to understand that our system operates pretty much for the benefit of the rich, and the poor are free and equal insofar as they obey.

Build a society that works, and then we can discuss the facts on the ground. Until then, the discussion can only be about ideas, right? — frank

We need to identify and understand the facts on the ground right now -- the ones that we keep tripping over. We won't get anywhere without doing that. It's dirty work, dealing with the brute facts of bourgeois ways and means, but somebody has to do it.

One of the reasons why the average American worker (blue collar, white collar, high school drop out or Phd) hasn't made more progress towards their own liberation is that they have persisted in thinking we are all free and equal, and that the only reason the poor stay poor is that they are too god damned lazy to make it, and the reason people got ahead was because they were smart and very hard working, and they did it all by themselves.

The idea that technically everyone is equal and free to pursue whatever dreams they wish to pursue runs into the implacable brick wall of reality. A few people might get over the brick wall, but most (the vast majority) do not. — Bitter Crank

But that's the exact argument that will be used by conservatives.

It is a bitter realization to come to understand that our system operates pretty much for the benefit of the rich, and the poor are free and equal insofar as they obey. — Bitter Crank

But you don't understand. Everyone has an opportunity to do well. You see, some people made better decisions to become doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs.

One of the reasons why the average American worker (blue collar, white collar, high school drop out or Phd) hasn't made more progress towards their own liberation is that they have persisted in thinking we are all free and equal, and that the only reason the poor stay poor is that they are too god damned lazy to make it, and the reason people got ahead was because they were smart and very hard working, and they did it all by themselves. — Bitter Crank

Again, exactly the conservative argument.

In so far as Marx proclaimed he was a "materialist", he did so to emphasize that what many take to be a state of nature is actually a social arrangement.
Thus all the rather torturous attempts to explain the meaning behind the meaning of cultural products.
The arguments about whether private property is a necessary institution or not started as a question of how it works. The question is still more interesting than the answer.
The rush to politics as the antidote to academy turned out to be the most academic response of them all.

We need to identify and understand the facts on the ground right now -- the ones that we keep tripping over. We won't get anywhere without doing that. It's dirty work, dealing with the brute facts of bourgeois ways and means, but somebody has to do it. — Bitter Crank

I just meant that observing the millions upon millions who died as a direct result of Communism doesn't tell you much about Marxism, much less american marxism.

Showing me that the Milwaukee housing market is designed to exploit people who have no other choice than to live in a pile of Wisconsin snow doesn't explain much about the ideals of liberalism. It just indicates that people are fat bastards.

One of the reasons why the average American worker (blue collar, white collar, high school drop out or Phd) hasn't made more progress towards their own liberation is that they have persisted in thinking we are all free and equal, and that the only reason the poor stay poor is that they are too god damned lazy to make it, and the reason people got ahead was because they were smart and very hard working, and they did it all by themselves. — Bitter Crank

So the concept of freedom needs to be reworked to recognize the inertia of historic social stratification.

That's a fascinating idea!

Like @fdrake I'm probably some sort of shoddy Marxist. Societies are always trying to shape ""human nature", and to some extent they are successful, for better and for worse, of which there are many examples.

This seems reasonable - sure, societies and cultures often try to shape people, fair enough. Personally, and you might disagree, but I wouldn't say that capitalism itself is trying to transform human nature.

By the way, shaping and trying to transform human nature may very well be a good thing. I'm not treating it as if it's necessarily a negative yet here. I am however starkly opposed to the vision that Marxism has in mind for human nature.

I've found that a reasonably tolerant, reasonably stable, reasonably affluent society produces reasonably good results, for me, at least. An intolerant, unstable, and poor society is likely to produce more of the same. Virtuous cycles and vicious cycles beget more virtuous and vicious cycles.

Seems reasonable insofar as we don't completely abandon some level of personal responsibility if we're evaluating the people within these cultures.

Marxists will also quarrel with the notion that there is such a thing as "human nature". Clearly, and irrefutably, we are a species which manifests various characteristics -- just like Canadian geese, grey wolves, and porpoises do. In that way there is certainly "human nature". We use very complex language, for instance, and we use it a lot. We have a central nervous system with certain characteristics -- emotional, cognitive, and sensory capabilities. More "human nature".

I understand that there is a wide variety of people and cultures out there. One thing that I have noticed and that I asked fdrake was about this notion of family and personal attachment: Namely, across cultures and societies parents seem to grow a special attachment to their children and children to their parents. Maybe after that comes loyalty to the community, and then the state, then the country, etc. etc. This is a barrier to Marxism, which is an internationalist doctrine which seeks to unity humanity as a collective.

Personally, I do believe in a human nature. I believe men are not angels, and despite however advanced we get as a culture we'll just have to deal with that fact that people will think and do bad things. I'm not saying that "humanity is evil" or "fallen" or whatever. I'd also group family attachments in that human nature category, and I think the costs for breaking this one whether it's through raising children collectively or dissolving the trust between families in an attempt to strengthen loyalty to the collective are really quite severe.

People have better experiences, behave better, behave more peacefully, in a society which meets basic human requirements and affords available rich cultural experiences (like food, clothing, shelter, care, and the opportunity and means for self expression).

So maybe one should support a universal basic income as opposed to trying to go full Marxist and kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

I don't know your actual positions so this point isn't aimed specifically at you, but we can address these issues in ways besides breaking down the fundamentals our society and making radical, coercive changes.

A potential fallacy I see from your last two posts is equating a high school dropout and their potential careers and resulting salaries with that of a PhD's.

Seeming to imply, and I may be mistaken, both are 'unfree' and 'poor'. Someone with a good head on their shoulders can earn a PhD by age 26 or younger. Uncommon but possible. And get into a great field. Possibly earning 100 grand a year or more at this point, as well as whatever they were earning before which if done wisely would pay off any potential student loans and perhaps even much more. They may even be eyed by a major corporation and earn themselves a place earning tenfold and a 'golden parachute' to match. Or perhaps even be smart enough to utilize the stock market and use trends to make themselves stupidly rich.

It comes down to, and this may miss your point entirely. No, a dullard with little more drive than to chase after the next high or pleasure who embraces and embodies the most negative traits of humanity (sloth, wrath) will not and should not 'automatically' be as successful or free as one who has always pushed himself forward to achieve more for himself and those around him. Especially with the latter being restricted to the state of the former. Any such nation or system is doomed to fail as productivity is virtually made foolish and irrelevant while stagnation and indifference becomes the only worthwhile option. Unless you live in a land of or protected by gods and demigods, it will soon cease to exist. Guaranteed.

I just meant that observing the millions upon millions who died as a direct result of Communism doesn't tell you much about Marxism, much less american marxism. — frank

Oh, that's what you meant. Well, I totally agree.

Showing me that the Milwaukee housing market is designed to exploit people who have no other choice than to live in a pile of Wisconsin snow doesn't explain much about the ideals of liberalism. It just indicates that people are fat bastards. — frank

Well, it shows what we liberals are willing to allow to stand right next to our liberal ideals. We live with major contradictions.

MLK Jr pointed to liberal ideals in his I Have a Dream speech. Do you think we could do the same for economic liberalism?

I mean, if we agree every person has a right to property, could that be used to support reorganization of the economy to protect the poor? I'm not asking if it would provide any leverage in the present setting, but maybe at a time of catastrophe and rebuilding.

selfishness — BitconnectCarlos

I would have thought selfishness was the defining neo-liberal notion. Not that selfishness was not present in classical liberalism, but that in neo-liberalism it is elevated to the core virtue.

isn't "economic liberalism" a political and economic philosophy based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. I'm not hot on defending that system even though it is the system I have always lived in, and haven't suffered too greatly from it.

In the context of this discussion there are two kinds of property: personal property (your house, your car, your bed, your computer...) and business property (rental property, stores, railroads, factories, airlines, etc.). Marxists have no objection to people owning a house, a car, a toaster. We plan on abolishing business property. If you have some business property, like a foundry, a fleet of trucks, a for-profit nursing home, we plan on taking it away from you, and no, you won't be getting a big settlement.

I lived without owning any substantial personal property until I was 50. After I left for college, I rented rooms and apartments for the next 32 years. I never objected to renting -- I liked not being tied down to a particular address, and since I don't drive, moving to be closer to work or social life was facilitated by not owning a house.

I didn't live in deluxe rental housing by any stretch of the imagination, but they were always clean, decent, reasonably safe (minimum fire hazards, sound structure, etc.). I want people to be able to afford clean, decent, sufficiently large (not crowded) housing. People don't have to own it, but it needs to be available.

From whom would people rent if business property were eliminated? They would receive housing from a much expanded public housing department. That 20 story luxury apartment building you own? You'll lose it under the "from each according to his means" proviso, but since you know the building well, presumably, you might be hired in the maintenance department. The building will be added to the pool of housing. Public housing has a bad reputation because quite a few cities allowed what started out to be quality buildings to turn into dumps through minimal maintenance. In cities where the buildings have been maintained, 50 years later they are still in good shape, providing good quality housing.

To each according to their needs... Do you need the 15 room house you occupy by yourself and your mistress? No. You and your mistress should be comfortable in a 1000 square foot house or apartment. Do the two of you need 2 sedans, one SUV, and one convertible? No. You should be able to get alone where you will be living by taking public transit or bicycle. Your vehicles will be recycled. There are 1 billion cars on the world's roads. Obviously unsustainable.

I would have thought selfishness was the defining neo-liberal notion. Not that selfishness was not present in classical liberalism, but that in neo-liberalism it is elevated to the core virtue.

We might need to define our terms here . Plenty of capitalists (myself included) will agree that humans are by and large self-interested, but this is different from "selfish." "Selfish" has a more moral flavor to it in that it implies that someone is overly self-interested or greedy to the point where money or power is all they want. If we go with this definition then I don't agree that capitalism views selfishness as a virtue or a facet of human nature.

Capitalism really just lays down the rules; it doesn't seem a fundamental transformation of the human condition like communism does. I view capitalism as largely amoral.

we plan on taking it — Bitter Crank

and since I don't drive — Bitter Crank

And there we go. The timeless, consistent, and age old reason why anyone does anything. "We" (I) take this. I do this so you should too. Never fails.

I'll be non biased. Is it terribly different from the "me, me, me" of capitalism and consumerism? Possibly not. Public transport and other services are so strict nowadays in both regulation, oversight, and direct funding it'd be a feat to differentiate already. There are laws that prevent nursing home abuse, the perpetrators and with enough time management can face harsh prison sentences. In a way, a buffer between any government wrongdoing in the eyes of the international community.

The idea of at least there being the possibility to live a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle through your efforts in life is the proven best motivator. To own that 15 story apartment building or those two SUVs. It's up to the individual to realize after a time there are better ways to spend what you've earned and give back. Not all will. And that's the point of the free will we're given. Some learn. Some don't. Maybe this Marxism may be humanity's saving grace with the sheer number reached. Perhaps it should be tried somewhere. Two questions to ask that I think anyone on the fence about the issue would appreciate any supporter asking. Will citizens be allowed to willingly leave? And will you live as an ordinary citizen with others who you do not know and know nothing about you, including rather especially, that you were for the system beforehand? Enquiring minds would like to know.

We might need to define our terms here — BitconnectCarlos

Never a good idea.

Capitalism per se does as you say - self interest as opposed to selfishness.

Note that capitalism involves a free market with multiple equal players. That is not what we have in many cases in our glorious new global economy. Neoliberalism developed as liberals become the apologists for oligarchy.

And will you live as an ordinary citizen with others who you do not know and know nothing about you — Outlander

Well, that's pretty much the way it is now in large stretches of the world. I grew up in a very small town--2000 people. Everyone did not know everything about everybody there. Still, I was extremely happy to leave for cities like Boston or Minneapolis, where ordinary citizens mostly don't know anything about each other. After 50 years, I still prefer a certain degree of anonymity.

The idea of at least there being the possibility to live a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle through your efforts in life is the proven best motivator. — Outlander

Best motivator for what? Rapacious life styles?

Perhaps it should be tried somewhere. — Outlander

Good idea! Let's try it in the United States!

For anything... unfortunately that could be one. Even so. Rather. Ideally. For wanting to get out of bed each morning. To be excited to go to work, granted under the premise of earning more than is currently. I won't be biased. Capitalism can make work environments toxic. Hostile. Dog eat dog. Stepping on someone or even outright lying to get ahead even by putting a more qualified or worse nice person down. A culture of crab mentality that permeates every waking moment. Not going to blindly dismiss your point. It can lead to savagery and hate for others, the system, and even life itself.

However. We have laws. Not always followed. Justice. Not always served. By men, anyhow.

It's a work in progress. An experiment some say. Any man made system has its pros and cons I suppose. Eager to discuss further.

A potential fallacy I see from your last two posts is equating a high school dropout and their potential careers and resulting salaries with that of a PhD's. — Outlander

I wasn't comparing PhDs with high school dropouts--I was just citing a range, FROM high school dropout TO PhD.

The break-point of difference is really between having a BA degree and not having one. Of course, a person with a PhD in engineering is going to make more than a BA in engineering, but if you compare the performance of 1 million people, those without a BA have quite a bit worse outcomes than people who have a BA (or better).

The reason for that is probably because the BA has become a marker for "capable person". Even if your BA is in Medieval French Poetry (and not mechanical engineering) you have still demonstrated the capacity to perform on a collegiate level for 4 years, meet many deadlines, remain at a task for extended periods of times, work with abstract material, and so on.

Persons who have not completed more than high school are usually (not always) at a major disadvantage for life. Yes, there are outstanding exceptions, but there are more outstanding confirmations of the principle.

100 years ago, having a high school degree was quite exceptional in the US, and back then it was a marker for success. It was, like the BA, an entry ticket into some more demanding jobs. 100 years ago, however, not completing high school wasn't a major problem, because there were many jobs that required mechanical skill (or brawn, or ability to tolerate boredom) which one could develop on-the-job. That's not the case anymore.

Think of the long period of time that people have lived--let's say 500,000 years (not an exaggeration). During those 500 millennia, people lived as hunter/gatherers. The shift to settled, urban living is very recent -- 10,000 years ago, give or take 15 minutes. During all those years, people were not perfecting methods to "live a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle".

Once we settled down, started living together in cities, began accumulating surpluses, and so on -- then luxury and ostentation became a thing. It takes a system of competition, and we have to be trained into that system.

Note that capitalism involves a free market with multiple equal players. That is not what we have in many cases in our glorious new global economy. Neoliberalism developed as liberals become the apologists for oligarchy.

Equal in regard to market share? Revenue? Or do you just mean things ought to be competitive?

All three...?

I wouldn't agree with this conception of capitalism. It seems way too strict and unrealistic.

It would imply that in one given industry - lets say the restaurant industry - each separate company (McDonalds, BK, Wendys, all the way up to the world class restaurants) would receive both an equal share of the revenue and of the market which just doesn't make sense. That's not how things work in reality.

That's not how things work in reality. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah. The usual excuse.