It seems hard to imagine the proletariat could possibly ever be a minority, as that would mean that a property-owning majority was somehow getting by on the labor of a minority. Hierarchy always seems to be a pyramid: it’s smaller at the top. — Pfhorrest

Good point! My only doubt was as to the numbers of what might now qualify as the middle class.

This is a remarkable admission and confirms my hunch that you’re here not to learn or to discuss but to propagandize and exchange fallacies with your comrades. — whollyrolling

This is no admission at all. What you are saying shows that you have not come here to discuss ideas but to attack people.

From what you have written it follows that you believe that Marxists are bad people, that the world is full of powerful communist parties and that your duty is to identify and "neutralize" them (intellectually, I suppose). This ideology has a classic name: anti-communism, and it was valid during the time of the Cold War. Today it is a scarecrow that the extreme right wields when it wants to inflame its bases. But it has little to do with the reality of really existing capitalism.

I’ll assume you are. — NOS4A2

Assume what you want. But don't attribute to me what you assume.

That economic structures determine the behaviour of social groups. Economic structures themselves are passive, they merely exist, they don't themselves determine anything. It's the necessities and responses of human social groups to them which determines their behaviour. — Isaac

Of course, it is the social groups that compete according to their needs and interests. But this conflict results in something that does not exactly correspond to any particular interest. Marx believed that it was possible to discover the laws governing this "impersonal" outcome of historical conflicts. In fact, he believed that his theory was a scientific explanation of the history of human conflict. According to him, it was the "impersonal" economy that ultimately determined human destinies. I don't know what you mean by "passive", but it was clear to him that it had its own laws and that it determined human behavior at the level of societies, even individually, in part.

I think the belief that historical materialism was a science is one of the weakest in Marx's theory.

Good point! My only doubt was as to the numbers of what might now qualify as the middle class. — Janus

It is a commonplace that the middle classes have expanded and the working class has diminished, compared to the time of Marx. But this has been achieved through the expansion of the false autonomous workers and by taking the centers of production to the countries of the Third World, among other things. In any case, it seems clear that the proletariat, in the classical sense, no longer has the strength it had at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

Besides, capitalists shouldn’t defend communists lest they lose ther capitalism membership, right? — NOS4A2

It depends. Engels was a capitalist and defended communism.
You mean that there are no Marxists who defend capitalism as there are no pro-Stalin democrats. These are exclusive terms.

I see. Now I understand your reference to atoms and ecosystems which had been opaque before. You're saying that Marx claimed to know how social institutions worked as entities and so didn't need to know how their individual components worked? If so, then I think your atoms/ecosystems analogy is probably a good case in point of where I disagree. Many good ecologists may have little to no knowledge of atomic theory and this doesn't hamper their understanding of the ecosystem, but I'd guarantee you there's not a single ecologists who doesn't have a good working grasp of the biology of the plants and animals comprising their ecosystem. Those parameters will be crucial to the development of any theory in their field. Your atoms/ecosystems analogy is a good example of why reductionism fails, but it cannot be taken to assume that systems can be effectively studied and modelled without even understanding the limits imposed by the models of their immediate component systems.

I'd agree with you that the result of individual systems interacting can be something which is not itself reducible to the outputs of those systems, but it's a step too far to suggest that it is not in any way constrained by them. Modelling human social institutions without reference to the human imperatives that constitute them is sloppy at best, regardless of the clear fact that the resultant institutions will be more complex than the constituent objectives.

Those parameters will be crucial to the development of any theory in their field. — Isaac

Perfect. That means that each "field" or level of knowledge uses the "parameters" that are useful for its study. And history or sociology has its own, which are not those of nuclear physics or biology.
The concept of human nature may be useful - if it is - in the field of anthropology or psychology. But not in the field of history or sociology. No historian now comes to my mind who explains the fall of the Roman Empire on the basis of the immutable laws of human nature. No modern historian, of course.

Right, and the proletariat no longer has the same degree of support from a middle-class intelligentsia, arguably because, inter alia, both have become more entrenched in the anaethetizing comforts provided by consumption and entertainment.

I'd agree with you that the result of individual systems interacting can be something which is not itself reducible to the outputs of those systems, but it's a step too far to suggest that it is not in any way constrained by them. Modelling human social institutions without reference to the human imperatives that constitute them is sloppy at best, regardless of the clear fact that the resultant institutions will be more complex than the constituent objectives. — Isaac

Speaking of responsibility and stuff is all great but have a look at the reality: Often when it comes to wages the business argument is "We could produce much cheaper in china". If then this gets serious maybe even politics step in to "save jobs" and everything gets "fine and dandy". For you, that is, as it is not the "evil chinese" but the "poor chinese" who would work for a much lower wage and whose work now gets forced to an even lower price.
But this is not about prices. Marx is talking about principles. With an economy based on trade-values you would still need to work all day even with the technological means of the StarTrek-universe where everything could be made from thin-air by replicators. Despite nobody wants or needs a trade-value in first place.

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. — Maw

Have had much work, so I haven't had the time to respond or follow the discussion.

It's not at all curious what I'm talking about. It's one of the most important aspects in a democracy that especially taken into consideration usually with a constitution, the constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. It is absolutely no coincidence, but inherent to the ideology that communist revolutions have brought a totalitarian system when implemented in reality. Protection of the rights of minorities is something that marxism is fundamentally opposed. It see's just this "rights" as a vessel for the enemies of proletariat. It doesn't believe that liberal democracies can actually do something about the social problems that the new system has brought about, but that is what actually has happened. And of course, a lot of people are against the abolition of private property, so the conflict is inherent.

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 — Maw

Well, this thread is about Marx, not Marxism, so I guess we are a bit stuck in the 19th Century. But of course I acknowledge that modern marxism isn't the same the movement was 150 years ago (or so).

SSU: how do you define "worker"? Isn't a "worker" someone who is dependent on the wage he or she receives in exchange for labor? The wage, and the ability to labor, is everything to a worker. — Bitter Crank

Well, technically many CEO's and managers are "workers". They might have some bonus-system, but usually they aren't "owners" of the corporations, but hired hands. The ultra successful entrepreneur or family business are quite rare these days. Or would you consider high ranking officers, army generals, as "workers"?

Granted, a lot of people (just about everybody, it seems like) think they are "middle class". — Bitter Crank

And what's the problem with that? I consider myself middle class.

As for the American farmer, blessed be the small farmer with less than 250 acres and only 40 cows to milk, most of them are bourgeoisie. True, they may drive a tractor in the spring and a combine in the fall (both equipped with air conditioning, GPS, computer tracking recording how much corn, soy, or wheat was gathered from each square yard (square meter) of the field) which starting purchase price is around $500,000. Or probably they hire farm workers. But the bigger their land holding, the less likely is it that they are actually laboring in agriculture. — Bitter Crank

Actually, the farmer is the perfect example of how problematic the class divide in Marxism is. Yes, the ordinary farmer might be even a millionaire if he sold everything, but then he or she would have nothing else than a fat bank account. Otherwise he or she might earn actually very little, so little that the job at McDonalds might give equivalent or better income. Yet if the farmer is a land owner, he or she is the root problem of everything to classic Marxism.

What they are doing is much more a managerial function. — Bitter Crank

Industrialization has finally come to agriculture, but that may be a subject for a different thread.

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. — David Mo

Not in my country, basically.

This country has truly eradicated large scale rural povetry that there was in the 19th Century. It doesn't have shanty towns or people living on the streets in tents.

But that didn't happen because of marxism. Had my country gone the same way as the Soviet Union went in 1918, it would have been far poorer now (or simply part of the Soviet Union and now perhaps in a similar situation as the Baltic States).

Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations...
~Karl Marx

Protection of the rights of minorities is something that marxism is fundamentally opposed. It see's just this "rights" as a vessel for the enemies of proletariat. — ssu

You are talking about a very special minority, are you? In general "rights" indicate conflicts which get settled in the form of rights by the governing body. What would be rights if all were free? Rights are no values-in-themselves.

Yet if the farmer is a land owner, he or she is the root problem of everything to classic Marxism. — ssu

I associated that with Rosseau (On the Origin of the Inequality of Mankind)

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

Not in my country, basically. This country has truly eradicated large scale rural povetry that there was in the 19th Century. It doesn't have shanty towns or people living on the streets in tents. — ssu

You are living in delusion. The reason there is not more homelessness and poverty, and soon their will be, is ONLY because of social programs that exist to help the poor (and these are not even close to adequate). Further, I can't remember who, a study was done a few years back, maybe someone on this thread knows the reference?, that found the poverty in the United States to be comparable to third world countries. You live in a delusion friend, and have been refuted many times over on this thread.

It doesn't have shanty towns or people living on the streets in tents. — ssu

To be fair, homelessness and frigid, subzero cold don't mix together too well.

I've heard good things about Finland though. Knew someone from there. Cool dude. Smart too.

Otherwise he or she might earn actually very little, so little that the job at McDonalds might give equivalent or better income. Yet if the farmer is a land owner, he or she is the root problem of everything to classic Marxism. — ssu

You can’t just look at the income difference, you need to look at the expenses too. Someone who owns no land and works at McDonalds sees the vast majority of their income go to just paying someone else to live on their land. The farm owner has no such expense, and also has a job that they can’t be fired from because they own it.

Not in my country, basically. — ssu

What country are you speaking, please?

You may be interested to know that at the time of declaring the end of the communist system at the end of 1991, what was known in liberal countries as "poverty" (i.e. having a lifestyle that would cost about $180 a month in a developed country, or less) was not even 5% of the Soviet population, and that because it had grown in the last five years. In the best moment of the Union it was less than 2%. The "misery" (people without housing, in street situation, without basic access to food and minimum means, etc.) practically did not exist.

The problems of the USSR were of a different nature.

See also this statistic from the World Bank: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVqXxaXIAAArOk1.jpg

Curious.

You are living in delusion. The reason there is not more homelessness and poverty, and soon their will be, is ONLY because of social programs that exist to help the poor (and these are not even close to adequate). — JerseyFlight

That's what you have in the Nordic countries.

. Further, I can't remember who, a study was done a few years back, maybe someone on this thread knows the reference?, that found the poverty in the United States to be comparable to third world countries. — JerseyFlight

There is a saying that the US is the richest Third World country in the World.

You live in a delusion friend, and have been refuted many times over on this thread. — JerseyFlight

You are the one living in a delusion and painting your own fantasies. Starting from thinking that I'm an American.

What country are you speaking, please? — David Mo

Finland.

You may be interested to know that at the time of declaring the end of the communist system at the end of 1991, what was known in liberal countries as "poverty" (i.e. having a lifestyle that would cost about $180 a month in a developed country, or less) was not even 5% of the Soviet population, and that because it had grown in the last five years. In the best moment of the Union it was less than 2%. The "misery" (people without housing, in street situation, without basic access to food and minimum means, etc.) practically did not exist. — David Mo

Did you visit the Soviet Union?

I did.

Lived with a family for a short while in Moscow. Also shortly visited East Germany. Met some Soviets through my parents, who were scientists.

Soviet Union wasn't North Korea, but still it wasn't open. The economy wasn't great. The Soviet system did suck, the people, that first were totally silent about politics (thanks to the totalitarian system) then opened up after Glasnost and Perestroika, and what did they have to say? That the whole system was bullshit. That nobody believed in it. That it was doomed. And so it was.

We of course in the West didn't believe that, especially the leftist politicians, and thought it would just limp on. It didn't. It utterly collapsed with only people like Vladimir Putin crying after for the system. Or perhaps now the young leftists who don't have any clue about the reality of the socialist experiment, but can be dashingly radical by thinking the Soviet Union was cool.

At least old leftists here like BitterCrank know how it was... and of course people like him were totally politically incorrect leftists during the time when Marxism-Leninism was an official ideology in the World (if I remember correctly a discussion we had some years ago about the subject).

(Btw, Guess you believe in all Chinese statistic too. Or North Korean?)

Such a political method is known as barbarism. — JerseyFlight

I have never heard of "barbarism" ever as a political method. Maybe it's in use, I don't know, in some schools of political history or political economy. Would you please be so kind as to point at the source where "barbarism" is defined, as quoated by you?

"The property in the soil is the original source of all wealth, and has become the great problem upon the solution of which depends the future of the working class."

Though this point might seem simple, it's most certainly not in our day and age. People do not think that wealth proceeds from the earth, most people believe it proceeds from innovation, pure idealism, but such idealism would have no matter to bring its form into being without the earth. — JerseyFlight

You make a Strawman argument. Marx said, "original source", and you equate it to "all sources", then you point out how the quote by Marx was wrong. No, it was not wrong. Your interpretation (which is pretty hard to do, seeing that Marx's text was written in such clear, plain English) was wrong. This was a big mistake on your part as a careful reader.

I don't want to delve much further into your argument. If you use all kinds of fallacious arguments, and you take yourself seriously based on them, I am not interested in what you have to say.

"At last comes the philosopher and demonstrates that those laws imply and express the universal consent of mankind. If private property in land be indeed founded upon such an universal consent, it will evidently become extinct from the moment the majority of a society dissent from warranting it."

Here Marx is attacking the philosopher for creating a false metaphysics which justifies oppressive power structures. Producing a metaphysics which justifies tyranny, is the default trajectory of every thinker that remains ignorant of class distinctions. In other words, though he thinks himself to be laboring in the domain of liberty, through ignorance he is actually reinforcing the oppression of the status quo. — JerseyFlight

Italics my addition.

You apparently can't see he is describing the status quo, and establishes the observance of a universal truth. He does not give it moral support or any sort of reinforcement. What you claim is equivalent to Newton morally supporting and reinforcing the notion of justified gravity and gravitational force. That's my impression, anyhow.

You seem to try to apply a twist to every quote you bring up. To your disadvantage, Marx was a clear thinker and an effective communicator. To your advantage there are a huge number of people who will support your opinions, because of social-emotional pre-condemnation of anything Marx has ever written.

"However, leaving aside the so-called "rights" of property, I assert that the economical development of society, the increase and concentration of people, the very circumstances that compel the capitalist farmer to apply to agriculture collective and organised labour, and to have recourse to machinery and similar contrivances, will more and more render the nationalisation of land a "Social Necessity", against which no amount of talk about the rights of property can be of any avail. The imperative wants of society will and must be satisfied, changes dictated by social necessity will work their own way, and sooner or later adapt legislation to their interests."

Marx's statement is already a fact. Social necessity has rendered the restructuring of private property absolutely imperative in order to meet the needs of society. But this is where it gets interesting, while Marx is assuredly correct, the question arises, even though serious changes are required, will necessity be enough to bring about an intelligent restructuring? The danger is that though the needs exist, a chain of power determines to defy these needs regardless of the ramifications. — JerseyFlight

Finally you make two good points. The chain of power is presented in an uprising or revolution. And you fear that the restructuring won't be intelligent... that is a very rational and valid fear. Restructuring may very well be done unintelligently. Both these notions don't contradict Marx's text.

The economy wasn't great. — ssu

No, it wasn't "great", whatever "great" is. I haven't been in the USSR, but I have been in Hungary and Cuba. At my host's house, a university professor, they didn't have a shower head. Not because they couldn't afford it, but because there was not in the store. But here we were talking about poverty. Not the level of consumption.

I also had the opportunity to talk with Romanian, Moldovan, and Russian friends who migrated to Western Europe after the fall of the wall. They ratify the World Bank's figures. I do not have my figures very up-to-date, but twenty years later capitalist Russia had not reached the life expectancy that existed in the USSR. And life expectancy is a very significant indicator.

I am not praising the USSR. It was contemptible in almost everything. I'm saying that you have to see things without the blinkers of propaganda. Neither that of one side, nor that of the other.

Finland? You have chosen a really exceptional country. A model not very exportable. Like Iceland.

(Btw, Guess you believe in all Chinese statistic too. Or North Korean?) — ssu

Do you think that the World Bank's statistics are false? Is it sold to the communists?
The World Bank does not give poverty figures for North Korea. China had a poverty rate of 7% a few years ago according WB.

. I'm saying that you have to see things without the blinkers of propaganda. — David Mo

Yes, and the typical issue is that if in our criticism of our own society we are harsh and objective, we then tend to not treat other societies in the same way and even find excuses for them...typically some conspiracy theory of some sort.

At my host's house, a university professor, they didn't have a shower head. Not because they couldn't afford it, but because there was not in the store. — David Mo

Oh they could afford it, but there wasn't any in store?

Well, that sounds exactly what happens when there isn't a market mechanism in a planned economy. It's a prime example of why and how the system sucked. In a socialist planned economy prices don't reflect supply and demand and thus don't relay information or create incentives. Prices and wages are controlled and typically create huge imbalances with high demand and low supply.

Do you think that the World Bank's statistics are false? — David Mo

When it came to the Soviet Union?

Very likely.

The World Bank didn't have any ability to gather statistics inside the country. And did the Soviet Union lie in it's statistics? Yes, apparently to the highest level. This was the problem especially with agriculture. I remember when the breadlines started in the last years of the Soviet Union when I was in Moscow. The Muscovite family was used to "luxury items" like soap etc. being rare on the shelves, but once the shortages came to bread, they were very worried.

Finland? You have chosen a really exceptional country. A model not very exportable. Like Iceland. — David Mo

I think it's not so exceptional. Many West European countries are quite the same. And the closest example to the US is of course Canada. The real issue is how to find the golden road between the public and private sectors, how you get the best mix of public and private, between state programs like the various welfare programs and then leave to the market mechanism what it can handle the best. And avoid corruption or poor oligopoly competition. That's where the real discussion should be.

But then of course, we can start with the classic ideas of Marx and keep the discourse quite theoretical.

You may be interested to know that at the time of declaring the end of the communist system at the end of 1991, what was known in liberal countries as "poverty" (i.e. having a lifestyle that would cost about $180 a month in a developed country, or less) was not even 5% of the Soviet population, and that because it had grown in the last five years. In the best moment of the Union it was less than 2%. The "misery" (people without housing, in street situation, without basic access to food and minimum means, etc.) practically did not exist. — David Mo

I don't know how these numbers were calculated. It would be impossible to do a comparison with other countries based on money income, because Soviet currency was nonconvertible and incomes and living expenses were not distributed as they would be in a market economy. No direct comparison with US or Western Europe would be accurate because of how different life was in the Soviet Union.

That disparity went both ways. Some basic foodstuffs like bread were heavily subsidized and distributed, so that as long as you were not institutionalized and had even a tiny income, you were unlikely to literally starve to death. But for all that, most people spent most of their income on food, clothing and other necessities. A Russian-made TV set could cost more than a month's wages.

Cars were not affordable for most people, but then people were not very mobile (in part due to artificial restrictions), and public infrastructure was built with the lack of personal transportation in mind. And if you were determined to buy a car, you would have to wait for years to get one, giving you time to save.

Average savings were just a few percent, but most people in the later period were guaranteed a pension at retirement. Medicine was nominally free, but gratuities in the form of presents or cash payments were common.

State-provided housing - for those who had it - was cheap. But if you were in a situation where you had to rent privately (and illegally), housing would be very expensive. Homelessness "did not exist" officially - indeed, it was criminalized. That doesn't mean it didn't exist in reality though, it just wasn't obvious to outsiders (not in the closing decades of the regime, when it was more image-conscious). And those who were not technically homeless sometimes lived all their lives in cramped, barely livable barracks and hostels.

Would you please be so kind as to point at the source where "barbarism" is defined, as quoated by you? — god must be atheist

It is a false assertion that claims barbarism must be advocated as a formal political method in order to be a procedure of praxis. If you must know, fascism is equivalent. The methods utilized cannot be distinguished from barbarism, in fact, they may even be worse insofar as they make use of systematic violence through official channels. Much of my thinking on this topic has been influenced by the work of Adorno. I would challenge you to think about the shallowness of your objection, as it is one of mere formality.

You apparently can't see he is describing the status quo, and establishes the observance of a universal truth. — god must be atheist

Hard to follow you here. Not sure what you're talking about?

The chain of power is presented in an uprising or revolution. And you fear that the restructuring won't be intelligent... that is a very rational and valid fear. Restructuring may very well be done unintelligently. Both these notions don't contradict Marx's text. — god must be atheist

You merely re-state my point. I don't understand what point you are trying to make? My comments were meant to be the beginning of a discourse not a finality. Here you merely show that you comprehend the point, which means it can now be discussed. As for contradicting Marx, this was neither my point or my intention. Nevertheless, fundamental Marxism is incredibly naive (but I must say) its naivety is nothing compared to capitalism. Romanticizing the quality of the masses is a huge mistake. Life does not end after such a realization, theory must figure out how intelligence can proceed. We can either be the dupes of our time or we can use thought to resist.