Am I right in saying this is more like "Three Things the Communist Manifesto Got Wrong"?

Three Things Marx Got Wrong

The rise of the Office Space class. — schopenhauer1

Marx lived between 1818 and 1883. Office work was perhaps more skilled in his time, but clerks and bookkeepers were working class. They were not partners in business. When you think of office work in Marx's time, think of Bob Cratchit (A Christmas Carol)--as exploited and poorly treated as a factory worker, just not quite as dirty and injured as often. By the time of his death, the volume of business had expanded enough to require more types of paper and data processors.

During the 50 years between 1870 and 1920, industrial (and business) activity would expand greatly. More production, more production workers, more warehousing, more shipping, more sales -- all increasing the amount of clerical work. Some of the white collar work was "managerial" but not managerial enough to raise the worker into the petite bourgeois class. They were still working class (and still are).

The almost complete movement of mass production to the global East and South. — schopenhauer1

The movement of of mass production to the global east and south required the advances in science, industry, production, and consumption that took place between 1920 and 1970. By 1970, the boom of the previous century was spent. The potential of the industrial had been fully exploited in all of the basic manufacturing areas, but in the production of information and entertainment technology as well.

Marx would have had to have been a very far-seeing prophet of the future to predict television, radio, computers, hundreds of millions of automobiles, the Autobahn or the Interstate Highway System, airplanes, and space travel.

He probably would have understood the movement of manufacturing from England, Europe, or North America to South America or Asia, were he alive now, but he probably couldn't predict it.

A democratization of science and technology- — schopenhauer1

I think he would have understood this development especially well. The democratization of science and technology is an outgrowth of the manufacturing that put more knowledge and technology into the hands of working people. First, they used this technology on the job (computers, scientific equipment, etc.) and they could afford to buy it for use at home. If one watched all of the science programming on educational television (and some of it was even on the radio at one time) that one could find, and read general science magazines, in time one would become much more sophisticated about science and technology.

The bourgeoisie consists of large capitalists -- owners of factories, warehouses, office towers, rental buildings, railroads, banks, brokerages, and so on The petite bourgeoisie consists of small farmers that own their own land, small store owners, some professionals (lawyers, doctors, dentists), etc. and a few others. The difference between the bourgeois and the working class is that the bourgeoisie earns its income from the labor of others. The working class person is dependent on his ability to work to get paid. Working class people earn a wage; they are paid for time on the job. The bourgeoisie are paid by returns on investment.

Almost everyone is working class. The relatively small number of people who own high-value production properties are bourgeoisie.

Am I right in saying this is more like "Three Things the Communist Manifesto Got Wrong"? — jamalrob

You could be. Do you have a reason for the distinction?

The bourgeoisie consists of large capitalists -- owners of factories, warehouses, office towers, rental buildings, railroads, banks, brokerages, and so on The petite bourgeoisie consists of small farmers that own their own land, small store owners, some professionals (lawyers, doctors, dentists), etc. and a few others. The difference between the bourgeois and the working class is that the bourgeoisie earns its income from the labor of others. The working class person is dependent on his ability to work to get paid. Working class people earn a wage; they are paid for time on the job. The bourgeoisie are paid by returns on investment.

Almost everyone is working class. The relatively small number of people who own high-value production properties are bourgeoisie. — Bitter Crank

Good point. Maybe categorizing the bulk of white collar work as "petite bourgeoisie" is incorrect. The working class makes a wage but not returns on investment, true. I guess the point is that are all these things a fatal blow to his ideas? Whether wage workers are not getting enough investments or not, if there is not enough agitation for the working class to feel exploited, then Marx was essentially wrong. What do people care if capital is owned by individuals or by the state if they have their basics met? The Democrats would say that with a tweaking of healthcare, and some other social programs, some of those basic needs can be expanded, but that's about as much sympathy as you're going to get in the American system. That doesn't change things structurally.

Good point. Maybe categorizing the bulk of white collar work as "petite bourgeoisie" is incorrect. The working class makes a wage but not returns on investment, true. I guess the point is that are all these things a fatal blow to his ideas? Whether wage workers are not getting enough investments or not, if there is not enough agitation for the working class to feel exploited, then Marx was essentially wrong. What do people care if capital is owned by individuals or by the state if they have their basics met? The Democrats would say that with a tweaking of healthcare, and some other social programs, some of those basic needs can be expanded, but that's about as much sympathy as you're going to get in the American system. That doesn't change things structurally. — schopenhauer1

Marx's mature work (i.e. the Contribution, the Grundrisse, and Capital) gives us a different picture of what the "pauperization" of the proletariat will consist in. It's true that hard industry moved eastward, but that's not the only reason why there is now less industrial labor in the west. The major contributing factor -- and Marx saw this -- is the ever-increasing automation of industry, which allows the capitalist to extract ever larger sums of surplus value from every hour of labor.

One effect of this process is that, given the growth-structure of capitalism, it becomes impossible for capitalists to employ non-machine-mediated labor power save at exceedingly low wages (if, that is, they want to stay afloat). This is why we see the bulk of the ugly industrial work move over to the cheapest labor markets. (It should be noted, too, that Marx did predict the globalist stage in the development of capitalism; he just understood it strictly in terms of the need for new markets).

Another effect is that, as less and less of the labor process involves human beings at all, the worker is slowly pushed out of the equation altogether -- a trend which evidences itself in the slow expansion of what Marx calls the "industrial reserve army" (i.e. those members of the working class who are either unemployed or underemployed to the point that they cannot meet their basic needs). We've seen the growth of this group temporarily interrupted by the need for bureaucratic labor, but as automation spreads into this field, we'll see the soft labor jobs start to dissolve as well.

In his later work, at least, Marx's substantive prediction was not that the working class will become so irritated by distribution-side inequality that they'll revolt and install a worker's state. Rather, it was that technological development, on a long enough timeline, will progress to the point that less and less human labor is required in the process, and yet our ability to consume the goods produced thereby will still depend (because of the structure of the economy) on our ability to sell our labor power for wages -- a constraint on consumption which was once necessary to facilitate production, but will be, at that time, no longer so. The transition to a mode of production not organized around the exploitation of human labor will then follow as a matter of course. It will be obvious to the industrial reserve army what must be done (i.e. it will not take any political cajoling by mustache men with nationalist credos).

By the way, Marx did forecast that the average person would come in time to expect ("need") more and more from life (e.g. WiFi and smartphones, rather than bread and water), and saw this as a good thing. He also predicted the democratization of scientific knowledge. Here's a nice passage from the Grundrisse where he sums up some of these points. (Note that "the development of the productive powers of labor" refers here to the intensification of labor through the use of machines. This relates to the category of "relative surplus value" in Capital):

What appears as surplus value on capital's side appears identically on the worker's side as surplus labour in excess of his requirements as worker, hence in excess of his immediate requirements for keeping himself alive. The great historic quality of capital is to create this surplus labour, superfluous labor from the standpoint of mere use value, mere subsistence; and its historic destiny is fulfilled as soon as, on one side, there has been such a development of needs that surplus labour above and beyond necessity has itself become a general need arising out of individual needs themselves -- and, on the other side, when the severe discipline of capital, acting on succeeding generations, has developed general industriousness as the general property of the new species -- and, finally, when the development of the productive powers of labour, which capital incessantly whips onward with its unlimited mania for wealth, and of the sole conditions in which this mania can be realized, have flourished to the stage where the possession and preservation of general wealth require a lesser labour time of society as a whole, and where the labouring society relates scientifically to the process of its progressive reproduction, its reproduction in a constantly greater abundance; hence where labour in which a human being does what a thing could do has ceased

-Marx, Grundrisse, 324-25.

Maybe categorizing the bulk of white collar work as "petite bourgeoisie" is incorrect..... I guess the point is that are all these things a fatal blow to his ideas? Whether wage workers are not getting enough investments or not, if there is not enough agitation for the working class to feel exploited, then Marx was essentially wrong. — schopenhauer1

Traditional socialists like to stick with the three classes - working class (wage workers), middle class (professionals like doctors... and small business proprietors), and upper class (wealthy owners of the means of production -- factories, farms, mines, railroads, etc.) Almost no one sticks to this system.

The ruling class is till at the top (the wealthiest 5-10% of the population, at most). Most people think they are middle class, which now describes the consumption behavior of maybe 50%-60% of the population: They own or are buying a home; they have at least 1 car; both partners in a couple are working; about a third of this group is college educated. They have white collar or service jobs such as teaching. Many of the "middle class" work in businesses. Almost all of this so-called middle class depends on at least 2 regular wage jobs for income. The working class, which most people don't want to think of themselves as, occupy the bottom of the economic distribution, and the term describes their consumption behavior too: it's fairly restricted because they don't make much income at their jobs.

Personally, I think people call themselves "middle class" as a face-saving maneuver. They are not poor, but they do not have much security. They usually have quite a bit of debt. They often have little decision making authority at work, and their wages are inadequate to support the lifestyle they aspire to (which as far as I can tell, is often fairly modest).

The working class that thinks they are middle class really started to slip beginning after 1973 (the year of the Arab oil boycott). The boycott didn't cause--it just marked the beginning--of the economic decline we have seen, like the enormous transfer of low-cost manufacturing to Asia; the decline in workers incomes and actual purchasing power; the high rate of automation in factories and offices; and so on. Why has consumer debt gone up so much? Because people are trying to maintain a certain quality of life with credit.

For the people on the bottom, life is much less pleasant.

Eh.

I kinda feel like this is focused on European countries + USA. If you widen the scope of your evidence, which Marxist analysis would require given its global perspective (due to capital's global aims), then I'd say you're off the mark. The office space class rose in industrial nations which exploit 3rd world nations -- but that doesn't mean the proletariat has been annihilated, only broadened (as one would predict from the global nature of capital).

2 fits into my reply above. Capital is global, and the proletariat is a global class, not a national one. Communism, at least, is anti-nationalist. Marxism can be pro-nationalist in various circumstances, but the end-goal qua Marx is the elimination of nations. Even where nations exist, the proletariat is international regardless.

3 is questionable. if you mean that people lower on the rung of income in the United States can afford DVD players, then sure. But that's not really a strike against Marx, I'd say. Who gives a fuck about DVD players vs. healthcare, for instance? As you mention... I am most sure that the majority of people would be happy to trade in their Sony-whatever for regular and reliable healtchare when needed. Basic needs trump luxury goods -- and all capital has to offer are luxury goods, because this is what generates profits.


I'm not against luxury, by any means., but it's just silly to say that Marx got this wrong. It ignores the international character of communism, and it ignores why lower-class peeps in rich countries would buy luxury goods (both socially speaking, i.e. capital, and personally speaking, i.e. looking for a reason to live)

In his later work, at least, Marx's substantive prediction was not that the working class will become so irritated by distribution-side inequality that they'll revolt and install a worker's state. Rather, it was that technological development, on a long enough timeline, will progress to the point that less and less human labor is required in the process, and yet our ability to consume the goods produced thereby will still depend (because of the structure of the economy) on our ability to sell our labor power for wages -- a constraint on consumption which was once necessary to facilitate production, but will be, at that time, no longer so. The transition to a mode of production not organized around the exploitation of human labor will then follow as a matter of course. It will be obvious to the industrial reserve army what must be done (i.e. it will not take any political cajoling by mustache men with nationalist credos). — Glahn

How do you see that actually playing out in our modern economic system? If anything, the post-WWII social safety nets would prevent people from moving to a system that depends on something besides working for a wage. They allow for some sustainability while looking for more wage work rather than complete destitution and seeking radicalism. These social safety nets were missing in 19th century Europe. It acts as a release mechanism to allow for the general system to be sustained without people clamoring for drastic shifts to new modes of economic production- let alone any full scale commie revolution.

Also, from what I've stated before, the new wage work is white collar jobs- office spaces. It's programming software, managing financial widgets, operational administrative work, health care, sales, social services, and the rest. Some blue collar work will always remain- construction (prefabrication or on site), plumbers, electricians, etc. are needed. Don't forget the more technical jobs- lawyers, doctors, engineers, researchers, scientists. These are all wage earners of varying degrees of wage- most being considered "working class" or "lower middle class". I don't see these being phased out any time soon. Wage work does not seem to go away, no matter how many futuristic articles come out. The jobs may shift to work from home, but that is more setting and cosmetic changes. If anything the Silicon Valleys and Office Space workforce proves the long term viability of wage work and even possible worse exploitation- hustling for odd jobs (i.e. Uber, online one-off jobs).

What might change in the future is pseudo-entrepreneurship - Air BNB, Uber, etc. Companies that allow for flexibility in time management. This would also slow any radical changes if more service work switches to this mode.

What would your ideal socialist society look like? You have to take into account certain aspects of human tendencies. Studies have been done saying people generally prefer equitability in the abstract, but closer studies reveal that people care more about fairness, competition, and reward. Thus, people like to know they get rewarded with such and such compensation for being "better" at their job than the next guy. They like competing and then being rewarded for their accomplishments. Would a full communist society foster this? I am not sure, but we know that the capitalist one does. Promotion, rank, opportunities to move up and get more seem to be something that motivate people. It may fall in line with Aristotle's ideas that man is a political animal. Political not just in governance over the state, but over work and other activities involving coordinated social interaction.

I'm not against luxury, by any means., but it's just silly to say that Marx got this wrong. It ignores the international character of communism, and it ignores why lower-class peeps in rich countries would buy luxury goods (both socially speaking, i.e. capital, and personally speaking, i.e. looking for a reason to live) — Moliere

The Office Space society won't be starting revolutions any time soon. Even if the industrial cheap labor has moved to the East and South, Marx's communism was to be successful in the most industrialized of countries, which really never transpired anywhere and does not look to be happening anytime soon in America or Europe- the most industrial of industrialized regions. If anything, Russia and China set themselves back according to Marxian theory because they never fully developed into highly industrialized countries FIRST but jumped the gun due to contingent historical circumstances. As history has shown, Russia ditched its communism for oligarchic capitalism- just office space culture with little room for free markets. China has essentially been state run capitalism since the late 70s. In due time, if history bears out, China will also be a mainly Office Space nation, though where the cheap industrial base will move to next might be something that prevents this from fully happening. The West moved it East and South. Where are they going to shift it to?

You could be. Do you have a reason for the distinction? — schopenhauer1

Yes. He wrote lots of other things, and it's a very varied body of work. The Communist Manifesto is a political pamphlet written at a very specific time for specific practical purposes.

Anyone here familiar with Herbert Marcuse, and the other 'new left'? I suppose they're passé now (hey even the word 'passé ' is passé ) but a lot of what they say resonates with me (sans their materialism, however.)

Marx's communism was to be successful in the most industrialized of countries, which really never transpired anywhere and does not look to be happening anytime soon in America or Europe- the most industrial of industrialized regions. — schopenhauer1

There's some work on "Young Marx" as opposed to "Mature Marx". The author I read on this simply states there's no such things as "Marxism" as a finished theory with real world application. There is a body of thought and ideas of course.

According to him, at some point Marx abandoned the idea that the communist revolution was to happen in an industrialised country. He also abandoned the idea of revolution in the violent/distorting sense but more of a "coming about". Unfortunately, despite a few attempts at Das Kapital I never finished that and my knowledge of Marx is spotty at best. I just thought it might be interesting to be aware there's a lot of positions that are associated with Marx that he has at some point seem to have abandoned (at least, according to this particular book). I can look up the author if you're interested.

Anyone here familiar with Herbert Marcuse, and the other 'new left'? I suppose they're passé now (hey even the word 'passé ' is passé ) but a lot of what they say resonates with me (sans their materialism, however.) — Wayfarer

It seems to me that the Frankfurt School, and the New Left that was inspired by them, are quite current right now. In the US they're getting the blame for the bugbear of "Cultural Marxism" by the Right. This is certainly an exaggeration and caricature, but I think they did have a big influence on the development of the American Left. The rejection of class politics in favour of identity politics, the critique of consumer culture and Western culture in general, and the suspicion of free speech, can, it can be argued, be traced back to the Frankfurt School and Marcuse especially.

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and 'philosophies' can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the 'marketplace of ideas' is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the 'end of ideology', the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters. — Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance

It reads like a founding document for the identity politics and political correctness now common in the American universities.

Am I right in saying this is more like "Three Things the Communist Manifesto Got Wrong"? — jamalrob
You could be. Do you have a reason for the distinction? — schopenhauer1

The reason for the distinction is that Marxism is not a political ideal, as most people believe, but a process of dialectical materialism. Marx himself was ambivalent overall about many things in the process, and mostly left the more pragmatic details of communist theory to Engels.

But Marx did manage to make a short concise statement in the manifesto. These days, it's about as much as anyone wants to read except in reply to their own thought, so that's became substituted in the mass mind as 'Marxism.'

Marx also contradicted himself on virtually everything at one point or another, so if you are really determined, you can almost invariably find a Marx quote somewhere to prove he thought anything you want, as long as you keep the extent of you statement about Marx thought somewhere around the length of a Tweet. This would be my own explanation of his widespread fame, whether people want to say he is right or wrong, whatever you want. there'll be a Tweetable comment on it.

whether people want to say he is right or wrong, whatever you want. there'll be a Tweetable comment on it. — ernestm

Unfortunately this is more than 140 characters:

The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. — Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

In fact this does neatly encapsulate what I like about Marx.

Das Capital is pretty good too. I could produce perhaps a hundred tweetable paragraphs from it to prove that Marx would have really liked Trump )

All right, I'll settle for three.

It reads like a founding document for the identity politics and political correctness now common in the American universities. — jamalrob

Thereby instantly curing my nascent interest.....

But I think you'd be sympathetic to some of his One-Dimensional Man, which I read ages ago. More sympathetic than me, probably.

I got this summary from the Wikipedia page:

(1) The concept of “one-dimensional man” asserts that there are other dimensions of human existence in addition to the present one and that these have been eliminated. It maintains that the spheres of existence formerly considered as private (e.g. sexuality) have now become part of the entire system of social domination of man by man, and it suggests that totalitarianism can be imposed without terror.

(2) Technological rationality, which impoverishes all aspects of contemporary life, has developed the material bases of human freedom, but continues to serve the interests of suppression. There is a logic of domination in technological progress under present conditions: not quantitative accumulation, but a qualitative “leap” is necessary to transform this apparatus of destruction into an apparatus of life.

(3) The analysis proceeds on the basis of “negative” or dialectical thinking, which sees existing things as “other than they are” and as denying the possibilities inherent in themselves. It demands “freedom from the oppressive and ideological power of given facts.”

(4) The book is generally pessimistic about the possibilities for overcoming the increasing domination and unfreedom of technological society; it concentrates on the power of the present establishment to contain and repulse all alternatives to the status quo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. . — Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance

What a hyperbole, lol. I did meet a feminist psychoanalyst who used Marcuse t6 argue for the ontological power of men over women, other than that I never heard him seriously discussed, but then I am one of those fringe people who only enjoys mainstream philosophers now. When I was a teenager I might have been drunkenly singing something like Marcuse from the top of the mast of my sinking sailboat in a French harbor, but that was a long time ago.

I don't disagree with your first sentence, and I know one reading of Marx is that the revolution was supposed to happen in Germany. One reading, too, states that economies follow a historical progression from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism.

Both @jamalrob and @Benkei have anticipated what I would say in response. It's a varied body of work. So while Marx is wrong about x, y, and z when we interpret it as a, b, or c, I don't think it's damning of Marx's body of work. (I'd note that insofar that we read Marx like this then I'd agree with anyone who believes it to be false, too)

Also Marxism is broader than Marx too -- you can't just ignore the various revolutions which put the theoretical ideas into practice. Consider the Theses on Feurbach (it's short! no worries :D ) -- I'd say it points that the practical, in-the-world action is just as if not more important than the understanding of ideas.

It's the document where the famous statement of Marx's comes from:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

Anyway, I'd say that Marx's work predicts the way capital moved and has moved up to today -- by global expansion. I don't think that nationalist petit bourgeois people are objectively motivated to enact communist revolution. I'm not arguing that point. Only that what you cite as things against Marxism could also reasonably be read as predictions of Marxism, given the characterization of capital.

Yes. He wrote lots of other things, and it's a very varied body of work. The Communist Manifesto is a political pamphlet written at a very specific time for specific practical purposes. — jamalrob

Certainly, there are differences in Marx theory over time. Even so, the inevitability of an end communist state did not occur nor does it seem it will ever happen, and I just gave some ideas of why it does not even look possible in the near future, baring a post-apocalyptic scenario, in which case who knows what that might look like.

I think my reply to Jamalrob applies here as well:
Certainly, there are differences in Marx theory over time. Even so, the inevitability of an end communist state did not occur nor does it seem it will ever happen, and I just gave some ideas of why it does not even look possible in the near future, baring a post-apocalyptic scenario, in which case who knows what that might look like

Anyway, I'd say that Marx's work predicts the way capital moved and has moved up to today -- by global expansion. I don't think that nationalist petit bourgeois people are objectively motivated to enact communist revolution. I'm not arguing that point. Only that what you cite as things against Marxism could also reasonably be read as predictions of Marxism, given the characterization of capital. — Moliere

So you think that based on these movements of capital to global East and West, and mechanization of production will produce some sort of communist state- one described by Marx in whichever stage of his writing you prefer to draw from? I think you indicated it would not. I am not saying he was completely wrong which I also indicated in the last part of the OP. I just think there were things that he did not consider would happen. Perhaps he did predict more than I thought, but certainly what he thought- even if predicted, did not lead to what he thought would happen as a result.

Also Marxism is broader than Marx too -- you can't just ignore the various revolutions which put the theoretical ideas into practice. Consider the Theses on Feurbach (it's short! no worries :D ) -- I'd say it points that the practical, in-the-world action is just as if not more important than the understanding of ideas. — Moliere

I do not consider the Soviet Union or China a successful example of Marxism, Communism, or the like. I see it as dictators and or cadres of dictators (politburo, etc.) taking control of a country and running it like a police state and then easing up on restrictions when it became economically necessary to allow for more free trade elements and accumulation of wealth. It was all top down. Dictatorship of the Proletariat not being a metaphor but literally a dictatorship. People "needed" to programmed to be Marxist through gulags, workforce programs, and stifling of free speech. If man was supposed to be free and self-actualized because they weren't exploited or worried about accumulation of wealth, that never really worked out. They may not have accumulated much wealth, bu they were certainly exploited by whatever the state mechanisms dictated to them. There was never a good way to implement the transition of the modes of production and accumulation of wealth without mass death and total control of people's movements and lives. More democratic socialism is just capitalism with safety nets. I do not think that as Marxist or Communist.

So you think that based on these movements of capital to global East and West, and mechanization of production will produce some sort of communist state- one described by Marx in whichever stage of his writing you prefer to draw from? — schopenhauer1

I think that capital moving from the west to the east is a reasonable prediction of Marx's work, yes. The production of a communist state, no. I don't believe in historical necessity, and certainly not one which will produce communism. I see it as a possibility, but not a necessity resulting from capital.

I do not consider the Soviet Union or China a successful example of Marxism, Communism, or the like. I see it as dictators and or cadres of dictators (politburo, etc.) taking control of a country and running it like a police state and then easing up on restrictions when it became economically necessary to allow for more free trade elements and accumulation of wealth. It was all top down. Dictatorship of the Proletariat not being a metaphor but literally a dictatorship. People "needed" to programmed to be Marxist through gulags, workforce programs, and stifling of free speech. If man was supposed to be free and self-actualized because they weren't exploited or worried about accumulation of wealth, that never really worked out. They may not have accumulated much wealth, bu they were certainly exploited by whatever the state mechanisms dictated to them. There was never a good way to implement the transition of the modes of production and accumulation of wealth without mass death and total control of people's movements and lives. More democratic socialism is just capitalism with safety nets. I do not think that as Marxist or Communist. — schopenhauer1

I do. I'd say that both the Soviet Union and China, along with other states, are reasonable end-points for Marxist thought. I'd highlight here that I don't believe they are necessary, but they fit the program.

They weren't utopian communist societies, but they were reasonable extrapolations of Marxist thought. And they accomplished good things as well as bad, just like most states. Literal dictatorship isn't opposed to Marxist thought -- the seeds for authoritarian politics are certainly in even Marx's work. You don't need to follow him on these points in your own political practice, but that doesn't mean that the Soviet Union or China weren't actual or real examples of Marxist politics, either. They certainly were.

And you can even judge just how good Marxist thought is or isn't based upon what they brought to the world.

I wouldn't believe the depictions of the Soviet Union casually on offer. They tend to highlight what is evil, because it's propaganda. The Soviet Union, and other communist states, do this to the west as well. They create propaganda which focuses on our evils to persuade others that their state is the better one.

But in reality, it was a mixed bag, just like western Democracy. Both good and evil.

:o Looks like the tankies have got to you Mol.

hahah. Maybe. Though I'd say my principles are the same. I know I don't like really-existing-democracy, but also believe the evils of really-existing-socialism aren't worth fighting for. It's hard to judge which is better or worse without living it. It probably depends on where in the hierarchy of each society one falls that would make it better or worse for them, as well as the time period.

I value what are often termed "bourgeois freedoms", such as freedom of speech, if not property. So I suppose I would just say that Marxism has this double-edge to it -- it strives for liberation, but there are authoritarian seeds in the thought as well. And, if one is not libertarian in their orientation, then these wouldn't even be seen as a negative. But if we are, then perhaps we should view Marxism in a partially negative light after all. Not one born out of ignorance of this possibility for greater liberty in Marxist thought, but rather out of familiarity and reflection -- being able to qualify which aspect of Marxist thought is preferable and which isn't.

Also, while I do not like authoritarian politics, I will say that the reason they work is because people are more comfortable with authority than they'd like to admit. People express the desire for liberty, but authoritarian tactics work to organize people precisely because they bring comfort and stability. There's something about us, as humans, that is susceptible to this way of doing things. I'm not sure what, precisely. But this is just to say that even if Marxism is authoritarian, this isn't something that qualifies it as particularly evil. Authoritarian tactics are used the world over, regardless of ideology.

I think you'd be sympathetic to some of his One-Dimensional Man, which I read ages ago. More sympathetic than me, probably. — jamalrob

Yes, that is very much what appealed to me. I have read parts of it over the years, also Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectics of Enlightenment and Horkheimer's The Eclipse of Reason. The problem to me is the underlying materialism of their worldview. It has to be that way, because there's no way they could go back, so to speak, and resurrect (sorry for the irony) elements of the Christian worldview. So ultimately, humans are simply social animals and/or natural phenomena. I don't think any of the principals of the New Left had any kind of affinity for the mystical, with the possible exception of Eric Fromm:


Eric Fromm with D T Suzuki, (whilst engaged in writing Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis.)

The New Left is more or less the death of the religious myth (at least until is reforms in the illusion that practicing identity politics creates utopia), be it the traditional notion of God as saviour, notions of the technological, Communist utopia or the classical liberal myth of the free man. It turns attention to description of society and it relationship to our understanding of individuals.

Metaphysics turns from the constraint which defines us, to an expression of the world itself, where logical significance is a being of every state itself. Identity is recognised as hyperreal-- for any given state, there is no "original" which defines its meaning. Every atom, rock, very speck of dirt, every person, even experience, is its own. No matter how similar any states might be, they are all unique. "Final cause," essentialism, "human nature" are gradually abandoned (some contexts take longer than others, depending on the particular mythical prejudices of a thinker) in an understanding that meaning is an expression of the world itself.

It's also why The New Left inspires a lot of consternation amongst various people-- they literally tell there is no world to make perfect. In taking description seriously, they reveal all the stories of ideological salvation are false.