You're looking at the issue very moralistically. — frank

To keep things simple (I never mentioned "evil"), you could have mentioned this the first time around instead of replying:

Yes. That's exactly what I was saying. — frank

For what its worth, then, from my vantage: egalitarian interests such as those of democratic governance cannot work in the absence of an honest checks and balances of power. The more these are eroded the more the governance becomes authoritarian - this with or without Orwellian propaganda that affirms otherwise. However, this doesn't imply that democratic governance must "always fail".

It's like saying that, because good interpersonal relationships (friendships, of romance, etc., which tend to be egalitarian intending) are always susceptible to becoming rotten - because one or all parties can do bad things to each other - one then should shun all good interpersonal relationships ... this because they will always fail.

However, this doesn't imply that democratic governance must "always fail" — javra

Yes, it will always be corrupted, and will need to be reformed periodically. So, when you're setting up the checks and balances, why not also build in a mandatory review every decade or so?

In other words, good never ubiquitously prevails because there is bad in the world. Therefore, we should shun a striving for that which is good; instead favoring either the bad or a magical type of eternally unchanging, self-sustained, homeostasis between good and bad that never progresses in either direction.

Am I missing something significant in this interpretation of the issue? — javra

Yes. That's exactly what I was saying — frank

Although the OP expresses the central thought of conservatism, conservatism actually offers an alternative that’s a bit more hopeful than a “homeostasis between good and bad that never progresses in either direction,” namely gradual, organic change produced communally.*

Of course, this change would merely avoid the most egregious evils of inequality and oppression, and never result in the banishment of social hierarchy. To the humane, optimistic conservative, hierarchy and inequality don’t have to be bad—they’re natural and we should do our best to live with them.

This is why the welfare state was an important conservative policy until quite recently. The Emperor Ashoka said “all men are my children”, and later on, Bismarck created the first modern welfare state.

*communally: for a conservative, communally produced change doesn’t necessarily imply democracy; it’s still often those at the top who are making the decisions and doing the leading, in the context of a harmonious hierarchy in which everyone knows his or her place.

Marxism isn't a political theory but an economic one. Maybe read him some time.

It's both. I think the mistake that @ssu makes is in implying that it is also a system of government.

The problem is that what's solid is his economic work. The rest is all over the place. He describes revolution as a historic necessity and the way to the one worker party. At other times just the logical consequence of democratic outcomes. Whatever politics people consider Marxism to be, it says more about them than Marx himself.

That’s fair. On the other hand, what might be called “his economic work” is intimately bound up with his political philosophy, encompassing alienation, ideology, class struggle, and a dialectical understanding of progress. There’s a reason we call his economic work “political economy” and not “economics”.

Good point. Agree. Das Kapital is after all a critique of political economy. There's plenty of social commentary throughout his analysis, beginning of course with the clear disapproval of how capitalists extract surplus value from wage laborers.

My reading of course speaks to my own bias, where I find the economic interpretation and analysis interesting and the politics inconsistent (there's a reason volume 2 and 3 weren't published by Marx himself).

What's egalitarianism according to you?

Marxism isn't a political theory but an economic one. Maybe read him some time. — Benkei

Marxist movements have been, as you know, political. Perhaps then I should use Marxism-Leninism. But anyway I think here it would be proper to talk about authoritarian states.

And actually I was taught also Marxist economics in the university as part of history of economics. (By a marxist, actually)

I think the mistake that ssu makes is in implying that it is also a system of government. — Jamal

One party rule might not change the basic system of government, but reality with a one party system does have major differences to a multiparty system. For example, the German Parliament, the Reichstag, did operate during the Third Reich. Always giving unanimous consent to the Führer.

And yet you invariably demonstrate not to have actually read him. Marx wasn't against democracy at all. In the Principles of Communism:

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat.

Maybe just not mention him again? Your ideological bias is already well known without needing me to point out misprepresentations.

One party rule might not change the basic system of government, but reality with a one party system does have major differences to a multiparty system. — ssu

Of course. It’s just weird to use “Marxism” to refer to a system of government, because it’s primarily an analysis and critique of capitalism. It implies that Marxism is necessarily against democracy.

But this discussion is much wider and more interesting than the issue of what is or isn’t Marxist, so I won’t continue to debate it here.

And yet you invariably demonstrate not to have actually read him. Marx wasn't against democracy at all. — Benkei

What has in history come of the attempts of doing Marxist revolution? I'm looking at history, not selected quotes from Marx. Naturally communism ought to have democracy, but the little trouble with that is that the class enemy tend to be the people you would have in any democracy. Yeah, Marx perhaps didn't intend it, but many times these revolutions come to be at ground level things like killing the rich (and vice versa, killing working class activists).

It's one thing what the economist / philosopher thinks, it's another thing what the implementation of those thoughts lead to.

Besides the question is far older than Marx as the question of wealth distribution, which in my view is one the core differences between the left and the right, is a question that you had already in ancient Rome.

What has in history come of the attempts of doing Marxist revolution? I'm looking at history, not selected quotes from Marx. Naturally communism ought to have democracy, but the little trouble with that is that the class enemy tend to be the people you would have in any democracy. Yeah, Marx perhaps didn't intend it, but many times these revolutions come to be at ground level things like killing the rich (and vice versa, killing working class activists). — ssu

Yes, let's look at history. What did Marx do other than be a committed democrat during his lifetime? Your bias is obvious and your lack of knowledge and understanding of his work apparent.

Of course. It’s just weird to use “Marxism” to refer to a system of government, because it’s primarily an analysis and critique of capitalism. It implies that Marxism is necessarily against democracy. — Jamal

I think the critique of "Animal Farm" was against Marxism-Leninism. The story obviously was about Soviet Russia. I think that the Spanish Civil war had opened eyes of Orwell. For many fighting on the Republic side, that did happen.

Yes, let's look at history. What did Marx do other than be a committed democrat during his lifetime? Your bias is obvious and your lack of knowledge and understanding of his work apparent. — Benkei

I'll repeat: It's one thing what the economist / philosopher thinks, it's another thing what the implementation of those thoughts lead to.

This is bullshit. If you are so badly educated in Marx' work that you think this has sensibly been attempted anywhere how he envisaged it then you really don't know what he wrote. On that note we can discount capitalism in its entirety as well because well... look around. The world is warming, nature is being destroyed at a record rate, over-fishing, biosphere collapse, etc. etc. Shall we now ignore what Smith wrote? Say? Mises? Only Marx is vilified because it's politically expedient. Nobody wants the common people to actually have power, to actually control the structures that affect their lives. Democracy is fine in politics but let's keep it out of economics!

What did Marx do other than be a committed democrat during his lifetime? — Benkei

I’m vaguely ashamed of myself for criticizing you, as I’m usually on your side against liberal apologists for capitalism like @ssu, however, things are a bit more complicated. (I also said I wasn’t going to carry on down this route in this discussion, but here I am again, arguing about Marxism.)

First, ssu mentioned Marxism, the tradition that grew out of Marx and developed the theories. One such development, as ssu has mentioned, was Marxism-Leninism, which can fairly be said to promote one party rule.

Second, Marx himself spoke in favour of “revolutionary terror” and of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

On the other hand, the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t necessarily entail one-party rule: anti-Stalinist Marxists point to the unfulfilled promise of workplace and soviet (council) democracy as a way to actualize it.

Second, Marx himself spoke in favour of “revolutionary terror” and of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” — Jamal

THis is out of context: the revolutionary terror was to be exercised if the political expression of labourers was surpressed. In his time only rich men had a vote and he worked, putting himself in danger. He was forced out of France because of his ideas.

And the dictatorship of the proletariat was a natural conclusion in a democratic, communal "state", whether that came about through democratic means or revolution was neither here nor there to him. In fact, he didn't want to produce "recipes for the political cookshops of the future" or something along those lines.

So yes, he said those things, and I don't even disagree. We should revolt and overthrow the corporate capitalist order that we have now and then not skip the "democratic constitution" after that.

The context is important, but doesn’t really alter the fact that he spoke favourably of non-democratic (and violent) means to achieve a classless society.

Yes, and rightfully so. We just seem to have forgotten how that's sometimes a good thing. The French Revolution, kicking of the enlightenment, by and large was a good thing. If you are denied political expression then revolution is a good thing. Of course, whether that is currently denied is more difficult to argue, as spoon-fed we are with the liberal capitalist organisation of society. The reality is, however, that aside from some market structure regulations, we have no say whatsoever as to how businesses are run. Given the political clout businesses have, there's a huge antidemocratic influence on political decision making processes in every modern society to the detriment of those that are actual subject to it (whereas companies can up and leave, which they regularly threaten with).

Fair enough. I don’t find it so easy to dismiss the horrors of the Reign of Terror in France, the Red Terror in revolutionary Russia, the famines in the Soviet Union, or the Great Terror of the 1930s, all of which were expressly justified by the elimination of counter-revolution or the elimination of class distinctions.

Attempts at creating a classless society have so far resulted in monstrous regimes that were in many ways worse than what they replaced. Those who believe, as I do and against the OP, that a classless, egalitarian society is possible, probably have to face up to this.

Those who believe, as I do and against the OP, that a classless, egalitarian society is possible, probably have to face up to this. — Jamal

Depends on what we mean with egalitarian. I think a healthy democratic society makes class largely meaningless because it won't be married to any type of (dis)privilege just being a member of a type of class. I also think that the consequences of valuing labour more instead of capital, will engender more equality as, regardless of type of job, a decent living will be made. So it will simply be more likely that I will sit next to a plumber at a Michelin-star than now. I hardly meet people of a "lower" class than I'm in, which is ridiculous when we live in the same country and have to decide on voting on things that affect all of us.

So it will simply be more likely that I will sit next to a plumber at a Michelin-star than now — Benkei

Unless the plumber has taken your table after slaughtering you along with all the other lickspittles of the bourgeoisie.

(I hope it doesn’t happen, just to be clear)

I think there's still a good chance we can get there peacefully as we're not denied political expression. But sure, I can see supply lines collapse, more inequality, high unemployment and consequences of global warming inciting a new wave of political violence. But it will unfortunately come from the far right first and we'll have fascism before communism.

Not reading Marx is like self-censorship. Don't read Marx because some people did evil shit in his name. That would be a good reason to not read the Bible either I guess. I read both, the Bible is also worthwhile to read even if I don't believe in God. But it does give cultural knowledge and a better understanding of moral thinking in (former) Christian societies.

I think there's still a good chance we can get there peacefully as we're not denied political expression — Benkei

Yes, and without the remotest prospect of a movement for the overthrow of capitalism, I think it follows that liberal democracy must be defended, and also constantly criticized from within.

I don’t know if anyone here is arguing that we shouldn’t read Marx. I wish people knew more Marx than the relatively unimportant manifesto.

Yes, and without the remotest prospect of a movement for the overthrow of capitalism, I think it follows that liberal social democracy must be defended, and also constantly criticized from within. — Jamal

Fixed it for you. :joke:

Fair.

I also think that the consequences of valuing labour more instead of capital, will engender more equality as, regardless of type of job, a decent living will be made — Benkei

But how is it going to come to pass that a society values labour more than capital?

Just now read Habermas' analysis of the formation of the 'bourgeois public sphere' by and during the rise of capitalism. He describes how the "interests of capitalists engaged in manufacture prevailed over those engaged in trade," specifically because the former were directly responsible for the "employment of the country's population."

So you can say that the legitimacy of whatever 'public authority' capitalists wield (inasmuch as they actually do have direct influence on the state), derives from their representing the interests of the working class. And yet the history of capitalism demonstrates time and time again that capitalists without fail will mercilessly sacrifice the health and well-being of their own workers, which they treat as a disposable commodity, unless aggressively regulated. Das Kapital reads like an historical catalog of the abuses of capitalist employers. And nothing has changed. Corporations are the bane of humanity.

But how is it going to come to pass that a society values labour more than capital? — Pantagruel

I have no clue. If I look at current politics in the Netherlands, everybody hates the established political parties. Culturally conservative parties (new right) are fragmented but very successful with continuously fomenting distrust, fear and lies and they clearly don't care about the truth. The progressive socialists take their own words too seriously and don't really know how to effectively reply. Part of that is a result of the betrayal of labour parties of labourers, who see some sort of protection with the right wing parties because everything used to be better. And we often do see relatively social programs on the new right.

I do think the language of hope is much stronger. Socialists should address the fears people have while couching it in a wider narrative of class struggle and a clear path forward to improvement. And have some stuff you simply do not make concessions. Red-lines, higher tax burden for labour, lower tax burden on capital, that sort of stuff.