To be fair to Marx he envisioned a transition from capitalism to communism through socialism NOT a jump from feudalism directly to socialism. Either way, it was all hypothetical and has yet to have come to fruition on a national scale.

Exactly. Which is why China's jump from feudalism into socialism without first becoming a full-fledged capitalist State is a complete blow against the Marxist theorists who put forth that ambitious theory of historical progression.

What he said would happen did not happen. — I like sushi

It generally does happen.

Two social classes always exist.

The ruling mafia, by virtue of its power, will always top the income ladder. It does not matter how you organize society because there will always be a ruling class, and political power will always translate into money.

There will also always be a bottom to society, if only for geometrical reasons. It will also always accumulate lots of people.

Concerning the size of any class in the middle, hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make hard times.

Women go in tandem. Replace "good men" by "virtuous women", and "weak men" by "promiscuous women" ("hoeflation").

Furthermore, for political reasons, it is necessary that the ruling elite plunders the middle class and shares (some of) the loot with the bottom class.

Of course, the ruling oligarchy will never plunder themselves for that purpose. Hence, "let's tax the rich" is an utmost laughable slogan, but the populace always seems stupid enough to believe it.

The middle class is busy becoming poor at the moment. That is the point in the cycle that we are currently at.

Which Marx relinquished in any case in his later life so this misses the point.

We see in societies that don't have a rich history of welfare a relatively sharp decline of the middle class. The UK sees a cost of living crisis. The US has had a shrinking middle-class for over 50 years now. And most EU countries have shrinking middle-classes as well, following years of neoliberal policies. So, to be expected. Obviously, redistributive policies and progressive taxation can manage some of these consequences but they didn't exist during Marx' time, which is why he campaigned for it to address some of the inequality. We fairly had such a tax system in the Netherlands but now too (after about 20 years of neoliberal policies) we see various financial crises besetting the middle class, like the inability to purchase a home.

EDIT: and there's also something to be said for relative poverty, where growth in GDP ends up mostly in the pocket of a limited few. An effect that has severely increased in the past decades as well.

Western "material progress" has largely been run on the exploitation of people in the perifery and exploitation of nature (also locally but more so in the perifery).

:grin:
I invite you to prove your claim.

"West" is the codeword for the culturally and historically confused. English speakers like to use "West" to connect themselves to Europe while knowing nothing of European history and having little to no European culture. People from the Middle East and India will blame any perceived social degeneration on this phantasmagorical "West" because Onlyfans or whatever. Leftists will lump whatever countries they can conveniently call evil as the "West", ignoring that Finland and Ireland were the colonised and not the colonisers for all their history, and that the countries they hate brought modernity and technology to the conquered land without wiping out the native populations, something that happened seldom in history. Serbians will just equate "West" to NATO. Is the West the big non-existing boogeyman of the 21st century?

Dear Citizen,

A nervous complaint which has periodically affected me for the last ten years has prevented me from answering sooner your letter of 16 February. I regret that I am unable to give you a concise account for publication of the question which you did me the honour of raising. Some months ago, I already promised a text on the same subject to the St. Petersburg Committee. Still, I hope that a few lines will suffice to leave you in no doubt about the way in which my so-called theory has been misunderstood.

In analysing the genesis of capitalist production, I said:

At the heart of the capitalist system is a complete separation of ... the producer from the means of production ... the expropriation of the agricultural producer is the basis of the whole process. Only in England has it been accomplished in a radical manner. ... But all the other countries of Western Europe are following the same course. (Capital, French edition, p. 315.)

The ‘historical inevitability’ of this course is therefore expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe. The reason for this restriction is indicated in Ch. XXXII: ‘Private property, founded upon personal labour ... is supplanted by capitalist private property, which rests on exploitation of the labour of others, on wage­labour.’ (loc. cit., p. 340).

In the Western case, then, one form of private property is transformed into another form of private property. In the case of the Russian peasants, however, their communal property would have to be transformed into private property.

The analysis in Capital therefore provides no reasons either for or against the vitality of the Russian commune. But the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source­ material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development.

I have the honour, dear Citizen, to remain
Yours sincerely,
Karl Marx — Marx 1881

In other words, there are more roads that will lead to "communism", in this case the Mir as the fulcrum for social regeneration.

EDIT: Capital was very eurocentric, the 20 years after its publication, Marx studied a lot of anthropology and ecology, which resulted in him abandoning a strict productivist belief.

The ‘historical inevitability’ of this course is therefore expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe. — Marx 1881

This "historical inevitability" refers to the "expropriation of the agricultural producer", not to the proposed progression of society from primitivism to communism. Related but not the same.

And most EU countries have shrinking middle-classes as well, following years of neoliberal policies. — Benkei

:rofl:

We see in societies that don't have a rich history of welfare a relatively sharp decline of the middle class. The UK sees a cost of living crisis. The US has had a shrinking middle-class for over 50 years now. And most EU countries have shrinking middle-classes as well, following years of neoliberal policies. So, to be expected. Obviously, redistributive policies and progressive taxation can manage some of these consequences but they didn't exist during Marx' time, which is why he campaigned for it to address some of the inequality. — Benkei

Redistribution is never from the (truly) rich to the poor. The ruling mafia will never use its power to redistribute away from itself. That is just a political fairy tale.

Redistribution always takes place from the middle class to the poor. Redistribution does not help the middle class at all. On the contrary, it burdens the middle class to no end. It impoverishes the middle class. Progressive taxation only targets the middle class. It will never, ever affect the ruling oligarchy itself.

If you have wealth but no political power -- no matter how much wealth -- then you are just middle class, and then you are one step away from becoming poor. You are just waiting for the moment at which the ruling oligarchy singles you out and mercilessly plunders your possessions, some of which they will give to the poor, but most of which they will use to enrich themselves.

Power always translates into money. Lack of power always translates into losing your money.

It generally does happen. — Tarskian

It did not happen. If you cannot admit this simple truth then there is nothing to discuss.

He was wrong about the immediate collapse of capitalism. This is not a controversial point.

He has yet to be proven right about where a communist revolution would occur too. Where they did occur did not fit into his vision at all.

It did not happen. If you cannot admit this simple truth then there is nothing to discuss. — I like sushi

You are probably too impatient. A century or two is nothing in the history of mankind.

The ruling oligarchy has always owned and controlled the means of production. The feudal lords owned pretty much all the land.

While the middle class owns quite a few of the businesses, it does not have the political power to protect their ownership from the ruling mafia.

How is that supposed to keep flying?

That system is clearly unstable.

The ruling mafia systematically confiscates excess wealth and excess income from those who do not have the political power to keep them at bay.

It is pretty much a law of nature that the ruling mafia will come for what you have. It is an ongoing process. It is just a question of time before they will catch up with you.

Therefore, I agree with Marx. The middle class is just a temporary anomaly.

The Scotsmen want their truth back.

Only you can shake yourself free of dogma sadly. If you cannot admit he was wrong about anything then that should tell you something at least.

GL

Only you can shake yourself free of dogma sadly. If you cannot admit he was wrong about anything then that should tell you something at least. — I like sushi

I personally think that Marx misunderstood who exactly was going to benefit from the revolution. He argued that the proletariat would. Of course, the proletariat wouldn't. It was the new ruling mafia that would.

His analysis still made quite a bit of sense.

The new middle-class factory owners were not a realistic replacement for the erstwhile feudal lords. They did not have the political power. Therefore, they didn't stand a chance. The ruling mafia were simply going to stomp them into oblivion, and they did.

You cannot just separate political power from ownership of the means of production.

I believe that there is an inevitable trend in which the ruling oligarchs will own all the excess wealth and control all the means of production.

You will own nothing.
They will own everything.

That is the only truly stable situation.

Therefore, you could as well cut the process short, let the ruling mafia take over all the businesses, and let them have complete communist power and control.

Modern capitalism amounts to endlessly beating around the bush, with feeble attempts to delay and deny the inevitable. The feudal lords will come back. They will own and control everything, because that is simply human nature.

Have you read Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies"?

I am in the process of reading this currently and it may serve you well to have a browse of it.

I am currently reading several works covering the broader topic of society. If you have any suggestions for me too would be very much appreciated. I try to cover subjects from as many unique perspectives as I can.

Thanks

Have you read Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies"? I am in the process of reading this currently and it may serve you well to have a browse of it. — I like sushi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies

Popper argues that Plato's political philosophy has dangerous tendencies towards totalitarianism, contrary to the benign idyll portrayed by most interpreters.

The ruling mafia wants more power. Welcome to the real world.

Popper criticizes Marx at length for his historicism, which he believes led him to overstate his case, and rejects his radical and revolutionary outlook.

The feudal lords are a good example of how society really works. In comparison, the bourgeoisie is just a silly joke. Where are the swords of the bourgeoisie to justify any political power?

Popper advocates for direct liberal democracy as the only form of government that allows institutional improvements without violence and bloodshed.

How naive!

Plato's ideal state was not a progressive Utopian vision of the future, but rather a historical or even pre-historical one that attempted to reconstruct ancient tribal aristocracies to avoid class war. The ruling class in Plato's best state has an unchallengeable superiority and education. Breeding and training of the ruling class was necessary for ensuring stability, and Plato demanded the same principles be applied as in breeding dogs, horses, or birds.

Plato also sounds naive. Stalin was a great mafioso because he was originally a petty criminal. Stalin profoundly understood the tentacles of power.

Popper also discusses Plato's theory of degeneration in the state, where degeneration is a natural evolutionary law that causes decay in all generated things. Plato suggests that knowledge of breeding and the Platonic Number can prevent racial degeneration, but lacking a purely rational method, it will eventually occur. The basis of Plato's historicist sociology is racial degeneration, which "explains the origin of disunion in the ruling class, and with it, the origin of all historical development".

The children of mafioso are not necessarily successful mafioso. That is indeed why the ruling mafia does not necessarily perpetuate itself along inherited blood lines.

He acknowledges, however, that "too much state control in educational matters is a fatal danger to freedom, since it must lead to indoctrination"

Giving the state, i.e. the ruling mafia, control over education is indeed a recipe for disaster.

Popper suggests that Plato considered only a few individuals, including himself and some of his friends, as true philosophers eligible for the post of philosopher-king.

The idea that philosophers would be effective rulers, is laughable. Even petty criminals are more effective mafioso. A ruler may have to elbow his way to the top. You don't get there by using philosophy. You get there by gunning down your competitors.

According to Popper, the paradox of freedom was "used first, and with success, by Plato", but was "never grasped" by Marx, who held the "naïve view that, in a classless society, state power would lose its function and 'wither away'"

So, Stalin would elbow his way all the way to the top just to give up his power when he got there? How naive. Popper is right about Marx and the gullibility of his views.

You can find the full text online for free.

There are obviously more nuances than in the Wiki entry.

He offers some opposition to what you seem to be sketching out as inevitable. Reading the introduction should give you a reasonable outline of this with the distinction of an Open Society and Closed Society and how in our civilised state we are caught between harking for some form of primitive Closed Societal tribalism or transferring this paradigm into rational society by recreating a 'magical' scheme that results in tyranny (authoritarianism).

In terms of naivety I am fairly sure Popper would frame your position as naive due to a clinging to historicism.

Either way, it is an interesting read whether you agree or not. Will help you to either fortify your opinions with a more rational opposing line of argumentation, or perhaps question some assumptions you consider to be fundamental.

No reading suggestions for me?

Note:

The idea that philosophers would be effective rulers, is laughable. — Tarskian

That was over two millennia ago. Keep the context in mind.

In terms of naivety I am fairly sure Popper would frame your position as naive due to a clinging to historicism. — I like sushi

I am not necessarily a historicist, even though I certainly acknowledge the importance of history.

I have a very simplistic view on politics. At the top, you have the ruling mafia. At the bottom, you have the populace. I cannot imagine a society without either. I acknowledge the existence of both but I do not trust either.

No reading suggestions for me?

I have read the entire Incerto series by Nassim Taleb. In the meanwhile, the man has become quite controversial.

But then again, I enjoyed reading "Black Swan. Impact of the highly improbable.", "Antifragile. Things that benefit from disorder.", "Fooled by randomness", and "Skin in the game".

Nassim Taleb is good at debunking.

Still, Taleb should stay away from Twitter. His flame wars are embarrassing.

I like reading books that cynically debunk mainstream views. I would never read a book that advocates for direct liberal democracy. I would only read a book that completely and utterly debunks it.

Democracy is rule by the mob. I will never endorse it.

I have a very simplistic view on politics. At the top, you have the ruling mafia. At the bottom, you have the populace. I cannot imagine a society without either. I acknowledge the existence of both but I do not trust either. — Tarskian

This is precisely what Popper is looking at. He seems to view this as a remnant of Closed Society carried on in Open Society. Something akin to harking back to a "Golden Age" where some magnificent Ruler held sway over society.

Nassim Taleb. — Tarskian

Ah! Heard of the Black Swan idea before. Looks interesting.

Democracy is rule by the mob. I will never endorse it. — Tarskian

If that is how you see Democracy then who would ever disagree with that? Mob rule is not exactly an enticing idea :)

Like every single ideology it has its uses but also its limitations. Popper does not offer a solution only seems intent on pointing out the reason for the problems - that is Reason itself. The cat is out of the bag now so we just have to sit back and see how things play out.

I have had the feeling that we are living through a very significant revolution right now (on the scale of the creation of civilization) but like many a blind sage I am probably completely wrong because the more I come to learn about everything the less certain I am about anything. Undoubtedly every person in every age felt some kind of severe revolutionary movement on the immediate horizon.

I have had the feeling that we are living through a very significant revolution right now (on the scale of the creation of civilization) but like many a blind sage I am probably completely wrong because the more I come to learn about everything the less certain I am about anything. Undoubtedly every person in every age felt some kind of severe revolutionary movement on the immediate horizon. — I like sushi

I am a digital nomad slash nomad capitalist.

A country is to me just an alternative jurisdiction competing with 200+ other ones. I have no stake in any particular one. I do not vote in any particular one. I just go where I am treated best.

So, if one particular country decides to start a severe revolutionary movement, I do not see how it would affect me personally. I do not understand how people can identify so much with one particular ruling mafia, i.e. one country's jurisdiction.

How do they even benefit from that?

I consider the following statement to be the most manipulative bullshit ever pronounced on the face of this earth:

“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. John F. Kennedy”

Seriously? WTF!?

Some people even volunteer to die in foreign lands for their ruling mafia. I cannot imagine any decision more stupid than that. The ruling mafia does not give a flying fart about you. Never have. Never will. So, why would you?

Some people even volunteer to die in foreign lands for their ruling mafia. I cannot imagine any decision more stupid than that. The ruling mafia does not give a flying fart about you. Never have. Never will. So, why would you? — Tarskian

I agree with everything here pretty much except the view that there is a "ruling mafia". I do not believe most of what happens in the political sphere is directed by any upper echelon of society. Things just move along and some people claim ownership of the resulting milieu if it adheres to their ideology.

I have not quite processed let alone regurgitated something taken from Adam Smith. The 'Invisible-Hand' but kind of find something intriguing about how Nozick reformed the idea little.

When I look at economics in general I am more interested in the distribution and scarcity of ideas and aesthetic sensibilities than focusing so intently on commodities.

I agree with everything here pretty much except the view that there is a "ruling mafia". I do not believe most of what happens in the political sphere is directed by any upper echelon of society. — I like sushi

I believe that there is always someone who is going to benefit from what they do, because otherwise, they wouldn't do it. Seriously, otherwise they would not lift a finger.

They are in the business of making money from what they have, i.e. political power.

Everybody is incessantly monetizing whatever they can make money from. So, why wouldn't they?

So, whatever they say or do, I safely assume that there is always someone who will cash in handsomely and somehow do fifty-fifty with them. It is usually not even particularly hard to figure out on whom they are busy showering political profits.

The ruling oligarchy is a mafia. Always have been. Always will be.

For example, why did Britain start a war with the Ottoman empire in 1914? Certainly not because they liked their Russian so-called "allies" so much. That was just a convenient excuse. They wanted war with the Ottomans because someone was going to benefit handsomely from that conflict. The human cannon fodder from the colonies and the dominions certainly did not die for nothing in Gallipoli.

Relevant quote from the SEP's article's very first sentence:

Karl Marx (1818–1883) is often treated as a revolutionary, an activist rather than a philosopher, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century.

While the IEP has articles about every philosopher you might think of, there is none for Marx, while there is one for socialism.

It is appropriate. A journalist, political thinker, (terrible) economist surely, but philosopher? Hardly. Even calling him a historian is strange, at least for what is understood today with 'historian'. An ideologue and sociologist first and foremost.

A nuanced view is possible, like the following from Allen Wood, philosopher and scholar of German Idealism:

This book attempts to expound the philosophy of Karl Marx. But the first question it must address is whether Marx has a philosophy at all. Marx’s principal academic training was in philosophy, but in his mature thought Marx focuses on political economy and the history of capitalism, and usually tends to neglect the philosophical side even of his own theories. Even in his early writings, Marx does not often address himself directly to philosophical questions, but treats such questions only in the course of developing his ideas about contemporary society or criticizing the ideas of others. If it is possible to describe Marx as a philosopher, it is probably more accurate to describe him as an economist, historian, political theorist or sociologist, and above all as a working class organizer and revolutionary.

Yet Marx is also a systematic thinker, who attaches great importance to the underlying methods and aims of his theory and the general outlook on the human predicament expressed in it. In his mature writings, every topic – from the most technical questions of political economy to the most specific issues of practical politics – are viewed in the context of a single comprehensive program of inquiry, vitally connected to the practical movement for working class emancipation. Further, Marx views his own thought as heir to a definite philosophical tradition, or rather as combining two traditions: that of German idealist philosophy from Kant to Hegel in which he was educated, and that of Enlightenment materialism which he greatly admired. Most of all, Marx’s social theories consciously raise important philosophical questions: about human nature and human aspirations, about society and history and the proper business of those who would study them scientifically, about the right way to approach the rational assessment and alteration of social arrangements. At least in some cases, Marx supplies some original and distinctive answers to these questions. Thus the tradition of thought in which Marx’s social theory consciously stands, the breadth of its scope and the questions it addresses all justify us in speaking of Marx as a philosopher. — From the Introduction to Karl Marx by Allen Wood

It's a great book, by the way.

It is appropriate. A journalist, political thinker, (terrible) economist surely, but philosopher? Hardly. Even calling him a historian is strange, at least for what is understood today with 'historian'. An ideologue and sociologist first and foremost. — Lionino

He reinterpreted Feuerbach and Hegel into an original eschatology and ontology based around materialism, along with a few ideas of his own (and for history, there exist Marxist historians -- I'm not sure I'd say he's a historian, but a theorist of history, which gets suspiciously close to philosophy) -- the synthesis isn't always pretty, but I think it's appropriate to call Marx a philosopher first and foremost, at least in the vein of Nietzsche's notion of a philosopher as tablet-breaker: even philosophy changes meaning in Marx, in my estimation -- or, at least, the good kind, which does more than reinterpret the world. (though that could be read as a break from philosophy, I generally see it as a change in the notion of what constitutes good philosophy)

While the IEP has articles about every philosopher you might think of, there is none for Marx, while there is one for socialism — Lionino

And what are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, chopped liver?

More random thoughts on Marx-as-philosopher:

His blend of the classical economists was a very philosophical endeavor in that he was digging into their ideas and developing them at the philosophical level when economists had long moved on, at least by my understanding from a book i read, from the likes of the Ricardian Socialists, and even Adam Smith!

But those "classical" economic concepts are the ideas he's developing. He does it alongside documentation, which is why I think he calls his project "scientific" -- there's some empirical substantiation to the trends he's describing when he looks at the laws and arguments of the time.

What I think makes his project particularly acute now is neoliberalism basically resurrecting classical economics, so the development of those ideas fits since the attack on the Keynesian "fix". The class of owners had children who thought to themselves "we can extract more surplus value", and didn't care how they got there. Much as Marx describes the bourgeoisie as ruthless extractors.

One of the things here is scope: the "workers" need not be in our nation, or those we traditionally consider workers. The proletariat is defined as that group of workers who 1) voluntarily trade their labor in a system of exchange, 2) are paid just enough to survive and reproduce the next generation of workers for the capitalist system.

At least as I'd reduce it. Marx's works -- and Marxism overall, which is even richer than Marx -- I like to joke it's the Materialist's Talmudic scripts which can be argued forever.

But I don't think that's bad. I think it's a feature of a thinker constantly developing while attempting to understand a problem from classical economics: Where does wealth come from? Why does capital generate wealth? -- which is combined with a humanistic desire to liberate humanity from their shackles : "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."

And even more I'd say that Marx's conception of philosophy is revolutionary. This is the part that connects him to, at least as I understand him, the likes of Plato: the health of the city is the primary concern. And so he goes on to describe the city....

Is the SEP chopped liver to you? Because I quoted it in the post you are replying to.

Speaking of Routledge, we see some hesitation in calling him a philosopher as well:

Karl Marx was the most important of all theorists of socialism. He was not a professional philosopher, although he completed a doctorate in philosophy. His life was devoted to radical political activity, journalism and theoretical studies in history and political economy.

It is hard to see how Marx loved knowledge.