Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Economy Marx and the 21st Century
Posted by Charles Mudede on Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:27 AM
According to Mark Steel, the "sales of Marx's Capital are at an all-time high..."
Why? Because socialism is inevitable and the whole free market thing is nothing but a fantasy. There can be no real separation between capitalism and the state, government and civil society. The state is not a scaffolding from which capitalism breaks and becomes its own, self-sufficient thing. For 30 years, that theory/fantasy has dominated global economic policy (in the form of the Economic Structural Adjustment Program). Now the truth is out in the open, and the whole world can see that capitalism is impossible without state support—its infrastructure, its general intellect, and public resources.
It has been only an advantage to the rich to make a political program out of an idea that places the individual and not the social as the source of wealth. The GOP has no other message than that, and today it is a dead message. Socialism is really happening because there has never been anything else but this form of wealth production. If it was not there, if all you could you see was markets and bankers, this was because its very fact was obscured by neoliberal nonsense. All one had to do was look at, say, cotton subsidies in the US to see that even under Bush, even during the economic boom of the mid 00s, socialism was alive and well. Socialism must be seen as either a tool for a few or for many, and that is what it comes down to. It's not a matter of socialism and capitalism but a matter of privatized socialism of public socialism.
But not only Marx was right. We must also pass praise some to Joseph Schumpeter, a 20th century bourgeois economist who, though deeply disagreeing with Marx, saw that capitalism could not avoid becoming what it already was: socialism.
Share via
1
Lenon said that the only thing socialism was good for, was leading to communism. Or in some cases, it's just a hop skip and a jump to fascism. Are we alright with this all of a sudden?
2
No, Bob, we aren't alright with it but Charles is correct that there isn't anything we can do about it. It is the natural order for societies to move towards socialism as power and wealth concentrate in fewer hands. Of course, it is also inevitable socialism will fail as growth slows and stops.
3
The good news is that once we move to communism, Charles will be obsolete and banished to the factories with the rest of us.
If a communist government isn't established within ten years, however, Charles has promised me then thousand capitalist pig dollars. Because he is just that sure.
If a communist government isn't established within ten years, however, Charles has promised me then thousand capitalist pig dollars. Because he is just that sure.
5
The problem is that the market was never free, it was always manipulated by the banks that fund all commerce and thus, every form of top down control will fail and give way to the next best way to loot the people. And yes there are mid level people getting filthy rich out of this but they aren't anything, they are really bag men for the bankers.
6
Am I the only one who doesn't really get this conflation of socialism with communism? How exactly does society socially sharing the burden of production automatically become bureaucratic micromanagement of the economy?
Or am I just listening to toddlers trying to preach calculus.
Or am I just listening to toddlers trying to preach calculus.
8
You all need to read Charles again, he is correct.
The "free market" is myth. The market is always rigged in one fashion or another. Greedy, very greedy modern American corporate moguls have rigged the system for their benefit. Take a look at what they created, and the neo con link to militarism is/was indeed the emerging American fascist state complete with lots of war. Corporations make money in war, and lots of it.
Either the state has rules and dictates for business or the out of control corporate chiefs screw the whole system endlessly in the name of profits, class, and elitism....
Workers of the World Unite
The "free market" is myth. The market is always rigged in one fashion or another. Greedy, very greedy modern American corporate moguls have rigged the system for their benefit. Take a look at what they created, and the neo con link to militarism is/was indeed the emerging American fascist state complete with lots of war. Corporations make money in war, and lots of it.
Either the state has rules and dictates for business or the out of control corporate chiefs screw the whole system endlessly in the name of profits, class, and elitism....
Workers of the World Unite
9
I'm not. I wish Charles would take a good Microeconomics class. No decent economist believes that the free market can exist on a national scale without a government. The free-market is the most efficient known method for allocating resources. It is not, however, equitable. That lack of equity is a problem and something that free-market societies deal with in different ways. Economists are well aware of the failures of the free market, such as pollution (a negative externality). Obama is right now trying to institute a market approach--cap and trade--to reducing the effects of carbon emissions and provide incentives to industry to create clean technologies. The biggest role that government plays, however, may be in providing a justice system that enforces property rights. If someone can come and take away your bike, car, or house and there is no way to stop them, then you don't feel motivated to work to acquire a house or a car or a bike. To call our system Socialism because government is a key and necessary player is, well, interesting but silly. Provides food for thought, though.
10
Socialism can work. Communism probably can't.
That said, those who equate communism with the fascism and totalitarianism of the Soviet and Chinese communist experiments don't understand how communism is supposed to work and why it probably never will. The problem isn't that communism leads to fascism, the problem is that there's no way of controlling the metaphysical aspect of society; that is, there's no way of redirecting the metaphysical nature of individuals towards the betterment of the state. Metaphysics is squirmy and slimy, you can't control it and attempting to do so only leads to it squirting out of your hand and flopping into an unexplored corner. Marxist communism assumes that human metaphysics can be reshaped, through indirect influence, and it probably can't, ever.
The result of this is that states attempting communist experiments try to redirect and control the people so that the nature of their thought changes in the appropriate manner for the creation of a true communist state (which has never existed). The most obvious way of doing this is through fascist and totalitarian systems.
That creates a contradiction: as soon as you start trying to control metaphysics, you've abandoned the humanitarian goals Marx set forth. But no one else has come up with another way of controlling metaphysics, indirectly or directly, so that's what they keep trying.
So yeah, socialism works, communism doesn't. Don't confuse the two.
That said, those who equate communism with the fascism and totalitarianism of the Soviet and Chinese communist experiments don't understand how communism is supposed to work and why it probably never will. The problem isn't that communism leads to fascism, the problem is that there's no way of controlling the metaphysical aspect of society; that is, there's no way of redirecting the metaphysical nature of individuals towards the betterment of the state. Metaphysics is squirmy and slimy, you can't control it and attempting to do so only leads to it squirting out of your hand and flopping into an unexplored corner. Marxist communism assumes that human metaphysics can be reshaped, through indirect influence, and it probably can't, ever.
The result of this is that states attempting communist experiments try to redirect and control the people so that the nature of their thought changes in the appropriate manner for the creation of a true communist state (which has never existed). The most obvious way of doing this is through fascist and totalitarian systems.
That creates a contradiction: as soon as you start trying to control metaphysics, you've abandoned the humanitarian goals Marx set forth. But no one else has come up with another way of controlling metaphysics, indirectly or directly, so that's what they keep trying.
So yeah, socialism works, communism doesn't. Don't confuse the two.
12
@4: I'm right there with you! I sure miss the good old days when we were simply able to maintain our "free-market, capitalist" standard of living by owing trillions of dollars to a communist country who also happens to make all of our shit.
13
How much profit do they make on all those book sales?
Sounds like a growth industry...can I buy stock in Marxism?
Sounds like a growth industry...can I buy stock in Marxism?
17
Hmmm... The current meltdown of capitalism "proves" that socialism was right all along? Yet the decades-before meltdown of all socialist economies didn't prove the opposite? You are right: there is no pure capitalism, just as there can be no pure socialism. This is a dichotomy between two non-existent theoretical paradigms and therefore has no logical significance. Not-Capitalism does not equal Socialism and vice-versa. All there is--alas for the idealist like yourself--is the squishy, dynamic middle. Everything else is a framework made of smoke.
18
"Inevitable"? No. No systemic change as great as the wholesale redistribution of wealth from the few to the many happens "naturally". It will never happen unless it is MADE to happen. If no one makes it happen, the existing power structure will continue to perpetuate itself, and our situation will change but little. That is the "natural" course. You want socialism? You'd better be prepared to help make it happen, or you'll never see it.
19
So there's a problem with people wanting to exploit and shit workers in a capitalist environment. How about just putting in laws to fix the exploitation? Little bit more realistic than swinging all the fucking way to communism.
And a lot more desireable as well.
Well sweat shop Chinese labor is what you want you say? Nice.
And a lot more desireable as well.
Well sweat shop Chinese labor is what you want you say? Nice.
20
Gee, Stuff @19, that's why the Unions fought for and won the 8-hour work day, and 5-day work week (R.I.P.) ... however that sort of action only works in a democratic environment where groups who press for change don't get ruthlessly jailed, shot, tortured, harassed, have dogs set on them, firehosed, or blown up (like the LA Times building during their labor struggle).
Oh, whoops, I guess that happens in 'democratic' America too! Not just authoritarian regimes like Mussolini's fascist Italy, Hitler's Nazi Germany, Lenin's Psycho-Authoritarian Russia, and post-Mao's China.
"Just putting in laws." That sounds great. How will you counter the bleatings of the 'free-market' Right when they whine "Nanny State! Nanny State! You're hurting our PROFITS!" As if they have a Constitutional right to make as much profit as possible, the greedy squits.
@18: Redistribution of wealth DOES happen, and has been culturally encoded as 'morally correct' in smaller groups throughout history. You are perhaps talking about gianormous post-modern nation states... whose cultural tradition is that of self-hatred (guilt), abuse and exploitation. Facilitating redistribution as a cultural norm won't happen over night, and if you "make" it happen, you will only generate resentment. You have to encourage it to happen by introducing the infrastructure (non-explotative currency, for example), and allow people to express their better ethics. If you 'make' them, you will end up with authoritarianism again.
@17 What "decades before meltdown of all socialist economies"? The U.S.S.R. was undermined by Saudia Arabia pumping oil to the max and dropping the price/barrel so that the USSR went bankrupt. Look it up. Other "socialist" economies --like, say, France, or Germany, or England-- have been chugging along merrily for quite some time now and never collapsed.
The fact that you say "there is no pure capitalism" is Brand Spanking New News to a whole fuck of a lot of people out there today. "Free Market" ideology is based on that very (false) belief. That is Charles' point.
You need to read more history.
More...
Oh, whoops, I guess that happens in 'democratic' America too! Not just authoritarian regimes like Mussolini's fascist Italy, Hitler's Nazi Germany, Lenin's Psycho-Authoritarian Russia, and post-Mao's China.
"Just putting in laws." That sounds great. How will you counter the bleatings of the 'free-market' Right when they whine "Nanny State! Nanny State! You're hurting our PROFITS!" As if they have a Constitutional right to make as much profit as possible, the greedy squits.
@18: Redistribution of wealth DOES happen, and has been culturally encoded as 'morally correct' in smaller groups throughout history. You are perhaps talking about gianormous post-modern nation states... whose cultural tradition is that of self-hatred (guilt), abuse and exploitation. Facilitating redistribution as a cultural norm won't happen over night, and if you "make" it happen, you will only generate resentment. You have to encourage it to happen by introducing the infrastructure (non-explotative currency, for example), and allow people to express their better ethics. If you 'make' them, you will end up with authoritarianism again.
@17 What "decades before meltdown of all socialist economies"? The U.S.S.R. was undermined by Saudia Arabia pumping oil to the max and dropping the price/barrel so that the USSR went bankrupt. Look it up. Other "socialist" economies --like, say, France, or Germany, or England-- have been chugging along merrily for quite some time now and never collapsed.
The fact that you say "there is no pure capitalism" is Brand Spanking New News to a whole fuck of a lot of people out there today. "Free Market" ideology is based on that very (false) belief. That is Charles' point.
You need to read more history.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
Real Salt Lake vs. Galaxy Open Thread by Christopher Frizzelle
-
The Panic Over Mammograms by Audrey Van Buskirk
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS