Marxism

mcatsmasher wrote:

What do you guys think of Marxism?

Good question. I know Groucho gets all the attention but I was always partial to Zeppo. Harpo never did much for me.

Now here's a question for you. Who is better, the Marxism brothers or the 3 Stooges?

Chico was very under-rated, actually. The Three Stooges' appeal kind of wears thin after you're 15.

It's a word whose meaning has become so highly charged (especially in the US) that it's almost impossible to have a serious conversation about it, except maybe in some academic circles. I've been meaning to actually read Marx for some time now. My feeling is that it is a socioeconomic philosophy that is not without some intellectual merit, but in practice by governments has failed. What people don't often realize, though, is that "Marxism," generally speaking, does not necessarily mean Communist revolution. It means the opinion that economic determinism will keep laboring people in perpetual subjugation unless they control the means of production.

Mayor Bob Rundown wrote:

My feeling is that it is a socioeconomic philosophy that is not without some intellectual merit, but in practice by governments has failed.

Marx would say that Marxism "in practice by governments" is not Marxism at all.

Marxism and totalitarianism are inseparable. Because humans are naturally selfish, most people will never forfeit their property for the supposed benefit of society. Therefore a violent totalitarian regime is the only mechanism capable of enforcing the laws of a true Marxist system. Soviet Russia was the practical result of Marxism.

Soviet Russia strayed quite far from any actual Marxist model.

It's arguable rather Marxist societies would of necessity be totalitarian, but most totalitarian ones are not Marxist.

He looked at capitalism from the bottom up instead of the top down. Marx also realized that capitalism was just another economic system that distributed power which can be compared to feudal Europe. We still have a class system with elite capitalist at the top and the masses at the bottom. Government is not the enemy in today's world like some people believe; they are simply the middle man for big business.

Trade use to be equal. Bread for a horse shoe or something like that. There were not any profits to be made. So ask yourself, where do profits come from in today's world? Exploitation of labor? Exploitation of the consumer?

serfdom = slavery = wage labor

It's interesting to look at the world from a different point of view, and Marx provides it. Even though people are taught to fear these views, learn all you can and think for yourself.

Reading Marx is interesting. His historical determinism (the forces of history inevitably lead to proletarian revolution) is clearly crap, but his analyses of the contradictions inherent in capitalism are very often compelling.

p.s. Without Harpo, there is no act.

I've found Marxism to be a big load of dog turds. Just my opinion. It's antithetical to freedom.

Mtn Dew wrote:

I've found Marxism to be a big load of dog turds. Just my opinion. It's antithetical to freedom.

What? Marxism is all about freedom. It's about identifying the conditions that make freedom possible and working to make those conditions real.

Without an analysis of the conditions of freedom, how do you make a distinction between freedom and the lack thereof?

conditions wrote:

What? Marxism is all about freedom. It's about identifying the conditions that make freedom possible and working to make those conditions real.

Without an analysis of the conditions of freedom, how do you make a distinction between freedom and the lack thereof?

Well, I would tie freedom into property rights. Therefore Marxism is a bunch of garbage.

The goal of any capitalist is to capture consumer surplus. This can only be accomplished through monopoly, or something similar. Think Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

In this scenario, all inputs are bid down to their costs (in the case of labor, subsistence). The goal of a labour union is to prevent the monopsony of labor (the price taker sets the price). If all control accrues to the capitalist as ultimate price setter, its at this point that "the masses" have nothing to lose, and revolution occurs.

The marketplace 100-150yrs ago was very different, in particular for labor. There has been significant market intervention by all modern governments to prevent "market distortions" that monopolists present.

Marx viewed the overthrow of capitalism as inevitable. But the majority of workers in most labor markets are extremely content and docile. So very unlikely they will revolt in any meaningful way.

Standard Oil lowered the cost of its product over time - society was better off because of Standard Oil.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Well, I would tie freedom into property rights. Therefore Marxism is a bunch of garbage.

Hey buddy, that's not an argument. That's an assertion. Define property rights without making reference to labor. If you make reference to free labor, and give any sort of positive definition of that, then essentially you're a Marxist.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Standard Oil lowered the cost of its product over time - society was better off because of Standard Oil.

every time a new competitor entered the market, Standard lowered prices below this competitors cost, and drove him out. Then prices rose again so that Standard could capture maximum consumer surplus.

IF they lowered their average price, it was in order to maximize consumer surplus i.e. demand was still far greater at lower prices. But as demand became more inelastic (steeper), you could "lower prices", and still pocket a large chunk of consumer surplus in the face of rising political pressure at this market manipulation of what was becoming a vital commodity.

If the market was open, there would have been much more oil available than if Standard Oil ever existed.