If you look at what Marxist Theory says, it seems that most criticism of what people call "communism" is off base if you go by the original definition of the term. This is a common defense of marxists, that the Soviet Union wasn't communist, and so on. So what's the best way to discredit this type of argument?
For example:
Marx and Engels devoted their lives to the analysis of historical forces which they considered to be moving inexorably towards the eventual collapse of the capitalist system and a revolutionary crisis which would bring about a socialist transition and (eventually) full communism.
So according to this, they're predicting that "full communism" had to arise out of the "later stages" of captialism (which resembles an oligarchy from what I've read). This brand of anti-capitalism, since it's so specific, appears difficult to disprove, since it has yet to happen.
In the end Marx and Engels believed that the tasks of socialist and communist construction must await the necessary conditions of historical change, and this raises the whole issue of how quickly or slowly capitalism would be transformed into socialism and communism, and also the question of whether such a transformation could be accomplished in individual countries or must become a genuinely worldwide movement.
Now in a "correctly functioning" free market system that doesn't have government and other criminals screwing it up, it's hard to believe formation of an oligarchy is possible at all. But is this "correctly functioning" problem what Marx was actually getting at? i.e. Capitalism decays into something like what we currently have--into a sort of pseudo free market, because the natural human urge to control other people is too great to sustain a truly free (capitalist) society. Was he saying that capitalism can't function properly because human nature won't allow it?
I'm betting that history can teach us a few things about this subject, but while I'm thinking about it I'd like to know what others have to say.
Are there any Mises.org articles that directly address the ideas of Karl Marx, rather than later (bad) ideas?
http://mises.org/store/Socialism-P55.aspx
Ansury:Marx and Engels devoted their lives to the analysis of historical forces which they considered to be moving inexorably towards the eventual collapse of the capitalist system and a revolutionary crisis which would bring about a socialist transition and (eventually) full communism.
Ansury:In the end Marx and Engels believed that the tasks of socialist and communist construction must await the necessary conditions of historical change, and this raises the whole issue of how quickly or slowly capitalism would be transformed into socialism and communism, and also the question of whether such a transformation could be accomplished in individual countries or must become a genuinely worldwide movement.
Who ever wrote this does not know Marxism. The transition between Capitalism and Full Communism is not Socialism [ That is a Stalinist interpretation, not a statement by Karl Marx ]
Ansury:Now in a "correctly functioning" free market system that doesn't have government and other criminals screwing it up, it's hard to believe formation of an oligarchy is possible at all. But is this "correctly functioning" problem what Marx was actually getting at? i.e. Capitalism decays into something like what we currently have--into a sort of pseudo free market, because the natural human urge to control other people is too great to sustain a truly free (capitalist) society. Was he saying that capitalism can't function properly because human nature won't allow it?
Much of Marx's criticque of Capitalism was in fact a strawman in which he postulated that capitalism was in fact mercantilism. I think Marxism becomes somewhat clearer if that school of thought is placed where the term 'capitalism' is applied.
Ansury:Are there any Mises.org articles that directly address the ideas of Karl Marx, rather than later (bad) ideas?
I actually wanted to start writing articles for Mises Daily about Marxism [ Jeff Tucker did have an article on Marxism and polylogicism though I haven't read it yet ] Your topic has inspired me to carry through with this task. Even if Mises doesn't print it I will make it available on the forums.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Cool! That'll be good to see. I'll have to do more research on various "marxism sources" since apparently there are even more different versions than I thought. God it's such a mess...
nazgulnarsil: http://mises.org/store/Socialism-P55.aspx
Very aware of that book and it's probably the next that I'll buy and read--however does it actually address Marxism and Karl Marx directly, or is it tearing down some derivative work?
Ansury: Cool! That'll be good to see. I'll have to do more research on various "marxism sources" since apparently there are even more different versions than I thought. God it's such a mess...
Well that is the problem with Marxism. It has come to mean whatever one wishes it to be irrespective of what it actually was.
Here's another question-- is the initial Pilgrim settlement breakdown good evidence of the failure of Marxism? Marxists love to claim (and even people who aren't Marxist sometimes say) that "Communism" (interpreted as Marxism, I think) has never been implemented correctly. Seems to me the Pilgrims tried something pretty close, and found it to be a miserable failure. How close is this to the truth in your opinion(s)?
Laughing Man: Who ever wrote this does not know Marxism. The transition between Capitalism and Full Communism is not Socialism [ That is a Stalinist interpretation, not a statement by Karl Marx ]
I thought Marx talked about the transition from capitalism to socialist state to communist society in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme".
it's really depressing that people think that marx was new in his day. marxism is the centuries old barbarism of justified violence and theft with a shiny new wrapper. it is capitalism, or non-violent interaction, that is truly new in human history. marxism is a reaction against it by the power elite.
Ansury:Here's another question-- is the initial Pilgrim settlement breakdown good evidence of the failure of Marxism? Marxists love to claim (and even people who aren't Marxist sometimes say) that "Communism" (interpreted as Marxism, I think) has never been implemented correctly. Seems to me the Pilgrims tried something pretty close, and found it to be a miserable failure. How close is this to the truth in your opinion(s)?
I'd use more current examples.
Felipe: Laughing Man: Who ever wrote this does not know Marxism. The transition between Capitalism and Full Communism is not Socialism [ That is a Stalinist interpretation, not a statement by Karl Marx ] I thought Marx talked about the transition from capitalism to socialist state to communist society in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme".
No, for a transitional analysis read "Private Property and Communism" in the 1844 manuscripts.
nazgulnarsil:it's really depressing that people think that marx was new in his day. marxism is the centuries old barbarism of justified violence and theft with a shiny new wrapper. it is capitalism, or non-violent interaction, that is truly new in human history. marxism is a reaction against it by the power elite.
Certainly nothing new about what Marx was preaching. For a good topographical analysis and critique of Socialism, read The Socialist Tradition by Sir Alexander Gray. One of Rothbard's favorite authors on the subject. He has a witty and sardonic attitude towards them that makes for laugh out loud scholarly reading.
What more current examples of communism are there? The USSR doesn't apply according to these people, nor do any other whole nations past or present. It seems to me The Pilgrims are one of the closest example I've ever seen.
I disagree that Capitalism (free market) is the "new" idea. Liberalism and mankind's right to freedom, yes, but I consider that a political philosophy rather than just an economic system (I realize the two tie together). I recall a quote (I think it was Lew Rockwell?), "capitalism built civilization", and I think that's quite accurate. Capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government, and it has existed since the beginning of history. It's been suppressed for sure, but I'd attribute man's advancement to that system over any form of foricible government intervention any day.
Corporations in the Tweed Valley in Australia, having bought a valley, have equally distributed the land among shareholders. The body corporate consists of investors, and they don't own any more land than the next, as opposed to the investor with the most capital owning the most land. They've revisited a Marxist model, and reinvented it rather successfully.
This is a quote from someone I'm having a discussion with. As painful as it is I should probably "brush up on my marxism" (ugh, say good bye to 10 IQ points), but is what this guy is describing even a Marxist/Communist like system? If they distributed the land equally, well gee--that's not "common" property at all. That's exactly what the Pilgrims did to end starvation, they created private property. Am I missing something here? No, I don't think so, I think this (bolded) quote is just flat out inaccurate.
Ansury:What more current examples of communism are there? The USSR doesn't apply according to these people, nor do any other whole nations past or present. It seems to me The Pilgrims are one of the closest example I've ever seen.
The USSR does apply. They entered a stage of 'Crude Communism.' It is in 'Private Property and Communism' from Marx's 1844 manuscripts.
Ansury:Corporations in the Tweed Valley in Australia, having bought a valley, have equally distributed the land among shareholders. The body corporate consists of investors, and they don't own any more land than the next, as opposed to the investor with the most capital owning the most land. They've revisited a Marxist model, and reinvented it rather successfully.
If it is private land that is attributed to each share holder and not owned by all then it isn't Marxism because the very first tenet of the Communist Manifesto is abolition of private property.
Laughing Man: The USSR does apply. They entered a stage of 'Crude Communism.' It is in 'Private Property and Communism' from Marx's 1844 manuscripts.
This would be a great topic to have a write up about. In particular I'd be interested in seeing what parts of Marx's comedy sket--I mean, manifesto apply, and how that application was realized (or "crudely realized") in the case of the USSR.
Thanks for confirming what I thought about the second bit there--I think that's the case. I think this guy might be "rescuable" since he's not a communist, but the fact that he's defending it even a little needs to be stamped out.
Ansury:Thanks for confirming what I thought about the second bit there--I think that's the case. I think this guy might be "rescuable" since he's not a communist, but the fact that he's defending it even a little needs to be stamped out
Just slide this over to him:
Private Property and Communism
Laughing Man: Jeff Tucker did have an article on Marxism and polylogicism...
Jeff Tucker did have an article on Marxism and polylogicism...
"George Koether reports that Mises told his seminar students that the first book on economics that they should read is a book on logic by Morris Cohen, a book which is in fact one of the last complete texts on logic to be published for universal use in the college classroom."
I just finished reading this article. It was very good. Above is a quote from the article. I came across this suggestion somewhere along the line when I first visited this forum to study logic to further understand economics. I haven't read this particular book Mises has suggested. Yet his general notion is also what Thomas Aquinas has suggested, which is to first study (Aristotelean) logic. I've taken that suggestion to heart since I've been here and it's been very fruitful - though obviously the turtle way. I still have a bit to go, but less than what I've already studied. Little by little I'm learning the basic concepts that Aristotle and Aquinas go over in their logical writings. I hope to finish out with Aristotle's Metaphysics (which, not particularly Aristotle's from what I gather, has been described in a couple books as the queen of philosophy) and then move on from there. It's not that I need to take what Aristotle said word for word. I figure once I get a grasp of his logic and Aquinas' commentary pertaining to such, then I can move on to what all later philosophers either agreed with or argued against when it comes to philosophy.
{Full paragraph in which above quote comes from: "What's at work here is an unraveling of the entire basis for any form of intellectual discussion. If we can't agree on universal rules of establishing the veracity of truth claims, all discussion is reduced to a series of demands followed by ad hominem attacks on anyone who resists those demands. Mises himself understood that if we are to avoid this fate, there had to be some understanding and agreement on the rules of logic. George Koether reports that Mises told his seminar students that the first book on economics that they should read is a book on logic by Morris Cohen, a book which is in fact one of the last complete texts on logic to be published for universal use in the college classroom. Meanwhile, forums on academic discussion boards filled with complaints that logic as a discipline is no longer part of high-school study or even undergraduate college study, which means that after 16 years of formal study, hardly any students are taught even the basic rules on how to think."}
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Nothing ever has or ever will be "true communism". It's what Hoppe called the empiricist immunization strategy in (I think) Natural Elites, Intellectuals and the State. No matter what experiment is tried, it is always retrospectively deemed not communism (because it always fails to fulfill its promises, of course). Hoppe also refutes the possibility of "true communism".
An Introduction to Logic (Paperback)by Morris R. Cohen (Author), Ernest Nagel (Author), John Corcoran (Editor)
(on Amazon)
If you do read or check out this book, I'd be interested in knowing how hard it is to follow and keep an interest in. I'd try getting it, but I'm afraid it'd be a very slow-going high level text that I just don't have the attention span (or maybe the intelligence lol) for.
For that matter, even a Marxist did claim that a true communism existed, it couldn't be taken seriously on account of its impossibility.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap