The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Andrew Bolt simply does not understand Marxism > Comments

Andrew Bolt simply does not understand Marxism : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 24/2/2014

In response to Andrew: You're entitled to your opinion as a conservative to oppose Marxism, or leftism in general. But get your facts straight.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. All
I'd say that the long term interests of the poor and ordinary people are best promoted by academic freedom in the universities ... that the twentieth century got sidetracked into futile insurrectionism of left and right is well known ... that the interests of the day labourers, the unemployed, the single mothers, the hamburger flippers on the minimum wage, are not going to be promoted by screening of university staff for political loyalty to the government of the day is so obviously true, one begins to wonder why anyone would suggest the persecution of Marxist academics?

Academic and political freedoms are the swords that allow a hundred flowers to bloom, that allow open debate of a better world, that lead to students and workers clarifying values and agendas, that permit long term the possibility of social change that leads to a better world ...

Not being a Marxist myself, I still project to many ideas of many writers, such as H. G. Wells, whose utopias and dystopias pervade my subconscious ... The world's in such a terrible state I am sure there must be something better!
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Monday, 24 February 2014 8:37:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agreed Tristan.

It's quite clear that there is general lack of understanding of the role of Marx and even Marxism in the development of economics itself. That it has been manifested as actual political movements down through the decades since first published as text is not surprising.

The equating of Marxism with totalitarianism is to misunderstand and deny it's pace in history. That needs to be taught and understood for a fuller picture of history so as people are made ware of other expressions of it.

Workers relationships with capital is vital to coming to terms with so much that needs to be addressed with encroaching economic neo-liberalism. Not even that it captures as discussion of the very nature of the capitalist enterprise in totem.

I definitely do denounce totalitarian expressions of this political philosophy myself, They aren't the be and end all of his and Engels political thought but a later development of a misapplication of it.

That Andrew Bolt seems to subscribe to this mischaracterisation says more about him than any thing else about the lack of the veracity of Marxism or not.
Posted by MarkH, Monday, 24 February 2014 8:38:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The saddest aspect of this - entirely unexceptionable - article, is that Mr Ewins actually believes that it is necessary to respond to Andrew Bolt's dribble.

Yes, yes, I know. I suppose in the grand scheme of things someone has to point out every so often how the unreconstructed bloviator's ratbag witterings are founded on a profound sense of self-loathing.

But it would be so much cooler just to let it through to the 'keeper. Giving him the dignity of a response is simply feeding the troll.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 February 2014 9:00:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hundreds of thousands of readers means Bolt's opinions need to be responded to. You can't just assume that by ignoring him he will disappear.

And in any case - Bolt's writings just serve as a platform, here, for a much wider and deeper argument about misconceptions with regard Marxism. The facts about Austro-Marxism alone I found fascinating and inspirational. I don't know why you say the article in 'entirely unexceptionable'; but thankfully not everyone feels the same as you, Pericles.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 24 February 2014 9:24:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Andrew Bolt simply does not understand Marxism'

Nor do very many others but we all understand how easily is was to be manipulated and corrupted.
The three evil men who corrupted it mostly were Stalin, Hitler and Mao. The three greatest mass murders of all time.

Marxist economic theory is a proven failure. It doesn't allow for expression of greed. It suppresses the desire for individual self improvement unless sanctioned by the collective.

Liberalism and conservatism haven't produced the equivalent mass murders. There have been various odd ball despots but none can be equated with the abovementioned.

Capitalism, the economic expression of liberalism and conservatism has the ability and does correct it's own shortcomings.

Liberalism and conservatism does not regulate the self-improvement of the individual.

Andrew Bolt is fully entitled to express his opinions and receive fair criticism. So are you Tristan.

But you never seem to criticise the socialists and their companions. That too is your right.

I have seen Andrew Bolt challenge Liberals and conservatives.

Let's see you condemn the policies and those who introduced policies that led to 1200 people perishing at sea, that led to the death of young men installing pink bats, that will lead to the deaths of many elderly when the cooling climate change kills them because it is too expensive to use electricity.

Let's see you roundly condemn the behaviour of those among your Marxist collective, who were corrupt politicians and/or unionists, as well as those who also delayed or who oppose their exposure.

I'd bet a pile of my hard earned proceeds from my businesses that Andrew Bolt wouldn't ignore these issues had they been a result of the actions liberal or conservative capitalists.

See ... you will only give token condemnation. You will find some way of denying those responsible were Marxists or were part of you great Marxist social democratic movement.

We might not understand Marxism but we just prefer capitalism to Marxism because Marxism has shown it has no way of self-regulating itself. It's pure form and origins are largely irrelevant.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 24 February 2014 9:45:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly Pericles ignoring it is not an option. Lunatics have taken over everywhere precisely because rational people can't be bothered.

Andrew Bolt is a very useful tool for grooming public opinion in Australia. His opinions regarding foreign affairs are simply justifications of US foreign policy.

I remember an article he wrote back when the French refused to become part of the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq. At the time, in the US the MSM were ratcheting up criticism of the French. On queue, Andrew came out with his own wondrous analysis, apparently the French were a people who were unfamiliar with Democracy unlike the USA and Australia of course.

Amazing! Here is the Bolt routinely parroting on about the left and the right of politics but is blithely unaware of the most fundamentlal political history.

Similarly, here, the ignorance is past believing. Marxism is not a political but an economic theory. There is nothing intrinsically totalitarian about Marxism. There have been totalitarian capitalist countries like NAZI germany and Mussolinis Italy. Should we then ban the study of Capitalism?

Andrew, Andrew stick with baiting political correctness - that is your strong suit.
I know it must be frustrating being a one trick pony, but to critique Democracy or Marxism you need some level of education in the subject. A quick search of Wikipedia won't cut the mustard. I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto, its actually pretty short, sadly there you will find Marx lauding the power of capitalism, you won't find any call for totalitarianism.

Then you can go back to baiting left wing artists.
Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 24 February 2014 9:53:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every expression of Marxism has produced totalitarianism; the oppressive nature of Marxism, socialism and its true description communism inevitably leads to a suppression of individuality.

It is here that this author's naivety is most pronounced; like all good communists he denounces capitalism on the basis of the usual worker oppression meme. But he is talking about crony capitalism, a normal expression of communism not capitalism.

Capitalism does not create Western democracies, it is a product of it. The Western model is based on individual rights and checks and balances which flow from individual rights and which constrain the executive and other sources of power. The right to set up and profit from running a business is merely an expression of that basic tenant of individual rights

In this form the Western democratic model is dynamic with the balance ebbing and flowing. But as we saw in the hideous Rudd and particularly Gillard governments, there comes from the left a continual attempt to muzzle this democratic base. We had Finkelstein, we had continual interference by Gillard and others with the Judiciary including appointments to the Judiciary, especially in the FWC, of Gillard's former lawyer partners, we had cries from such as Hamilton and Manne to suspend democracy and we have had the great cause of the left, AGW, infiltrated throughout our institutions as the agents of Gramsci’s long march implement that ideology: see:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/nctcs-what-party-stands-for-and-against.html

Marxism is a failed ideology; not only failed but with a heritage of millions dead because of it. The attempt by this author to establish equivalence with the 'deaths' from capitalism is ridiculous.

Bolt is right to be wary of Marxism/communism. The desire within some people to inflict their world view, their sense of righteousness and their ego on others runs deep. Marxism/communism has been the perfect form for the tyrants to express this base human attribute.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 24 February 2014 9:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Imajulianutter' - argues I have no criticisms of the totalitarian faux-Marxists - Then what was this passage from my article?:

"the democratic Marxists...early on perceived the danger posed by authoritarian and terroristic strategies, as well as the danger posed by 'cults of personality'."

You also argue that Marxists repress individual expression because of collectivism.

That is untrue also - As an exploration of the democratic Marxists I mentioned would reveal to you if you checked it out. Try reading my main passage on Austro-Marxism - and then reconsider your position.

Your equation of Hitler with Marxism is ridiculous and shows absolute ignorance about the content of Marx's work; and of the democratic Marxists I mentioned. Marxists in Nazi Germany ended up in concentration camps; and were involved deeply in the anti-Nazi Resistance throughout Europe in WWII.

Putting all self-proclaimed Marxists in the same category is just like saying because Pinochet was a capitalist all who profess a capitalist ideology are like Pinochet. Capitalism may have systemic tendencies towards exploitation and war - But there have always been liberal capitalists! Just as there have always been Marxists who love, defend and fight to extend liberty...

As for 'mass murders' - try World War One with TENS OF MILLIONS killed.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:04:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting defence of Marxism, I'd agree that any criticism of the ideology justified by the atrocities committed in its name is pure sophistry, however I'd also agree with Pericles, Bolt is essentially a Murdoch/Coalition propagandist, whether or not he really misunderstands Marxism is irrelevant.
Posted by mac, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:18:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Author should have left it at "Andrew Bolt doesn't understand" it would have been enough for any thinking person.
Andrew is 2GB in print nothing more.
He there to sell papers and nothing more.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:25:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tristan,

Just wondering if you sent this complaint to Andrew Bolt at the Herald-Sun before you tried your luck on OLO? If so, could you share any response you got with us?

The first impression I have is your intimate knowledge of Marxism? That in itself confirms Andrew Bolts position. Oops and well done.

You seem to have been so keen to “get the facts right” that you missed your own self harm through exposure in doing so.

After that, your use of “narrative theory” is to be commended, especially since you were able to weave this into a complex web of excuses, mitigation, socialization and the nice touch at the end of “persecution complex”.

The best part of what Andrew Bolt is doing is to discover who you are, what you are and where you are? This is called public exposure.

Your support of Andrew Bolt in this endeavor and that of your fellow travelers on OLO is much appreciated.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:26:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Truth About Karl Marx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKVbdCpt0tk
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:32:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I challenge anyone who wishes to defend this article, on the following grounds.

1.
Are you saying that the enormous abuses that happened in the 20th century under self-professed attempts to implement Marxism, for example in Russia and China - tens of millions of people starved to death - that these are all some kind of strange coincidence? Nothing to do with the socialist project of attempting public ownership of the means of production?

2.
If the only distinction between the Marxism you condemn, and the Marxism you defend is "over-centralisation" then: what is the rational criterion by which you distinguish over-centralisation from under-centralisation?

3.
If that criterion is to be in the unilateral discretion of the State, how is that any improvement on the original problem, as conceived by you?

4.
If the purpose, or means, of the project to realise socialism, is public ownership of the means of production, and since according to Marx, labour is the means of production par excellence, how do you avoid the conclusion that the state has a presumptive right to ownership of everyone's labour? Why is this not a slave philosophy? And you think it's just a coincidence that it turned out an abusive and totalitarian doctrine? How could it be anything else?

5.
What of human action do you think the state does *not* have a right to control?

6.
If government has some kind of presumptive competence or superiority at economising - allocating scarce resources to their most valued ends - as social democratic Marxism assumes - then why isn't total government power over all production - totalitarianism - justified?

7.
I have never seen any Marxist
a) understand
b) represent, or
c) answer
Mises' complete demolition of your confused, garbled, self-contradictory, anti-rational, economically illiterate belief system, in his essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth".
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Can you?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:34:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a bit hard to take. Marxism is a left code word which has justifiable bad press. This is a weak attempt to sanitise the word and what it means. The left under any name oppose our Australian democracy and as for the socialist left, well their tactics clearly define their ideology, look at the comments:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/will_kevin_rudd_be_likewise_asked_to_denounce_this_disgusting_abuse/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/naughty_children_whod_be_safe_in_a_world_led_by_such_haters/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/this_horrific_abuse_of_abbott_must_end_but_where_is_the_left_that_cried_ove/

Note the Marxists are well represented at the above 'rally'.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_one_hates_here_like_the_left_and_its_dangerous/

Now, there is nothing more that I would like then to have a good argument about the left, because that is what the Marxists are. So I hope the author can rush to defend the maggots and their attitudes I have linked to because they are all of his ilk.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:39:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SpinDoc - What are you talking about? I am open about my politics. You infer my writing 'reveals something' about me. Well, what is that??

If you want to now where I stand then consider this:

I've been interested in Marxism since being a teenage student; Over the years I've been influenced by libertarian and social democratic Marxism. But I have a number of criticisms as well. For instance - some Marxists are hard materialists and determinists. Others think that ethics is secondary to 'the objective reality of class struggle' and socialist transition. I don't fall into either of those camps. In that sense I admit to being a 'Revisionist' - but still very much a liberal socialist.

I am also influenced by radical social liberalism - and want to read Rawls in depth one day; as well as the early British social liberals. From liberalism I take a passion for pluralism and freedom. And as a democrat I believe in expanding and deepening democracy for greater participation from the ground up.

Finally I don't talk about it that much (partly because I cop so much flak when I do so) , but I have been a non-denominational Christian for most of my life. This is more important to me than most people realise. It also partly explains why I try and engage with conservatives about what compassionate and liberal conservatism could mean - for instance the example of the Christian Democrats in 1950s Germany.

BTW - The anti-protest laws in Victoria quite possibly herald a new era of repression - It reminds me of the Bjelke Petersen days in Queensland.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find all of these arguments re who did what and why, prior to the INEVITABLE collapse of the Iron Curtain to be quite tedious.

None of which provide any useful grist for the mill in helping anyone to understand the humanly created world of the "21st century".

Stalin, Mao and all of the rest of the brutal communists dictators were primarily and only psycho-paths.
Marxist theory had very little, if anything, to do with their applied politics of repression and brutality. They would have done exactly the same thing to their people whatever the overall circumstances of their countries at the time.

Just as the klepto-maniac and even genocidal rulers and/or dictators in Africa, and in both Central and South America have done - and Marcos too in the Philippines.

And what about all the never-ending European slaughters prior to the Russian revolution? And the horrors of European colonialism and imperialism. All of which were perpetrated by dreadfully sane Christians, more often than not with the active encouragement of the Christian ecclesiastical establishments of their time and place.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

And what about the state of the world altogether since the end of the second world war, the collapse of communism, and especially the last 2 or 3 decades. This site provides thorough-going resources re who the real villains are and were. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com

And who created the now permanent military-industrial-complex, ot The Complex (see Nick Turse) and the permanent warfare state. http://www.tomdispatch.com

And who created the situation, or the politics of cruelty as described by Naomi Klein in her truth-telling book The Shock Doctrine?
And here too: http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner

Not many Marxists to be found in the villains (and their crimes) to be found in the above 4 references!

Meanwhile in my opinion Marxist inspired theorists provide easily the best analysis of the state of the world in 2014. People like David Harvey and Mike Davis for instance. Or those associated with Counterpunch, and Logos Journal as per the above reference.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:52:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

Nice try. Since your argument re Marxism revolves around it's origins it is disingenious of you to ignore the origins of the Party Hilter used to achieve his aims.

The Nazi party was originally and always the National SOCIALIST Party of Germany. Hitler and his cohort were always socialist. They did control the means of production in Germany as well as individual development.

The Nazi origins were marxist and as I said it was easily corrupted and manipulated. Why don't you get that? It is pretty simple really.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:02:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“There have been totalitarian capitalist countries like NAZI germany and Mussolinis Italy.”

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
Speech of May 1, 1927.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

Yebiga, you know, don’t you, that “Nazi” is short for “national socialist”. National SOCIALIST, get it?

Hitler did not believe in “capitalism” – meaning a system of private ownership of the means of production, with economic decisions – ie how to allocate scarce resources to their most valued ends – based on individual liberty and private property.

His system was based on the idea that government control of the means of production would replace capitalism with a better system – in a word, socialism.

The only exception is that, seeing the “international socialism” of the Bolsheviks had produced mass starvation and economic chaos, the Nazis thought they would have a “new improved” version. The means of production would remain in *nominally* private hands, but subject to the State’s absolute prerogative to override any and every decision. Like you and Tristan, he stood for the right of the State to thorough-going control of any and every aspect of production: wages, prices, interest, supply, demand, the supply of money, the supply and conditions of credi, education, infrastructure, primary, sco0ndary, tertiary industry, motherhood, sexual relations, you name it.

It was thus
a) totalitarian
b) socialist, and
c) indistingiuishable, as concerns economic policy, from what Tristan is defending, and from what you have tried but failed to defend here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16018&page=0 , and here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16031&page=0

We can prove this another way. Tristan, Yebiga, please Google “Hitler economic policy” and let us know any one that you do *not* agree with.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:04:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be real thin, the liberty of the State and of the indivdual within the State, Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. Fascism... the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people."
Benito Mussolini

And that’s what you and Tristan believe, isn’t it? For example, in your defence of protectionism, you always refer to "we". By this of course you identify *society* with *the State*. Thus any human being outside the State is regarded as a non-person, a sub-human, who has no claim to be part of human society worth considering.

But if you don't agree with the totalitarian ideology of the national socialists, then what are your answers to my numbered questions above?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:09:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one thing is for certain is that the vast majority of violent protests in this country comes from those who have an allegiance to marxism. You know them by their fruits. They are the most intolerant people along with some of the islamist in this country. The national broadcasters are stacked with their adherents.
Posted by runner, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:10:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was pretty anti-communist at university in my general support of liberalism, but would rather read Marx any day over Andrew Bolt.

No brainer that one
Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:11:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yebiga
See post above to Tristan. Your belief The Nazis were right wing is simply that you have swallowed the greatest propaganda lie of the 20th century.
The only country to sign a pact with Hitler was USSR. The onky difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Stalin claimed to be an international socialist and wanted the whole world to be dominated by his International Socalism. Hitler was an avowed National Socialist who was the only man to ever conquer Europe and who wanted to conquer the world. His aim was to impose his National Socialism.

Mate Mouseallini was simply one of those useful idiots, too.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:12:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris

Tongue in cheek I have to ask was the no brainer a result of or a prequisite to reading Marx?

Cheers no offence intended only humour.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:19:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am already very familiar with NAZI economic policy. In practice, National Socialism was and is extreme right wing economics. For those who would have that the NAZIs were socialists inspired by Marx well your in between a rock and hard place. NAZI germany's prewar economy arose from being the worlds basket case in 1933 to a super power by 1938. It was the first country and maybe the only country to get itself out of the global depression.

So much so that, it inspired Roosevelt's New Deal which helped the US out of its Depression. But what worked in Germany never quite worked as well anywhere else. Only the war effort itself helped the US recover. But that is a discussion for another time.

The indisputable distinction is that the NAZIs did not nationalise big business but rather partnered with them, not dissimilar to the post war Japanese government who works to assist its biggest businesses. No more really need be said to rebut this nonsense. Whereas, the USSR, China, Cuba and all the communist experiments all nationalised ownership of industry.

When analyzing historical events it is crucial to understand the times. 1933 Europe is in the midst of a depression, inflation is rampant and to the masses banks and big industry has failed them. In this environment every political party starts talking like a socialist. Even in America, Roosvelt's socialist new deal was necessary to appease the fears of the masses.

Thus to equate Fascism with Marxism or Communism is insanc
Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:22:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The NAZIs were socialists full stop. For Yebiga to claim they were right wing because of their affiliation with big business is rubbish and ignores the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. Hitler did not have anti-monopoly or anti-trust laws did he?

Here in Australia one of the dominant aspects of the left is their support, tacit, or otherwise, for and from big business. During the Gillard/Rudd years not one big business stood up to them. The cowardice of big business and their duplicity in receiving government handouts, in the case of fossil fuel industries, for renewables is a case in point. And the NSW ALP, corrupt to its eyeballs got on very well with big business.

If people with money had stood up to the left than the Rudd/Gillard abomination would have been much more short-lived.

The left know how to do business with big business because the left via its Marxist economic theory is a big business in itself.

It is astounding that the Marxists would prefer big government to dictate not only their economic life but inevitably the entirety of their lives.

Tony Abbott has summed up the left when reviewing Nick Cater's book:

http://www.luckyculture.com.au/about-the-book/reviews-2/tony-abbott-reviews-the-lucky-culture/

"As Cater sees it, there’s a powerful new commentariat, dominant in the media, academia and public administration, that is every bit as condescending as the aristocracy he left behind in Britain. In contemporary Australia, the worst snobbery is not directed towards people of lower status, he says, but towards people of different opinions. He thinks that this ‘my opinion must be better than yours’ conceit is putting at risk the egalitarianism that’s at the heart of Australians’ sense of self.

What distinguishes this group from every other influential sector of society is its unshakeable conviction in its moral superiority. Everyone who disputes its thinking is not just wrong, but inferior. Critics of the politically correct consensus are not just bad thinkers but verge on being bad people, as those who are cautious about gay marriage are starting to discover…"

Marxism sucks.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:40:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tristan,

The first part of my response was to ask << if you sent this complaint to Andrew Bolt at the Herald-Sun before you tried your luck on OLO? If so, could you share any response you got with us? >>

Since this is your response to Andrew Bolt it seems a reasonable question to ask?

The issue of “progressive politics” in our education system is what was challenged by Andrew Bolt. You conveniently slid down the side of this issue to “clarify” the facts of Marxism but you failed to make a case “for” teaching it. That I think is the issue Andrew Bolt has with progressives.

No amount of distractions and misdirection’s will suffice. If you have a declared position on this, let’s hear it.

Then we can move on to the wider debate of just who is driving this proposal, who they are, what they are and where they are?

Lets’ face it we don’t want to miss any of you when we come round with the vacuum cleaner.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:44:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Tristan for a useful article that has placed Marxism on the agenda again, but it is wasted on the Bolts and their audience. The importance of Marxist philosophy, economics and history is ignored by the Bolts of this world who are paid by the idle rich to rubbish it.

Consentration has to be on the methods they are using today to trash democracy. While it is useful to read history it is how they are maintaining capitalism's domination today thats important.

The established separation of powers, the pillars of the democratic society are being destroyed. The military's role of defender of the realm is being compromised . It now serves the ideology of Abbott and Morrison.

The non disclosure of cabinet documents is relegated to the past in order to pursue the short term objective of a government to maintain power. While it is useful to record how dictatorships have destroyed past democracy it is how they are doing it today thats important
Posted by Gun Boat, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:47:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do we have to put up with debased posts from those like "cohenite" who refers to those it disagrees with as "maggots".

The face at the bottom of the well is its own.

Remember, it was the rightwingers who, all through history, who benefited from and developed genocide, gas chambers, slavery, poverty, destitution, convictism, exploitation, torture, invasions, MacCathyism, racism, jingoism, nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, buzz-bombed London and fire bombed Hamburg. Now they produce "cohenite".

If you want to look at the reality of capitalism, have a look at the British capitalism:

British capitalist empire – 1950s

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as “Labour and freedom” and “He who helps himself will also be helped”. Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women’s breasts. They cut off inmates’ ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

Source: www.tinyurl.com/capitalism-1950s

If it suits capitalism to destroy entire societies, then this is precisely what it will do - as in Tasmania. If it makes profits by selling opium, then this is what it will do. If it makes profits through child labour then this is what it will do. If it can build computers and gizmos, used by Andrew Bolt, in sweatshops, then this is what it will do.
Posted by Christopher Warren, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:47:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter

At uni I was forced to read a lot of theory in regard to 'international political economy', which I hated. I was much more interested in empirical observation about the modern world.

But, I am glad I did. Not only does it teach you specific skills in terms of understanding and/or breaking down arguments, but opened my mind to the efforts why many people criticised and looked to their own version of the progressive society.

I was also read thinkers on the so-called right, even read mean kampf.

As students, I feel it is important to read a variety of writers across the political spectrum. I have never read anyone with full-proof analysis in this complex and competitive world, but the variety is good to get one thinking.

As for Bolt, no doubt he is good at provoking argument and been sceptical about topical matters, but I have little reason to read him.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 24 February 2014 12:39:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SpinDoc - you ask: "Why teach Marxism?";

a) because it is of historical importance;

b) the tradition as a whole involves insights and arguments that are worth engaging with in developing our perspectives;

c) A strong democracy is a PLURALIST democracy - where citizens are provided with the information they need to make informed choices. This includes exposure to socialism, liberalism, conservatism - the whole gamut.

And consider these quotes by Rosa Luxemburg when arguing that Marxism is 'essentially' 'totalitarian' or 'the same as fascism':

"Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently”

and: “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.”

That's Luxemburg criticising Bolshevist strategies in Russia.

Third: note that many of the Fascist and other authoritarian regimes in Europe during the 1920s-1940s period had the support of clerical/right-wing elements. Consider Franco and Dolfuss for instance. These people were not Marxists! (though importantly and notably the Catholic church *officially* opposed extreme corporatism; for example free trade unions...)

Finally: It angers me when people lump me in as an atheist; or worse a fascists!... Again I have been a Christian most of my life and often cop a fair bit of flak for it. The "by their fruits' comment earlier in this thread was quite frankly offensive. My 'fruits' comprise my writing in that I defend the rights of the poor and the elderly, support the extension of democracy, defend liberty. I'm quite glad to be considered on the basis of such 'fruits.'

And No I didn't write to Bolt personally, but I did send a letter in to the Herald-Sun which they did not publish.

I write in the article itself (try reading it) I am not in favour of a heavy handed state. Neither were most of the early Marxists. (eg:see Eduard Bernstein) I also believe 'checks and balances' re: power can be achieved through a democratic mixed economy.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 24 February 2014 12:39:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The maggots I was referring to were the abusive lefties in the links I provided showing the debased behaviour of the left in Australia Mr Warren. But if you are happy to accept the description then be my guest.

Mr Warren has referred to Monbiot's coverage of the British response to the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya. These descriptions of alleged British torture are not true. I suppose Mr Warren will be dragging out stories of British cruelty to the fun-loving lefties of the IRA next.

Contrary to Mr Warren's atrocious list of atrocities it is the left who are anti-semitic, racist and oppressive:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/clarence_thomas_the_worst_abuse_came_from_the_left/

In Australia one only has to look at how the left treat and describe the aboriginals who do not subscribe to their view of them as the noble savage/victim.

And look at how the left treat the Jews.

What racists they are.

The Nazis were green socialists:

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

The Nazis like all the left were elitists who regarded anyone not of their type to be inferior. The same tactics are used by the left today in the West. Anyone who disagrees with them is scorned and threatened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsritzu1og

We have seen the left threaten our rights to information with Finkelstein, and our right to democracy with people like Hamilton stating democracy should be overthrown.

It is the left who have sponsored the mass influx of muslim illegals and who support them throughout the Western world. This is understandable since the terrors of the left, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Zedong, Kim Jong-un shared the desire within the religious tyranny of islam to oppress people. Like attracts like.


The author has raised the concept of pluralism and shows he misunderstands it. Pluralism is not the defining characteristic of a Western secular democracy; it is at best a product of it. The contradiction of pluralism is well demonstrated in the PC notion of multi-culturalism [MC].

The only culture characteristic necessary for our democracy is an acceptance of that democratic structure. Muslims do not accept that structure and neither do the left.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 24 February 2014 12:52:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't always agree with Tristan, but will argue that Tristan is indeed a passionate and articulate writer who represents the important role played by the left.

The mixed economy, while likely to be under reform here and maybe abroad in coming years, is here to stay. Hence, the efforts of people like Tristan will remain important in helping promote the fair society given that no individual or school of thought has a monopoly on truth or a prescription for the perfect society. If such know alls exist, please point to them.

As far as I recall, most Liberals also support a decent social welfare system.

I don't think any of us are that smart that we should ever insult any writer making an effort (at his or her own cost) to promote a message. And given that Tristan is a passionate advocate for the vulnerable, the language of criticism should indeed be tempered.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 24 February 2014 1:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham Young. Please do not be discouraged by this latest example of a cogently argued point of view swamped by the ideologues with predictable prejudices, instead of forensic analysis. Those who believe that Stalin and Mao ran Marxist regimes are as ignorant as Bolt and those who assert that the Nazi National Socialist Party- supported by Krupp and IG Farben-was "Socialist". Communists, by the way- long before Jews- were the first into concentration camps.
Posted by Leslie, Monday, 24 February 2014 1:02:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

I reckon it pretty hard to describe most people as being left or right, besides some of the do-gooders in universities who seem to be sympathetic to every sad plight on earth, at least in what they teach or write.

In terms of cultural and foreign policies I am sympathetic to the right, yet other issues I am more to the left in that I support basic health and education services for 'all' Australians.

One can also respect Marx and remain scathing of anything 'totalitarian'. I have always been scathing of supposed superior opinion, whether it be a govt or a chief justice of the High Court
Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 24 February 2014 1:17:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On lookers you have to feel sorry for people like "cohenite" he/she just doesn't get the hang of reality.
A thinking person is aware of their own failings as they are of others.
A thinking person is aware that left and right are pretty board labels.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 24 February 2014 1:17:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tristan,

First. Since this is your response to Andrew Bolt it seems reasonable that you should take this up with him first. He is one of the most accessible journalists in Australia, he is open, responsive, honest and humble. He also has a massive intellect, understandably this may be a little daunting for someone like you.

You say, << And No I didn't write to Bolt personally, but I did send a letter in to the Herald-Sun which they did not publish.>> Ah diddums, bottled it hey?

When you have found a backbone, the courage and a cogent case to present to Andrew, perhaps then you will get back to us and let us know what it was like in the lions den. Wimp.

The rest of your response has already degenerated into incomprehensible gibberish, platitudes and rhetoric. A word of advice, don’t try that on Bolter.

In response to why teach Marxism?

You reply << Because it is of historical importance >>. To which many might ask, important to whom?

Like all good progressives, a few little questions and the “platitude dispenser” and the “rhetoric engine” splutter to a halt.

Just like Aristotle’s Ethos, “Listen to me, I’m important, would I lie to you?” It is almost as if you take yourself seriously. Public exposure has left the majority of Australian’s “tuned” to, and aware of progressive nonsense. You are proselytizing to a shrinking band of converts. No other Australians are listening.

Don’t forget to let us know how you get on with Andrew Bolt. As if?
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 24 February 2014 1:20:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham. To repeat, I sincerely hope you will persist with this important enterprise. Too drastic, I suppose, but to foster rational debate and encourage those intimidated by the ideologues who swamp OLO, you might just publish their nom de plume, as regulars can predict their "contributions". Tristan is to be complimented on his attempts to respond to ignorance, unlike the many propagandists who exploit OLO and never reply to critics.
Posted by Leslie, Monday, 24 February 2014 1:29:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not often that I am proven so right, so quickly, Tristan.

>>But it would be so much cooler just to let it through to the 'keeper. Giving him the dignity of a response is simply feeding the troll.<<

And haven't they been having fun.

There was another reason for my advice, too. You replied as follows:

>>Hundreds of thousands of readers means Bolt's opinions need to be responded to.<<

There is not, I can guarantee you, one single Bolt-groupie who will take a blind bit of notice of your attempt to correct his Boltship's windbaggery.

Let's face it, he is not read for his bipartisan approach to... well, anything, actually. His words are lapped up by his faithful followers, since they accurately reflect their own secret fears and loathings. He knows very well which buttons to press to achieve the necessary pavlovian nodding-dog response, and to engender that mindless devotion and sycophancy that are so necessary to feed his psyche.

>>You can't just assume that by ignoring him he will disappear.<<

I don't assume that. Not for one moment.

But, given that you stand exactly the same chance of making him disappear through taking him on in this fashion - using facts, for goodness sake! - ignoring him is actually an entirely valid approach.

What you have done, quite simply, is to put yourself in front of the Bolt-junkies and say here, take a few free shots. Net impact on world+dog? Zilch.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 February 2014 1:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the contemporary "Radical Right" view of Fascism:
What Is Fascism? Richard Spencer & Paul Gottfried
http://www.radixjournal.com/vanguard-radio/2014/1/3/what-is-fascism

Tristan, this old folk song sums up clowns like you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQtKVnp7aQM
Seriously, 120 million dead and counting and we're still tolerating this garbage.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 24 February 2014 2:21:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I remember in 1986 being given a reference to a what was supposed to be a deep book on Marxist Leninism ... "The Fundamentals of Marxist Leninist Philosophy" edited by F. V. Konstantinov, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1982.

Having been a member of no fewer than seven different political clubs at university, between 1979 and 1982, and having invested hundreds of hours rubbishing Marxist Leninism with chalk and leaflets and direct action, I was persuaded to feel a little bad that I've never read any of their serious literature ... So I ordered this book ... and read it!

To summarise, this 480 page book (well, the English edition), has dozens of well written medium sized chapters. Apart from two brilliant and quite deep and telling chapters on the philosophies of the lapsed Marxist Karl Popper, and of the French leftist Jean Paul Sartre, every other chapter was vacuous and essentially just said nothing, as though the whole work was but variations of the theme "We Have Nothing To Say!"

That persuaded me that that was true too! That Marxist Leninists have nothing to say, to me, to anyone, to the universe, nothing to add to the socialist project! Etc, etc ...

On the other hand, Fabian socialists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, environmentalists, Christian socialists, feminists, social democrats, Maoists all publish conversion literature to try to recruit impressionable young minds! What really surprised me in 1986 was that, well, Marxist Leninists don't!

Maybe internally they'd learnt a valuable lesson from Stalin's regime, and given up on converting people ...

Nevertheless I do wish that Marxist Leninists would change their minds ... Go on, publish some conversion literature and have a go! ... And, Andrew Bolt, stay out of their way! ... And, if they do publish some deep literature, I'd like to hear about what they're on about! ... I've really got no evidence that Marxist Leninists still pursue any outcomes! ... But, given their record, I'd predict that I'd have no time for them, even if I did know what they are on about!
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Monday, 24 February 2014 2:28:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite denialism will get you nowhere.

America, the epitome of capitalism, was born out of racist mass slaughter. For example, During the California Gold Rush, the state government between 1850 and 1859 financed and organized militia units to hunt down and kill Native Americans in the state. Between 1850 and 1852 the state appropriated almost one million dollars for the activities of these militias, and between 1854 and 1859 the state appropriated another $500,000, almost half of which was reimbursed by the federal government. American capitalism also built its empire by setting up puppet regimes right through Africa, South East Asia, the Pacific and Central and South America, policed by CIA assassination squads (partially exposed by Senator Church) or by thugs trained by United States Agency for International Development?

Nazis were not socialists, as anyone seriously interested in these questions would know.

How many died (or disappeared) under:

Videla's regime in Argentina?
Ziaur Rahman's regime in Bangladesh?
Hugo Banzer Suarez's regime in Bolivia?
Ernesto Geisel's regime in Brazil?
Michel Micombero's regime in Burundi where UNICEF jeeps were used to carry away thousands of corpses to mass graves?
Jean Bedel Bokassa's regime in Central African Empire?
Pinochet's Chile?
Romero's regime in El Salvador?
Francisco Macias Nguema Biyogo Negue Ndong's regime in Equatorial Guinea?
Haile Selassie's regime in Ethiopia - then the largest recipient of US "Aid" in Africa?
Carlos Arana Osorio's regime in Guatemala?
Papa Doc and Duvalier's regimes in Haiti?
Suharto's regime in Indonesia?
Shah's regime in Iran?
Somoza's regime in Nicaragua?
Stroessner's regime in Paraguay?
Marcos' regime in Philippines?
Kriangsak's regime in Thailand?
Mendez's regime in Uruguay?
Mobutu's regime in Zaire?
South Africa?
Spain?
Greece?

How many trade unionists and reporters are our capitalists killing or torturing in Philippines, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Columbia today?

http://www.ituc-csi.org/colombia
http://www.ituc-csi.org/honduras
http://www.ituc-csi.org/philippines
http://www.ituc-csi.org/mexico
http://www.ituc-csi.org/guatemala,86
Posted by Christopher Warren, Monday, 24 February 2014 2:54:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There would be no reason not to teach Marx as a historical background to the present state of politics, were it not such a rallying point for the academic Left.

But deprived of Marx in their curriculum, they would soon replace it. All we can do is detect the Left, wherever it manifests, and expose it to the ridicule it deserves.

Andrew Bolt does this very well, and this article reminds us of Bolt’s commendable efforts, and the puerility of his opponents. Thanks, Tristan, for this useful piece of fertilizer.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 24 February 2014 3:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo I do not agree! It is not the more romantic leftists who deserve ridicule! Instead, I'd ridicule those who treat the writings of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin as if these writings were inerrant scripture! Those who sorta regard certain political works as above criticism, as being perfect and divinely inspired, by God or the Devil?

Take "Foundations of Leninism" by Joseph Stalin, 3rd Australian edition, September 1944, forward by L L Sharkey ...

Certainly this work does discuss party organisation: its frankness about the sorts of Machiavellian strategy and tactics needed in the party the union movement and the wider working class movement to take on "the Quislings of the Nazi and Japanese espionage services" (from Sharkey's forward) is breathtaking and ever so sincere and honest!

Unfortunately the amoral methods of the Marxist Leninists then and thereafter meant that by killing the democratic method's credibility in the communist movement, they condemned Marxist Leninism to the dustbin of history!

The people who lost in the 1930's the anarcho-syndicalists had much better ideas of how to build a socialist outcome than these communists, much better and more attractive visions of how the outcome should be, and more likeable and moral methods of organisation too!!

Or take p77 "The Party Is Strengthened By Purging Itself Of Opportunist Elements": well what else can I say?
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Monday, 24 February 2014 3:23:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting discussion.

Fascism and Marxism have important similarities but also important differences.

Both are collectivist (it was Hitler, Not Marx, who said society’s needs come before the individual’s needs), both see only one party as the authentic representative of the collective interest and rely heavily on the state to enforce it, both are based in dualist worldviews dominated by conflict between a favoured group and its enemies (classes or nations).

But, fascism has no interest in abolishing private property, the family, or the nation state – quite the reverse. While the state directed economic activity under Hitler, it was done in a corporatist model in which both business and unions were directed by the State.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 24 February 2014 3:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Furthermore, in support that amany a leader has proven to have human failings, that a few leaders prove so bad they are best deposed as early as possible, and that no great leader's literature should be put on a pedestal as divinely inspired, that all political literature should be critically examined as to what practical lessons we should apply from said work to the situation at hand, one could rather cheekily comment that in 1956 a work of Marxist Leninist self criticism embodying much of this general position, to wit, "On Overcoming the Personality Cult and Its Consequences: Decision of the Central Committee, C.P.S.U. Moscow 1956" was published, because some of those who came to power after Stalin died and Beria was shot felt bad about Stalin's political crimes ...

p5.

"The existence of negative features arising from the personality cult was to their advantage," [Right wingers in the U.S.A.] "and they have tried to exploit them in the battle against socialism."

Unfortunately in the C.P.S.U. by 1956 the authoritarianism and hierarchy had set in, and the party was almost beyond reform.

That's why I take social democrat parliamentarianist classics such as Bernard Crick's "In Defence of Politics" so seriously. If insurrectionary politics seems self refuting, because of the dialectical reactions it provokes, the parliamentary road seems to my eyes not only possibly more fruitful but also, perhaps, more likely to lead to an attractive outcome, given that the parliamentary set of rules do offer a few chances to reformists of varying ideologies to achieve things ... Reformism might be the slow road, the long road, but if one takes it one can only wonder: will this lead anywhere?
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Monday, 24 February 2014 4:41:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact that Andrew Bolt simply does not understand
Marxism does not surprise me. Many people equate
Marxism with Communism.

When I studied sociology as part of my BA - Marx was regarded
as one of the most important nineteenth century social
thinkers. (Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber -
were the others). Marx wrote brilliantly on subjects as
broad and diverse as philosophy, economics, political
science, and history. He did not think of himself as a
sociologist, but his work is so rich in sociological insights
that he is now regarded as one of the most profound and
original sociological thinkers.

Millions of people accept his theories with almost religious
fervor, and modern socialist and communist movements owe
their inspiration directly to him.

It is important to realize, however, that Marxism is not the
same as communism. Marx would probably be dismayed at many
of the practices of communist movements, and he cannot be
held responsible for policies pursued in his name a century
after his death.

Even in his own lifetime, Marx was so appalled at the
various interpretations of his ideas by competing factions
that he declared, "I am not a Marxist."

To Marx, the task of the social scientist was mpt merely to
describe the world; it was to change it. Marx saw social
conflict and the inevitability of revolution. The key to
history, he believed is class conflict - the bitter struggle
between those who own the means of producing wealth and
those who do not. This contest, Marx claimed, would end
only with the overthrow of the ruling exploiters and the
establihsment of a free, humane, classless society.

Marx placed special emphasis on the economic base of society.
He argued that the character of virtually all other social
arrangements is shaped by the way goods are produced and by the
relationships that exist between those who work to produce
them and those who live off the production of others.

Modern sociologists, including many who reject other aspects
of Marx's theories, generally recognize the fundamental
influence of the economy on other areas of society.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 24 February 2014 5:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
You might also be interested in this article:
Who voted for the Nazis?
(electoral history of the National Socialist German Workers Party)
Dick Geary 1998
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 24 February 2014 6:11:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of calling people you disagree with maggots or cockroaches, this is precisely the kind of language that totalitarian regimes use to soften up their enemies as less than human for "righteous" ex-termination in the "name of the people", or as a necessary exercise in "cleansing" the body-politic from anti-social "enemies of the people".
A precise definition of fascist politics:
Applied patriarchal politics which is intrinsically hostile to any and everything to do with the Feminine or Pleasure Dome Principle, with Beauty, feeling-sensitivity, bodily pleasure, and spontaneous ecstasy.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 24 February 2014 6:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God the arrogance is not just dripping off these Marxists/Communists, it pouring off so hard, it could flood lake Eyre. They obviously believe they would be the masters, [note not leaders], if anyone was ever stupid enough to resurrect such a failed ideology.

Obviously Bolt understands Marxism better than Tristan. If Tristan, & the other posters here, actually had any idea, they would run a mile from, rather promote the stuff.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 24 February 2014 6:33:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marxist theory is a thought bubble with no connection to the real world.

The only way you can create a Socialist/Marxist utopia is by eliminating all those who do not support it! This unfortunately, leads to Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russian, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. There is a one curse greater than the old Chinese one, "May you live in interesting times!" it is "May you fall into the hands of those, who know what is good for you!"

The system championed by Andrew may not be the best in the world, but it is the best we have, and it has stood the test of time. When someone establishes a Marxist utopia which does not include Gulags, and massive repression I might be more inclined to listen to you.
Posted by Jon R, Monday, 24 February 2014 6:54:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Capitalism is a lie. The free market only exists for workers and small business.Currently some people who believe in Marxism want the Govt to run everything and believe the free market is to blame.In reality the market is not free with LIBOR (interest rate rigging) share market and currency rigging using derivatives etc.

We live in an age of enormous cartels aided and abetted by a corrupt banking system which corrupts our Govts and owns our productivity by virtue of creating from nothing,the money to equal our toil as debt.

Worse still is all our inflationary money gets created as debt,thus the world drowns in a sea of debt.87 people on this planet have more wealth than the poorest 3500 million people or half the world's pop.

We don't need to give economic belief systems a name because good ideas often get pidgeon holed with stereo typed catagorys.

It should be all be about fairness,freedom and making Govt small as possible.

This cannot be achieved unless there is a good constitution like the USA used to have.Govts should issue new currency, not private central banks like the US Federal Reserve.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 24 February 2014 6:57:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Jay, that makes for interesting reading. I would guess that the demographic pattern would be broadly similar with supporters of Australia’s populist right-wing parties (One Nation, Katter etc), perhaps with the exception that religion has less influence nowadays
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 24 February 2014 7:28:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One thing that many seem to overlook is that the great majority of despotic regimes throughout history have been from the extreme Right and not from the Left - South America, Europe, Africa and now the Middle East.

Also the rise of a Communist State has always been the result of the revolutionary overthrow of a very oppressive right wing despot. Vietnam may be an exception but that was a response to unwanted colonialism.

Otherwise it doesn't happen spontaneously for ideological reasons.

What happens to them over time is another matter but - like the "free" world - they become corrupted from within and decline.

Any regime, once in power - does all it can to remain there. It's no different here.

That's the way it's always been and will probably always be.
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 24 February 2014 7:50:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wobbles,

We had an election last September. Now we have a different government.

Hi Foxy,

I was born in the middle of the war and raised on the far left - after all, I was named after one of its stars. But I've come to believe that any Utopian theory, any theory of a perfect world, is bound to degenerate into fascism, since there are bound to be groups or classes who are never going to fit in and who, in fact, contaminate the ideals that those Utopians are working so hard for, so they - regrettably - have to be 'extracted'. So a huge 'extraction' apparatus has to be set up to protect the Utopia.

This applies to Plato's 'Republic', to More's and all the various Utopias of the Middle Ages, and to the seemingly more modern theories-in-practice, including applied Marxism, applied Fascism and applied Nazism.

Instead, I've come to believe, fervently, that we must build on democracy, with all its imperfections, and if there is ever to be any sort of socialism, then it must be firmly based on democratic foundations. Until then, we must defend democratic forms of participation, the rule of law, equal rights, even the right to innovate, work hard and make a buck too.

Marx also supported the principle - more in theory than in practice - that productive work was a cornerstone of future societies, that such work was honourable. Conversely, loafers, free-loaders and rent-seekers should be penalised in any future, better, society, not by 'extracting' them but by encouraging them to actually work. I'll go along with that.

Love,

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 24 February 2014 8:50:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So far as I know, 100% of self-described Marxist governments that have lasted for any significant time have been brutal and despotic. Now it may be that the Marxist apologists are right, and none of these was actually Marxist, in which case authentic Marxism would appear unattainable. Or, these may represent the inevitable outcome of Marxist policies and programs, in which case it is undesirable. Either way, it is hardly an attractive model.

Marx did have some interesting and enduring insights about social and economic affairs, and these have been profoundly influential. He deserves to be respected for these, and certainly belongs on an academic curriculum.

But I suspect he would have been profoundly insulted by attempts to portray him as a misunderstood Social Democrat.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 24 February 2014 8:55:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marxism is an economic theory and a way to understand economics - right or wrong it is not a political movement. Marx never speaks of a political movement. Marx merely predicts that capitalism will ultimately fail and then something communistic must follow.

Most intelligent people would concede Marx's class struggle is a false dichotomy. Never the less, even Marx's critics, have conceded Marx a special place for framing the human condition in economic terms.

But the more important issue here is that there simply aren't any Marxist professors or marxist courses in our University. Our English and Humanities departments are dominated by post modernist, andliterary theorists. These are entirely different animals to Marxists. I go to bed each night praying for more Marxists.

Moreover there has not been one Marxist professor in our universities for nigh on 20 years. Outside pure sciences and often even in the sciences our universities have effectively become little more than corporate indoctrination centres. The sole purpose to produce thoroughly compliant none thinking corporate drones.

The knowledge these students acquire in this orgy of business courses is abstract near meaningless concepts who's relevance in the real world are past there use by date by the time they graduate.
Posted by YEBIGA, Monday, 24 February 2014 10:12:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geez, what are all these rednecks and fascists worried about.

While, in the past, states calling themselves socialist have committed crimes against humanity, this is nothing like the crimes committed by all the various capitalist regimes around the globe.

Here is a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squads

Israeli, French, British, CIA and Australian secret service assassinations are extra.

Capitalists can only grow wealthy if others grow poor. Real socialists only grow wealthy if all of society grows wealthy as well.

That's the difference.

Socialists states do not go bankraupt - unlike Iceland, Yeltsin/Putin's Russia, and 32 states.

( EG: http://tinyurl.com/32-bankraupt ).

We just need to ensure that socialism emerges with necessary protections against alternative forms of exploitation and against outside subversion.
Posted by old zygote, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YEBIGA
"But the more important issue here is that there simply aren't any Marxist professors or marxist courses in our University. Our English and Humanities departments are dominated by post modernist, andliterary theorists. These are entirely different animals to Marxists. I go to bed each night praying for more Marxists."

This is true to a large extent; Humanities and Social Sciences departments are dominated by the post-modernists. But I would say the postmodern theorists are the progression from Marxist theorists. Post-modernists take Marx's class distinctions and oppression theory and convert them into other forms. You still have the classic bourgeois oppression of the proletariat (now translated as employers and employees), but now also white oppression of non-whites, male oppression of females, and heterosexual oppression of gays. Sociology courses completely revolve around these topics.

It starts when Marxists like Gramsci and the Frankfurt School converted Marx's economic and class theory into cultural terms. They pointed out new forms of oppression, that didn't revolve completely around economics. They then spawned the critical theorists and then the postmodernists. Postmodernists like Foucault, Butler, and Derrida speak of oppression in similar terms to Marx, but just replace bourgeois with males, whites, and heterosexuals, and proletariats with females, non-whites, and gays.

Conservative literature has been wiped out of the Humanities and Social Sciences departments. So any one who talks of there being diversity of literature and being exposed to alternative viewpoints in these departments are liars.
Posted by Aristocrat, Monday, 24 February 2014 11:46:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aristocrat
The postmodernists have not evolved from Marxism
Rather, they are a product of revulsion with the whole modernist enlightenment project, which for them includes communism and fascism. Lets be frank they find offence with everyone including capitalists.

The postmodernism is a bad faith a loss of faith in any big picture project. Its agency,, is entirely at the margins, as you illustrate: identity politics, political correctness and gender neutral language, colonial pasts...

A Marxist talks at power from a holistic and revolutionary perspective. The postmodernist, looks for hidden oppression in language, gender, literature, culture. These are diametrically different animals.

Postmodernism has eviscerated the left. The once strident revolutionary Marxist replaced by a sensitive, don't wish to offend anyone, victim obsessed bunch of babies.

Marxism is focused on economics and the power relations between classes, the rights and conditions of workers - who owns what and how. The postmodernist has no interest in how economies work. Their concern is that the homosexual employee gets a fair go, that women are represented equally on the board. Its an incremental approach which achieves little wins, which are its stated aims.

From a capitalist corporate point of view, it can be pesky and annoying but ultimately it serves the corporate purpose. The totalisation of these incremental but ultimately benign reforms only further legitimise the corporate hegemony.

Marxism on the other hand, is an existential threat for capitalism, not because any of the answers and solutions Marx predicts.. Rather, because of the framing of the questions he raises. Precisely the sorts of questions now absent from our universities but the mere possibility of their return frightens right wing stooges like Bolt.
Posted by YEBIGA, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:55:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so many comments..anyhow the best comment..4/5 ths through

jon/j/quote..<<.."May you fall into the hands
of those, who know what is good for you!">>..

reminds us thAT..many greAT..'leaders'..wrote the thesis
this thesis marketed a concept..that was fronted..by the writer
BUT THE BACKING..machine..behind the man..simply uses..the man/and his thesis..as a front..to continue doing as it damm well pleases.

yep we vote for the thesis of the man..[front man]
while the backdoor faceleSS MEN..continue doing via the public service..WHAT THEY and those before them..HAVE DONE THROUGH OUT TIMe

nest fluffing their own too comfortable nests
always looking for the NEXT DREAMER/THESIS
TILL THAT ONE DAY..the spin/lies dont work
AND WE INVADE LOOT AND PLUNDER OTHERS WEALTH..yet aGAIN

these guys by themself are great men/having great thoughts
but govt is run bY PUBLIC SERVICE/PLAY IT THEIR WAY..or they send you away/like gough..or like jfk..or anY OTHER WAY..

MY THESUS..IS IF THEY LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
THEY ALLOWED THEIR THESES..to DIE

truely/by their fruits WILL WE KNOW THEM
housing 30,000 SPEAKS FOR ITSELF..feeding 4000/5000..speaks for itself
[feeding Indians and Aboriginals poisoned FLOUR..AND pox infested blankets..speaks FOR itself..

THE Theses..is but the root of the tree
where the man came from..but..via process
the fruit=..the fruit..there for all to see

but..YET THE SEED THE TREE WAS GOOD
JUST WATCH OUT FOR THE INEVITABLE..FRUIT ROT.

i ignored bolt..in the beginning
but he was/is right..about man made CLIMATE CHANGE
AND MANY OTHER ISSUES..but thankfully he too has feet of clay..as do we all.
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 7:22:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YEBIGA's comment that:

"Most intelligent people would concede Marx's class struggle is a false dichotomy."

is fallacious. Maybe they do not know what dichotomy means.

Marxism is not a threat to capitalism. Capitalism threatens itself. Marxism only exposes the inherent tendencies within capitalism that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and then to final economic crisis.

Marxism supports social movements that seek to alleviate the injustices that mount within capitalism - particularly low wages, unemployment, cheap working conditions, and homelessness.

Marxism points to obvious and fundamental crisis tendencies within capitalism - declining factor share going to labour - ballooning debt - ecological suicide.

Marxism argues that this can be solved, and must be solved, only by;

"...a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large"

Marxism suggests that where there are appropriate democratic institutions, this process will be entirely peaceful, and this is the political practice of almost all of the various communists parties in the West - eg: Communist Party of Japan.

Marxism-Leninism also suggests that where there are appropriate democratic institutions, there is no need of a dictatorship of the proletariat [ http://tinyurl.com/No-dictatorship ].

Marxist theory is merely the continuation of political economy from Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Malthus and others, taken to its logical conclusion, once countervailing tendencies are exhausted.

For Marxists, the key to solving the economic crisis, is to ensure that all workers receive purchasing power (wages) equal to the full value of their product. This is the only way the so-called "circular flow" can balance without increasing debt or importing low wages, as currently applies.

In essence, this results in proposals for cooperative enterprises, seeking normal profits and strict injunctions against monopoly. As any economist will tell you, normal profits are necessary to send price signals in markets and are always competed away in the long run.

Naturally today's capitalist pundits are aghast at this, and try all manner of baiting and spurious diversions, to disrupt Marxism.

Andrew Bolt is a capitalist.
Posted by old zygote, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 8:50:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

Many people have serious reservations about Marx's theory.
He was no doubt correct that a major function of the state
is to protect the interests of the ruling class. In all
societies the rulling class is the economically dominant
class as well. Institutions and other cultural arrangements
do, indeed, generally support the status quo, and therefore
the interests of the class that beneifts from it.

But Marx failed to recognise that the state has many functions
that are not necessarily related to class conflict - functions
that would have to be fulfilled in any modern society, with
or without classes. Moder conflict theorists have broadened
Marx's focus from class conflict to social conflict in
general.

They point out that the state is the main arena of conflict
among a variety of competing groups - for example, among
racial and ethnic groups, officials and citizens,
inner-city residents and suburbanites,
consumers and producers, conservatives and progressives,
social movements for and
against the right to abortion, same-sex marriage,
and so on.

Usually, the outcome of any conflict favours the wealthier
group, but ongoing conflict can lead to shifts in the
distribution of power, and thus can bring about social change.

Over 2,000 years ago, the philosopher Aristotle observed that
we are political animals. We are indeed, and necessarily so,
for politics is an inevitable consequence of social living.
In every society valued resources are scarce, and politics is
essentially the process of deciding, "who gets what, when, and
how."

The character of political institutions and behaviour varies a
great deal from one society or group to another, but the political
process is universal.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 9:59:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The theory of marxism is great, the only problem is it assumes that humans are inherently good and are happy to work hard for the community above themselves. The reality is that while most people are community minded, they are primarily driven by self interest and are not inclined to push themselves without real personal gains.

The result is that every Marxist state ever, has had to be a totalitarian state to force people to fit into mold. This leads to a lack of innovation and a stagnant or shrinking economy, and eventual collapse.

The great post war socialist experiment in the UK brought the UK economy to the point of bankruptcy until Thatcher tore down the rotting structure, put through sweeping reforms and made the UK the envy of the rest of Europe, and motivated the rest of the world to change.

I have no problem in teaching about Marxism or National Socialism as long as no one takes them seriously as viable social structures
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 10:03:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly there was the suggestion that Marx would be 'aghast' being characterised as a social democrat. But social democracy had its origins in the 19th Century as a movement of Marxists and Lassalleans. Later on Marxism became hegemonic in the social democratic movement. The social democratic/communist divide only occurred after 1914 because of the War; and even then radical Marxist social democrats remained. (Kautsky, Martov etc)

Also Marxism influenced Social Democratic and Democratic Socialist movements throughout the 20th century and even to an extent today. You could hardly call the social democratic governments of the 20th Century "totalitarian". There were no 'gulags' under these governments. Indeed, the Marxists within these administrations would have been amongst the most passionate democrats.

Attempts have also been made here to equate Marxism with extreme collectivism. That was so for some. But take the recent writings of former Communist Party of Australia Secretary Eric Aarons where he wrestles with Hayek and comes out in favour of a BALANCE between individualism and collectivism. Marxists were PASSIONATE about INDIVIDUAL SELF REALISATION. (I've published a blog on his work "Hayek versus Marx" which people are welcome to read and respond to) Bourgeois capitalists are held as a model of individual self-realisation. But it is a self-realisation limited only to the few. Democratic Marxists by contrast wish to provide cultural, sporting, political, creative opportunities for EVERYONE. Democratic Marxism is a about opportunity and self-realisation for ALL.

And again - if people want to link Marxism with state authoritarianism look to my quotes earlier in this thread from Rosa Luxemburg. Yes there were authoritarian strands. And there were those (inc Marx) who believed a TEMPORARY period of 'proletarian dictatorship' would be necessary. But note this was also couched in terms of "winning the battle of democracy" (ie: majority rule), and as a temporary measure in circumstances where failure to deal with counter-revolution could mean death. NOTE that the democratic Marxists Kautsky, Luxemburg etc defended the Russian constituent assembly, participatory democracy and civil freedoms etc at the same time as Bolshevist desperation led them down the path of centralism and authoritarianism.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 10:18:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW Chris Warren; You list Romero in El Salvador. Wasn't Archbishop Romero a liberation theologian who was murdered for standing up for the poor in that country, and opposing authoritarian rule?
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 10:20:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All these lefties screeching this garbage about the rich getting richer, & the poor poorer. What utter twaddle.

At no time in history, & no where on earth, has the average peasant been so well off, healthy, or had so many options.

About the only difference in ideology is that Marxists hate anyone else getting more than them, or richer. They hate the Clive Palmers on principle.

Capitalists, even us peasants don't give a damn how rich the Palmers of this world get, as long as we get richer along with them.

Well this old peasant is a damn site richer than his father was, who in turn was a damn site richer than his father.

Go back a few generations more, & the peasant's life was a tough & miserable one, a bit like it was under communism in Russia, China & other command economies. I guess that proves you should always keep the intellectuals & academics locked up in their ivory towers, where they can do little harm.

What ever we do, we must avoid ever letting these fool dreamers get control of anything more dangerous than a motor car, & even then, that may be too much for them to actually handle.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 10:25:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks cobber; slipped your leash again.

Chris Lewis, let me clarify ‘left’ and ‘right’ in the context of the dialectic which this author is describing; that is Marxism and Capitalism.

Capitalism will always be imperfect because it is a product of a system which is focused on allowing as much freedom for individuals as possible. I am on the Libertarian side of the ledger when it comes to individuality, although I accept that there must be a sense of communality as well as some restrictions on individuality in all aspects, economic and legal.

The dynamic of the balance will vary but is still firmly anchored in the precedence of the individual.

I call such societies ‘right’.

The left seek Utopia, either for all, as with Marxism, or for a select such as Nazism. That is the fundamental quality of the left whereby an ideology is sought to be implemented in the name of all or some but invariably at the expense of many. Individuality is secondary to the ideology in these ‘Utopian” societies.

I call such societies ‘left’.

The difference for me is stark and amply supported by history. It annoys me when the Nazis are not recognised as being of the left for this reason.

This author advocates Marxism as something compatible with the ‘right’ as defined above. It is an oxymoron. Public ownership of the means of production, of in effect business, is a nonsense if you are claiming individual rights because such a society has removed a large portion of what it means to be an individual.

The loss of other individual rights inevitably follow, including the right to even criticise the ideology which has demonstrated time and time again its capacity to silence its critics. It is this absence of an infrastructure primarily designed to enfranchise individual rights which enables tyrants to use the Marxist/communist/left model to seize power and sauce the inherent oppressiveness of the left with their individual form of sadism. In the left Utopian model there is only ever room for one individual.

Mr Warren, none of your examples are ‘right’.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 10:36:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hasbeen/proving..he is living in the past

<<..At no time in history, & no where on earth, has the average peasant been so well off, healthy, or had so many options>>

RUBBISH/WHERE THESE REFUGEES COMMING FROM?

MATE THE PEAK..WAS UN THE 70.S/till the bannana republic aND HIGH INTEREST RATES FORCED MUM INTO THE WORKFORCE..[SUNCE THEN IT TAKE TWO WAGES TO EVEN BREAKS EVEN

PLUS NOW..KIDS ARE SO INDEBTED/BY PAYING THEIR WAY
EVERY NEW DAY..BRINGS A LOWER POINT..TILL THAT DAY..WE ARE LANDLESS SERFS..begging to work..for our master

mate free university
free medicine..NO GST....MATE YOUR wrong
i need proof of concept..our good days are Decades past.

THE RICH GOT RID OF DEATH Duties
and now ever more taxes..service fees/levies/charges..pay as you go TAXES..

EVER LESS...ONLY..
is cumming our way..
it could be graphed..but no one to pay to do it..[GOVT Subsidy perhaPS?
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 11:07:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because it is normal to distort "history" for advantage in deluding most people, there is no mention in "western" history books about the real rise of the "communists" in Russia. They sought local power for the community, not the aristocracy. The real communists initiated their protests well before the Leninists took power. In fact Lenin was totally opposed to the communists, and after the successful revolution the communists fought against the Leninists. The name "communist" was taken over to delude many Russians to believe that the grab for power was to improve their life.

The communists were totally against centralised government, they wanted the"community" to decide what should be done in their area. The so-called "democracies" these days are increasingly centralising power, but it is increasingly under the control of the new aristocracy. "Presidents" and prime ministers are increasingly thinking they are "Kings". One reputedly low IQ president even claimed that he had received instructions from god, so I guess he felt like the middle ages kings of England. I was appointed by God, therefore anything I do cannot be disputed.

Sadly the "community" is being destroyed by rapid urbanisation. We are not designed to live in the cities that are increasingly like bee hives or ants nests that are being created.
Posted by ALCAM, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 11:12:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be great if more people would actually go through the article again and respond to the specific content!

* about early Marxist social democracy

* about Austro-Marxism - its specific example - what they fought for and what they achieved

* about the fact there were atrocities on both sides of the Cold War

* about the difference between 'totality' and 'totalitarianism'

* about the fact that a pluralist democracy is a healthier democracy; and socialist and Left traditions should be enquired into - as well as liberal and conservative traditions. Because democracy is based on CHOICE - and in order to choose one needs to understand!

* About the fact that liberal rights are under attack in Victoria - and freedom is not merely 'free markets'
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 11:25:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

You keep on holding up this fantasy of "democratic Marxism", where the state owns everything and everyone has the opportunity of self realisation. Unfortunately there has never been anything close to this, as those happy to live in this command structure is very small, and the force required to ensure that the rest comply gives us the Marxist totalitarian states we all know and despise.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 11:28:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YEBIGA writes:

“Postmodernism has eviscerated the left. The once strident revolutionary Marxist replaced by a sensitive, don't wish to offend anyone, victim obsessed bunch of babies.”

Foxy the softie leftie who is obviously in YEBIGA's macho leftie sights says:

“To Marx, the task of the social scientist was mpt merely to
describe the world; it was to change it. Marx saw social
conflict and the inevitability of revolution. The key to
history, he believed is class conflict - the bitter struggle
between those who own the means of producing wealth and
those who do not. This contest, Marx claimed, would end
only with the overthrow of the ruling exploiters and the
establihsment of a free, humane, classless society.”

A “classless society”; lefties always confuse egalitarianism of opportunity which is the hallmark of capitalism as I describe above, with everybody being the same, which is ‘egalitarianism’ under the left model. It is a persistent but incredibly dumb mistake; or not if we assume the left is deliberately wrecking the West. One is reminded of John Stuart Mill and the intrinsic connection between utility and individuality. For Mill the best society with the best utility, happiness and satisfaction, is one where individuality is stressed.

Marx of course ridiculed Mill.

Marx also ridiculed Adam Smith. For Smith capitalism could not exist without the primacy of the individual and that erosion of capitalism reduced individuality. Marx of course distorted this by claiming that capitalism meant workers sold themselves or at least their labour while the bosses aggregated the means of production.

This complaint is nonsense. Marxism, where the means of production are state owned is by Marx’s own criteria hyper capitalism. In actuality however any bar to ownership of the means of production is a contradiction to capitalism. Which is why the ‘right’ model prevents such aggregation or monopolies and reduces inequality between the bosses and labour through judicial oversight of employment and trade unions. Neither mechanism exists with the Marxist Utopian model which has crony capitalism instead.

Special mention to Daffy who thinks the leftie Hitler won because he called his enemies maggots.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 11:38:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Old Zygote, you say “Capitalists can only grow wealthy if others grow poor”. This was Marx’s biggest claim, and biggest error. He expected the conditions of the working class to deteriorate steadily under capitalism – longer hours, lower wages, fewer skills. In fact, exactly the opposite has happened. The workers of modern-day developed economies enjoy living standards and working conditions that Marx could not have dreamed of. Parts of the left, especially the greener parts, now recognise this. Clive Hamilton’s famous address to the national left expressed this well:

“Difficult as it may be to admit, social democrats and democratic socialists have a psychological predisposition to believe that the mass of people are suffering from material deprivation. We thrive on the imagined wretchedness of others. When the economy goes bad we feel secretly vindicated, for our reason to condemn the system is renewed. We revel in a collective schadenfreude …. By any standard Australia is an enormously wealthy country. The great majority of its citizens want for nothing”

http://evatt.org.au/papers/social-democracy-consumer-capitalism.html

Tristan, you are right that later Social Democrats were influenced by Marx, and Marxism and Social Democracy co-evolved and co-operated in the nineteenth century. But there were clear divisions between them. The Communist Manifesto makes clear that Marxists would co-operate with social democrats and other opposition groups to the extent they shared objectives and tactics, but saw social democracy as primarily a bourgeoise movement. Communism was firmly committed to violent revolution as the means to effect political change: “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 11:42:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don't even have to necessarily live in a country where Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Socialism or any other 'ísm' exists.

Simply to have an idea or product that THREATENS the status quo, or monopoly on any single product or ideology, gives them (they feel) their mandate to eliminate or exterminate opposition/competition.

Capitalism in its raw form is not a nice concept, human greed takes on many guises, jealousy, envy, whatever...lots of well meaning inventors and idealists have 'disappeared' here in Oz and the US over the years... e.g the guy who designed a very efficient carburettor in the early 1970's that achieved around 70 miles per gallon (US), went quite innocently to the major oil companies and GM/Ford/Chrysler never to be seen again.

Ralph Sarich who, in WA consequently sold his Orbital Engine R & D and all rights to BP...a lucky man who survived, becoming very wealthy because he had the nouse to see his lawyers first.

The reason alternate energy tech has not seen its full manifestation yet is that it will only be when the last litre of fossil fuel (auctioned off on E-Bay at some incredible amount), that we will see the big oil conglomerates give the nod to funding solar, battery technology and the likes.

Back to the 'ísms' & abuses of human rights that seem to happen in places like Pinochet's Chile etc, it will happen here and is already, due mainly to government and media collusion. The Qld anti Bikie legislation is a portent of things to come.

No I don't condone for one moment the 1% ers who wear colours, and behave as if they own whatever they see. But remember for a moment that I, & my 2 sons could get jackets emblazoned with lets say '"Father And Sons Tourers" and ride our motorbikes into Qld from interstate to be quite readily & freely harrassed by police there.

Australians as nation are very apathetic, its very plainly NIMBY Syndrome for the majority, who until it bites them on the bum do very little.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 11:47:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW Chris Warren; You list Romero in El Salvador. Wasn't Archbishop Romero a liberation theologian who was murdered for standing up for the poor in that country, and opposing authoritarian rule?

No.

General Carlos Humberto Romero controlled ORDEN the Salvadorean anti-communist terror squad. He became President only through massive electoral fraud.

He was trained by the United States.

In 1974 farmers were massacred. In 1975, it was the students' turn. In 1977 civilians were killed, then the Jesuit priests.

Another right-wing death squad emerged - "White Warrior Union".
Posted by old zygote, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:10:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

General Romero was not the priest "Romero".

Cheers
Posted by Christopher Warren, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:19:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is so much which is inane in Marxism/left. Old zygote says:

"For Marxists, the key to solving the economic crisis, is to ensure that all workers receive purchasing power (wages) equal to the full value of their product. This is the only way the so-called "circular flow" can balance without increasing debt or importing low wages, as currently applies."

That is nuts. It would mean that no single worker would have any purchasing power since his purchasing power is equal to the value or cost of the product.

In addition what happened to reward for entrepreneurial risk taking? Oh, that's right, there is no such thing with the state commandeering the means of production. If workers under the Marxist scheme get full value for their work what extra is the state going to have to provide some of the staples of life like hospitals, roads, trains, schools etc.

You couldn't make this garbage up. Marxists are idiots economically and in every other respect. On the one hand they claim it is a peace-loving ideology and in the next breathe rabbit on about violent insurrection. Their grasp of economic is on par with this moron:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=306665082791936&set=a.252830414842070.1073741829.252175321574246&type=1&theater

If he isn't a Marxist I'll walk to Bourke backwards.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Previously in this debate I claimed that the anarcho-syndicalists in the 1930's had better ideas than the Marxist Leninists ...

In this respect, I admit, I was talking about Spain not Austria!

However, from what I've read by Karl Popper a lapsed Austro-Marxist (he abandoned Marxism whilst still a teenager at the end of world war one) the Austro-Marxists were into historicism an authoritarian doctrine which posits that the working class has some destiny to bring about utopia ...

In my view this positing historical destiny has semi-religious overtones ... it's certainly not based on science: I can't see that decoding of our DNA would have a message from God saying: "Ha-ha, the destiny of the working class is to bring about the new heaven and new earth in situ, Yours Faithfully, God", encoded in the four letter DNA code somehow!

I refer, into alia, to Popper's "The Poverty Of Historicism" ...

As to those going on about democratisation and participatory democracy, building the new society inside the old by building democracy in the labour movement, why not acknowledge the anarcho-syndicalist nature and origins of these concepts?
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:50:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

I share your views.

I also read the Bolt piece, and don't believe that he was attacking the study of Marx.

Bolt more concerned with number of Marxists in universities.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 12:51:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Bolt objects to the diversion/misappropriation/misuse of public money and students' hard-earned cash (fees) to promote and market Cultural Marxism to young minds: "Students, regurgitate this in a 10,000 word essay or fail to thrive in this Department".

Bolt puts the individual first and foremost.

Chewing the fat about 'economic Marxism' just muddies the water. It is a diversion.

Academics are not always relevant to the real world. Not where the humanities are concerned anyhow. Which brings me to a question, 'What is sociology doing in universities?'. Maybe a soft certificate level course somewhere, nothing more. Feminism and gender studies? They are just wasting university facilities there as well.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 2:04:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once you get that sort of language from the types as coehnite, you know you are just feeding f_k'n fools and rednecks.

No matter what debased filth these individuals wallow in, they still roll about in the gutter demonstrating once and for all:

You can lead a redneck to facts but you can't make them think.

Anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge will know that wages are purchasing power. But not coehnite.

Anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge will know that the premium for risk is paid out of either the increment of extra wages the risk taker receives or income from marginal producers who loose income due to the risk-takers successful innovation. But not the imbecile cohenite.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense will know that Western Marxism has nothing - nothing - to do with cohenites cartoon view of commandeering the means of production. What a laugh.

And just to see how dishonest this Bourke bound fool is: let it provide any evidence for any Western Marxist proposing in twit-cohenite's weird words: "violent insurrection".

Utter stupidity - and there is no way it could even find its way to Bourke.
Posted by old zygote, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 2:26:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wouldn't a real Leftie be feeling that s/he would be short-changing cohenite with 'red-neck'?

Doesn't the political correctness of cultural Marxism decree that the PC labelling for anyone who raises even the mildest criticism is 'Nazi'+'Brevik'+'Redneck', ie all three barrels discharged at once? Take 3/10 for that tutorial presentation and be aware you have two warnings left, then it is out of this department and you will be finding another course to take next semester.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 3:12:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, poor old zygote is in a tizzy. Don't worry zygote you don't have any facts; you're just an old commie.

The dear old commie says this:

"Marxism argues that this can be solved, and must be solved, only by;

"...a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large"

Marxism suggests that where there are appropriate democratic institutions, this process will be entirely peaceful,"

"Appropriate democratic institutions". Oh yes; like all parasitic ideologies, Islam is another, the Marxist hive-mind will utilise the dynamic virtue of the Western model to gain ascendency and then, as example after example has shown, terminate the wonderful model and enter the true Marxist state, oppression."

Orwell prevails in the Marxist hell and dear old zygote's nonsense shows that; he says:

"Marxist theory is merely the continuation of political economy from Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Malthus and others, taken to its logical conclusion, once countervailing tendencies are exhausted."

Apart from being gibberish, the idea that exponents of capitalism such as Smith are really extolling Marxism is classic Orwellian double-speech.

Finally the old commie says:

"Anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge will know that the premium for risk is paid out of either the increment of extra wages the risk taker receives or income from marginal producers who loose income due to the risk-takers successful innovation."

This is stasis; it ignores growth whereby the fallacy of a shrinking or static pie being given over to economic squattocracy is defeated by innovation, especially technological, and entire social expansion.

Commies like dear old zygote are Luddites, misonewists and sufferers of Toffler's syndrome. They wish to constrain the rest of us to their own personal limitations. They are at best a pest. If Marxism is to be studied it should be in the medical faculty as an example of mass delusion
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 3:29:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach - what are you talking about re: 'two warnings left'??

Yours seems to be an anti-intellectual, anti-pluralist conservatism where(despite rhetoric about the achievements of Western civilisation) - the Western Tradition is reduced to an authoritarian neo-liberal/Conservative technocracy, and critical/liberal arts thoroughly uprooted... An utterly barren public sphere...

Andrew: The Austro-Marxists fought for a multi-cultural Austria-Hungary before WWI. They fought for equal rights, cultural self-determination and democracy for all of Austria-Hungary's citizens/minorities. After Austria-Hungary collapsed they were responsible for the democratic/republican revolution. They maintained a regime of 'dual power' because of the threat of far right-wing counter-revolution. Their plan was only to use force were it necessary to defend 'the democratic path' against Fascism. Perhaps because they lost their nerve at the crucial conjuncture they were overwhelmed by fascism after a brief civil war. But see my article on some of their achievements in the interim....

Also I guess you're aware that 'utopian' has a very specific meaning in Marxism. Anyway Marxists sought a socialist transition they believed to be 'inevitable' because of underlying socio-economic dynamics... (this sense of 'inevitability' was a flaw in Marxism - but it DID give them great confidence and motivation at the time)

Again see my article for the paragraph which details the Austro-Marxists' real-world achievements through Provincial govt in Vienna alone...

And if you want to continue equating Marxism with totalitarianism you may like to check out critical theorists like Habermas, Marcuse, Fromm, Adorno, or the Eurocommunists from as recently as the 1970s and 1980s. (eg: Santiago Carrillo)

As a Marxist-inspired writer I personally prefer what I call a 'democratic mixed economy'. My vision is a mix of natural public monopolies and strategic socialisation; alongside consumer and producer co-operatives, democratic collective capital mobilisation, self-employment, and co-determination. But also a domestic economy engaging with the global economy - open to the best innovations it has to offer. Democratising the large multinationals is a hard ask though, and developing different (non-capitalist) models for innovation and quality is also difficult - and socialists should be careful and modest in their efforts here for now.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 4:05:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan Ewins, "onthebeach - what are you talking about re: 'two warnings left'??"

Too easy, but explaining the mild joke ruins it. Bolt was referring to university and as students of some humanities subjects would likely confirm, critical thinking is not necessarily rewarded where cultural Marxism prevails. Bolt's observations are spot on.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 4:23:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I couldn't agree more with Tristan. Marxism is part of the fabric of the modern era. In fact, we are all "Marxists" whether we know it or not in that certain basic concepts used in diverse fields of endeavour originated with Marx. Marxism has produced some of the most constructive, humanist political movements in history even though it has also (mostly via gross distortion of Marx' own ideas) produced truly abominable regimes.
Just as an ironic aside, it is forbidden to study Marx in North Korea. Apparently the official line is that the Juche of Kim Il Sung is superior to Marxism anyway. So, in trying to ban Marx, Andrew Bolt can take his honoured place next to Kim Il Sung, Hitler and Pinochet. Perhaps, given the crimes committed in the name of "democracy" we should ban that too, or perhaps we should forbid Christianity in recognition of the inquisition and other sundry crimes committed in its name. You see how preposterous this idea is?
Tristan is right, Bolt simply doesn't understand Marxism.
Posted by shayn, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 5:04:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan: not being a Marxist, I don't use words as Marxist technical terms ... politics being best conducted in plain speaking, I use words according to the common parlance meaning! Therefore I was not even trying to allude to socialisms utopian and scientific!

However, I have read left sociologist Alvin Gouldner on the two marxisms. In For Sociology he argues about the strains between the more insurrectionary and romantic alienation theorist marxisms and the more academic and party hierarchy scientific marxisms ... in my opinion the whole ideology of Marxism has split asunder and the different strands will never make common cause again! But both strands tend towards a use of historical destiny and horror of nothing ever being achieved ever to convince the followers to take the leadership's orders!

I'd rather a leadership more honest with the followers. That doesn't use the ideology of horror for social control. That interacts democratically with the movement, is part of the movement, and that listens to the ordinary members of the working class. Leaders who look down their noses at the lumpen proletariat are part of the problem not the solution!

But then I find social democracy and anarcho-syndicalism more attractive than any Marxist theorist I have ever read!
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 7:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's Shayn, Yebiga, and Tristan who don't understand Marxism. You are either displaying stupidity or dishonesty, there's no other possibility.

For example, Tristan says he's not a totalitarian. When I ask, what does he believe government should *not* control, he goes quiet, and pops up later arguing for total government control of everything. What is that but dishonesty or stupidity?

Yebiga comes fresh from two threads in which he has been repeatedly asked how he defines the legitimate limits of government - in other words, why is he not a totalitarian?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16018&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16031&page=0
He repeatedly tries to evade answering the question on which his whole argument depends, then when he can't squirm out of it, he goes quiet, cannot answer because he does not believe in any degree of human freedom from state control, and then pops up here re-running the same argument he's just lost. What is that but dishonesty or stupidity?

It's laughable to talk of Marx's alleged contributions to economics. What are they supposed to be?

To say that his theory advanced understanding of exploitation only presupposes his theory was right in the first place - what is that but stupidity?

We have just established that you know you're wrong by the fact that you can't answer any of the questions I've just asked because they disprove you - and that you are defending what you know is wrong. What is that but dishonesty or stupidity?

I challenge anyone here to answer the 8 questions I have asked above, and I will demonstrate that you're contradicting yourself or Marx or both.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 2:38:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we can do without slanders such as "stupidity or dishonesty" as laid out by Jardine K. Jardine and others.

Similarly falsely associating Marxism with cartoons such as "Animal Farm" as cited by cohenite (up thread) also do not indicate the honesty that Jardine K. Jardine seems to hold dear.

But questions of honesty also apply to those who pretend to ask:

"It's laughable to talk of Marx's alleged contributions to economics. What are they supposed to be? "

You have so many internet search engines available that such questions can only indicate bad faith by those who introduce such canards.

Marx demonstrated that unlike slavery, fuedalism, and merchantilism, capitalism had a structural tendency for crisis that threatened its very existence. These tendencies also created injustice in the meantime particularly in that the factor share going to labour would fall as the factor share going to capital would increase. Marx demonstrated that workers real wages would fall as confirmed by the ILO - see: http://www.tinyurl.com/Marxist-Exploitation and
http://www.tinyurl.com/Marxist-Crisis

While capitalism has a period of strong growth, it finally reaches a point of crisis and in the old capitalist nations, wages fall and malnutrition spreads. For the UK see report from UK Daily Mail - http://archive.is/YLXoI

In the USA millions are on food stamps and cannot get decent health care or homes. This is all very different for how things were in the middle of the 20th century.

But the real problem is that capitalism attempts to stave-off crisis by increasing increasing debt to astronomical amounts. According to the Wall Street Journal, capitalist debt is now over 200 trillion dollars. See: http://www.tinyurl.com/200-trillion

This is unimaginable. In dollar notes 15 cm long, it would reach from the earth to the sun and back again over 100 times!

The solution is, as Marx noted, a revolutionary reconstitution of society, and we are already seeing this in the spread of cooperatives such as Mondragon (Spain)and elsewhere, eg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
Posted by Christopher Warren, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:25:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I HAVE RESpect..for FOR THE PREVIOUS POSTERS
i tried replying the 8 questionsbut distracted by the links
there are so many more than 8

anyhow warren..has replied much
just to fill in come gaps[i ben waiting to listen to these]
they explain..a bigger global picture[in fact..2de/3rd hour..still havnt been allowed POSTING AT THE RBN SITE

but michael does via his forum
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/podcast.php

the shows i refer to are the second..on the list..[yesterdays]..podcast

it replies many questions/hence the attempt to hide
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Stang/index.php?cmd=archives.month&ProgramID=77&year=14&month=2&backURL=index.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives.getyear%2526ProgramID%253D77%26year%3D14%26backURL%3Dindex.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives

MY IDEA..is thE WORKER TRADITIONALLY Owns his tools
in argentina/when the bankers drained cash money from their system
the workERS MOVED INTO THEIR WORKPLACES..en mass..to protect and keep going..their only income stream..by co-operatives/collectives/think like A SHARED HOUSE..shared workplaces..community

we must reduce govt servants..in public service..as we sell off

yes i agree..that big business becomes much like big govt[too many middle managers/hiding accountability..DO NOTHINGS..IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

these COMPLICIT[USEFUL/Idiots]..are the CURSE
NO WORK SKILLS..yet reaping off the wealth/cream..its obscene
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:50:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THE BIGGEST..problem..bigger even than selling off our public assets..is that in the west..we rent..homes from capitalists..[who get tax advantages buying up homes/then become slum lords/getting free govt rent assistance

as opposed to the russia/china..peons
who own their hovels..FOR NIX..rent free..thus needing MUCH Lrent and tax

BUT Back to..the sell of of govt means..TO Pay pensions
sans the 'privatized'..public utilities ..income../now selling same product..but at double the PRICE..[IF GOVT HAD OF DONE THAT..WHY SELL it

we sold common wealth bank..for 9 billion
introduced bank fees../stopped paying interest to low accounts/and now the public service trust account reaps in 9 billion in profits..each year

even better..if you spend a dollar
or..a trillion = the same bank fee..[or if your big enough fee free

but wait..its EVEN WORSE

[just SO OUR..COMPULSORY SUPER CONTRIBUTIONS CAN BUY..THEM..
YET..[BY EXTRA TAX DEDUCTIBLE MORTGAGING/..so their booKs dont actually hold the assets../just a promise of asset

[that is if their not leveraging..our compulsory super betting if the market falls or rises from..second to second]..REGARDLESS ALL OUR SUPER ACCOUNTS HOLD IS DEBT..OBLIGATION TO PAY..AND A PROMISE OF ASSET..If we pay..[its just too enron-esq like to be by accident].
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 8:10:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This has so far been a stunningly revealing thread. Not that there has been any great “revelations” of what Marxism stands for today, more it reveals just how much Marxism an similar ideologies are alive and well in our “democratic” society.

What is also important is that Australian society is gradually becoming aware of these ideologies through increased public exposure. This will only increase as we seek answers as to what, why and how so many policies have been inflicted upon us that are costing us so dearly.

With this increased exposure the public will gradually be able to link these ideologies directly with the harm to Australia that these policies have done and continue to cause.

The debate about Marxism is of course a monumental distraction. The real issue is how so many similar ideologies have already permeated our society.

These ideologies are variously represented by the “intelligentsia”, “ideologues”, “regulating class” and “ political elites”. To most Australians there seems little difference ideologically between the political philosophy of Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Fabians, Greens and deep Greens et al.

Only those committed to such ideologies would even try to distinguish between them because it is a convenient distraction and defense. In truth the variations manifest in Australia appear only in “motivation and purpose”, differentiated by their tactics and the “hosts” with whom they form parasitic relationships.

The term “progressives” has become a generalized term for all these variations, which is interesting because it is a essentially a benign term that avoids invoking emotive responses such as “Reds under the bed” or “McCarthyism”.

Humanities Academia has produced many progeny. These include many in the teaching profession, bureaucrats, political elites, journalism, Media outlets, trade unions officials, political staffers, NGO’s, Labour Legal’s, the judiciary and socialized sciences.

As demonstrated by Marx supporters on this thread, core attitudes include; hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, industrialization, banking, resources and the defense establishment, and in favor of the government ownership of services, state welfare, the socialization of history, geography, sciences, the environment and state education.

Cont’d
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 9:52:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d

Progressives have established “parasitic relationships” in each of these entities. Perhaps one of the most obvious examples is that of Trade union officials. Superficially they are there to represent their memberships however, their “motivation and purpose” is contradictory and actually serves only their own political ambitions, career paths, power, influence and financial benefit.

As Marx noted many times – “Capitalism has an amazing ability to bounce back, so much so that it also is flexible enough to allow progressives well up into its structure. Far enough up to be able to influence much of the policy of a capitalist state, especially social, educational and environmental policy”.

Progressives seem to have subsumed many of the entities listed previously and especially the traditional left of politics. The traditional Labor values of representing working class, trade unions, social justice, equality and employee protection against the employer are mostly gone as core Labor business.

The Commission of Audit, Productivity Commission, Various Inquiries and Royal Commissions have the potential to publicly expose the “organic networks” established by progressives. Which possibly explains why the progressive response has been to “crank up” the rhetoric, abuse, vilification, proselytisation, divisiveness and volume.

It is curious therefore, that the terror of public exposure is met by progressives with arrogant grandstanding which seems to be contrary to self interest?

Tristan, your thread has the title, “ Andrew Bolt simply does not understand Marxism”. You have failed to explain why he needs to? You are primarily outraged by negative things said about Marxism, you see this as a criticism of your ideology, what’s wrong with that? Are you beyond criticism?

Your responses have been convoluted, incomprehensible mitigation lectures. But you have achieved increased public exposure of progressive ideology and telegraphed your insecurity.

You have much to say about Marxism but you have failed to take it to the one person you are attacking. The word gutless jumps to mind.

“The bullshifters and liars may hold centre stage for a while, but in the end they will be found out and their contributions forgotten.”
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 9:53:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
``andrew..is a dutchie/OUTCAST..LIKE ME
HE HAD TO SORT OUT TRUE FROM FAKE

BUT HE WAS MADE AWARE..like was i..
of the real and pre-sent dangers

Misprision of felony was an offence
under the common law of England and was classified as a misdemeanour.[1] It consisted of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities.

Exceptions were made for close family
members of the felon.[citation needed]

A person was not obliged to disclose his knowledge of a felony
where the disclosure would tend to incriminate him of that offence or another.[2]

BUT HE KNOWS HE IS GUILT FREE

With the development of the modern law, this crime has been discarded in many jurisdictions, and is generally only applied against persons placed in a special position of authority or responsibility. In this case,

thus you...watchers..are exempted to report
or be held TO ACCOUNT*..

where more is given
so much better is to be expected
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 10:09:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, Mr Warren is talking about honesty. It’s funny how totalitarian ideologies have their similar concepts of honesty. Islam has Taqiyya and Kitman. Marxism has doublespeak.

Mr Warren uses classic and ironic doublespeak when he claims Animal Farm has nothing to do with Marxism. In fact Animal Farm is a treatise on Marxism. "Old Major" is meant to be Marx and the revolution is undertaken by the animals to create a classless society, the fundamental Marxist objective. Inevitably, for reasons I discuss above, the revolution shows that Marxism is merely the embryonic form of communism.

This is the thing with the idealists like this author and the other commies who espouse Marxism; they have no grasp of reality and because they have convinced themselves their ideal Utopian vision is real no scintilla of reality is considered by them.

Marxism will always degenerate to communism or another left form of oppression; and the rest is history.

Mr Warren then sprouts some more doublespeak by listing the faults with the US as the paragon of capitalism. Some of these problems are real.

What is not real is that they are due to some inbuilt period of crisis which capitalism inevitably goes through.

In fact it is the opposite; the capitalistic model in the US is suffering because non-capitalistic ideologies have penetrated the capitalistic institutions. The best example is the GFC which was sheeted home to the failure of capitalism. What really caused the GFC was the leftie president and womaniser Clinton who forced major mortgagor companies Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac to lend to defaulting, mainly black home-owners [the classless society, everyone can have a house!].

The crony capitalists came in on the back of Clinton [sexual pun intended] split up the already non-existent security into infinite and worthless derivatives and inevitably the whole ideological driven mess collapsed; cost worldwide just a few $trillion.

The GFC is an example of Marxism at work not capitalism.

To summate, as usual Bolt is correct; Marxism is a blight and the corrupting influence of the Marxists/commies/lefties continues in this great land.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 10:43:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc; Andrew Bolt needs to understand Marxism because he is standing in judgment of it. I am saying he is not in possession of all the facts; hence he judgments are dubious. I am asking him to check his facts - especially the issues I raise in the article.

BTW I tried contacting Bolt through his blog, via the Herald-Sun - never received a response.

It is absurd to suggest I am saying that I think I "am beyond criticism'". My point is that the entire gamut of ideologies should be open to criticism; and that this end is best served through pluralism. Hence there is a place for Marxists in our universities - as well as for what people today call Social Democracy, and also liberals, conservatives, libertarians...

Also - I am not vilifying or abusing anyone. You're the one calling me "gutless". I am simply saying to Andrew Bolt - you do not understand Marxism, or otherwise you are misrepresenting it. I'm asking Andrew to admit that his caricature of Marxism is incorrect - when you take into account the Social Democratic Marxist traditions I have alluded to.

Finally JKJ: You ask me "what should government not control"? In Marx's time centralisation of the means of production in the hands of the state was believed to be rational by Marxists as it would undo exploitation, overproduction etc. Since then we have developed a far more diverse economy. Competition has become essential in driving innovation. But exploitation is becoming ever-more intense; wealth and power ever more concentrated; and the cost of laissez-faire economics is instability as evidenced by the recent GFC.

For me the (provisional) answer is a democratic mixed economy as I've explained earlier in this thread.

re: Nationalisation: In the democratic mixed economy we have STRATEGIC nationalisation of natural public monopolies. Even Menzies supported natural monopolies! Secondly we have government business enterprises which actually ENHANCE COMPETITION. (eg: Medibank Private) Finally we have co-investment to support strategic industries - and also to assist producers' and consumers co-ops and mutual associations to establish and maintain their operations.

(MORE COMING)
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 10:46:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others."

Marxism has an intellectual appeal for those that find the prospect of equality and shared community appealing. The problem is that the majority of people find it oppressive. The only states that have embraced Marxism have required tyranny and brutality on a massive scale to coerce the unconverted into compliance.

People living in Marxist states might experience some level of equality, but it is in squalor and poverty. and fear for their lives.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 10:53:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Furthermore JKJ - as to 'what would not be controlled by govt".

In short: A lot!

First there would be an entrenched series of civil liberties: of association, speech and assembly; and pluralism in the media and public sphere - including the rights of private media. Thoug there will still be public media - and state aid for independent media across the political spectrum.

Secondly: there would be a host of consumers and producers co-operatives. Some of these would involve state-aid but not state control. The co-ops could also involve local communities and other stakeholders. eg: in the case of SPC it would have involved producers, the Shepparton local community and growers....

Finally there would be a host of small businesses operating alongside the public and co-operative enterprises. As well as engagement with the global economy - including engagement with multi-national corporations in order to access the best innovations in the global economy; and also to secure markets for Australian products....

There would also be co-determination in local enterprises, including the local branches of the multinationals....

BTW Strategic socialisation could also include natural resources; especially mining; But in the global market there would still be competition.

If a world came to be where innovation could be secured overwhelmingly without competition that would be great. But we're nowhere near that yet... Hence I urge a relatively modest approach by democratic socialists in the here and now.

Not to mention that we need a diverse array of economic power-bases - as this itself helps preserve pluralism and maintain a situation where various interests hold each other accountable.

Also pls note that even the old Marxism only held state ownership to be a transitional affair... I am less confident and less ambitious - and my ideal for now is the "democratic mixed economy" - as the best workable compromise.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 10:57:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tristan,

You say << I am simply saying to Andrew Bolt - you do not understand Marxism >>

Rubbish, you have not said it to AB, you are saying it to OLO!

When you have a response from AB you can share it with us, then we will believe you.

Great to see you going round in ever decreasing circles of ideological content. I guess this means you have nothing else to offer and will finally disappear in a puff of smoke!
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 11:21:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The rightwing loonies are in full cry now....

Here is one (Cohenite):

"The GFC is an example of Marxism at work not capitalism."

added onto their usual uncontrolled slanders.

Most reasonable people will know that Cohenite's statements are false.
Posted by Christopher Warren, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 11:33:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the spin doctor/quote..<<..
Rubbish, you have not said it to AB,
you are saying it to OLO!>>

AND DOING A DAMM FINE JOB OF IT TOO
MAKE HE IS TAKING..ON THE PAID TO BLOG BRIGAde[pro's paid to post]

seE last 20 minutes..
http://whatreallyhappened.com/podcasts/hourtitle3.m3u

ALSO FIRST 20 MINUTES HERE
http://rss.infowars.com/20140225_Tue_Alex.mp3

we akk know what we are here for
if we build it..'he will COME'..[if he sees we are seriously expanding on his point/mates help
mates..by pointing out lifES DANGERS
to those ..in the loop/know..ie misprison

LESt we forget..the key word
misprisON..MEANS SILENCE ISNT GOLDEN..ITS TREASON
its the same moneyed elite..that divides us.from each other/anyway they can.[we all are in this together.

thats just HOW YOUR POST SOUNDS.
LETS BUILd it..he will come?

ITS THE DOG THAT SDONT GRowl
that bites ya bum

ps the dutch..wear wooden shoes..because we duTCH..HATE SNEAKS/SNEAKING UP om us..thus you hear the dutchman comming..miles away

cause we dont like surprize nor need sir prize.
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 11:41:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW Cohenite: Animal Farm was written by George Orwell - who was a democratic socialist - and who fought with the POUM (Party of Marxist Unification) against fascism in Spain.

Shadow Minister continues to ignore the examples of democratic Marxism in action I have mentioned. Specifically Austro-Marxism; but to this we could add Allende's government in Chile. Also Italy came within a inch of having a unified Eurocommunist/Christian Democratic government in Italy. (Look up the difference between Eurocommunism and Stalinism) Specifically in Italy Christian Democratic leader Aldo Moro was assassinated by the Red Brigades - no doubt with an eye to derailing the alliance. Again and again Leftists attempt to extend and deepen democracy - and 'take the democratic path' - but for all the talk of authoritarianism, terror and repression (which did apply to Stalin) - it is not the Democratic Left that stands out - but its enemies.

Also pray tell how I can contact Andrew Bolt when a message I sent via his blog either never reached him - or he never responded; And when there is no other way of reaching him; Except an email function where I cannot even finish a sentence...

Finally re: all this criticism of the welfare state and the mixed economy - I urge more Conservative readers to look to the German Christian Democrats and their policies during the 1950s. As with the attempted Italian 'historic compromise' - there are times when 'compassionate, liberal small 'c' conservatives' and democratic socialists can find common cause. Based on observance of civil and liberal rights, and opposition to extreme laissez faire when ends in extreme poverty for many, and great inequality.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 11:55:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christopher Warren
You are right that Marx predicted that real wages would fall, but entirely wrong to say that this actually happened. The link to the ILO that you provide shows exactly the opposite of what you claim – real wages have risen in the past 10 years, despite the worst recession since the 1930s. It is true that the labour share of GDP has fallen in many developed countries in recent years (hence labour productivity has risen faster than real wages, as the chart shows), and in some countries real wages have fallen. But the chart shows that, across the developed countries as a whole, growth in real GDP has more than offset this effect to allow real growth in wages.

In the longer term, real wages have grown enormously since the industrial revolution, and are vastly higher than in Marx’s day. This paper gives a long-term perspective on real wage growth in the UK. It finds that a craftsman’s daily wage increased in real terms by more than 600% between the 1850s and 2000s. It makes for fascinating reading:
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ClarkJPE2005.pdf
(p.52)

Marx also predicted that crises in capitalism would become more severe and more frequent. Again, the opposite has happened. Even the GFC looks minor compared to the economic crises of the nineteenth century, and the GFC was the worst recession in the developed economies for 60 years.

Tristan reminds us that even old Marxism saw state ownership as temporary, and indeed Engels famously predicted the “withering away of the state”. I suppose it depends on whether one believes this will actually happen under a Communist regime. I think it unlikely.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 11:56:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on Tristan, your problem with Bolt, & what frightens the daylights out of you is he understands Marxism all too well, & is articulate in exposing it with all it's many flaws.

You even expose them yourself in singing what you think of as its qualities "there would be a host of consumers and producers co-operatives. Some of these would involve state-aid but not state control". Sounds just like those aboriginal housing co-operatives, that have cost us billions & housed bugger all.

You go on, "The co-ops could also involve local communities and other stakeholders. eg: in the case of SPC it would have involved producers, the Shepparton local community and growers". The growers did own it, & got out because it was not working.

Tristan you Marxists should go back to quietly penetrating capitalism & undermining it from within, as you have for decades, since the fall or Russian communism, you were doing much better that way.

When you come out into the open, you are lost. Every time you put fingers to keyboard, you expose your total failure to understand anything much. These group enterprises just won't work in practice. All these groups & committees are a recipe for catastrophe. As we all know the poor camel is a horse designed by a committee, & that is what Marxism & socialism give us, a camel, & a lame one at that, when what you need a to pull a plow is a draft horse.

Like Russia's copy of the concord, thing Marxist look OK from a distance, but don't get too close, because mate, up close, they just don't fly.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 1:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you have proved one thing, Mr Ewins, for sure and certain.

And that is, that Andrew Bolt is certainly not the only one who "does not understand Marxism".

Moreover, judging by the posts from people who claim to actually "understand" Marxism, there appear to be as many theories on what Marxism is, as there are Marxists.

With which you seem to agree...

>>...some Marxists are hard materialists and determinists. Others think that ethics is secondary to 'the objective reality of class struggle' and socialist transition. I don't fall into either of those camps. In that sense I admit to being a 'Revisionist' - but still very much a liberal socialist. I am also influenced by radical social liberalism...<<

Clear as mud. Then you make it even worse, with this offering:

>>My vision is a mix of natural public monopolies and strategic socialisation; alongside consumer and producer co-operatives, democratic collective capital mobilisation, self-employment, and co-determination. But also a domestic economy engaging with the global economy - open to the best innovations it has to offer.<<

As a political manifesto, this sits right up there with "trust me, I can fix it".

Long on reassurance, but short on reality.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 1:30:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's criticise Austro-Marxism ...

Let's consider Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies", volume II

When this work hit the bookstands, one offended English intellectual wrote a long reply, "In Defence of Plato", so offended were some of the right wingers at Popper's spirit of moderation, compromise, pragmatism, and small-l liberalism ...

Chapter 13, Sociological Determinism, p81:-

"Yet this method of penetrating, dividing, and confusing the humanitarian camp and of building up a largely unwitting and therefore doubly effective intellectual fifth column achieved its greatest success only after Hegelianism had established itself as the basis of a truly humanitarian movement: of Marxism, so far the purest, the most developed and the most dangerous form of historicism."

Popper objected to historical prophecy ... any representation of any author leader party or class as fulfilling historical destiny ... any use of horror or hope in book titles (e.g. "Imperialism as the Last Stage of Capitalism", Lenin, "The Future Of Socialism", Crosland) ...

Popper abandoned Marxism in his late teenage years. He grew up in Vienna during world war one, and eventually couldn't stomach the Hegelianism any more. I believe he later blamed this Hegelianism for the Weimar horror film industry, in part causing the 1932, 1933 election results ...

Some might reply that ideology is the allocation of blame, that I've got involved in historical blame, and that I should move on ... but the question I raise for my readers remains, is this use of hope and horror in book titles, leader's speeches, organizational social control, or in Hollywood movies whether these methods of moving people emotionally will prove constructive in the long run?

Instead, why not openly debate values, societal outcomes, visions of utopia; thenceforth develop agendas and platforms with the active involvement of the followers? Such open ended debate might not fit in with the plans of the top leaders ... My faith is that a wide ranging open ended debate would lead to better outcomes, would raise the standard, and lead to higher outcomes in terms of educational opportunity where everyone would receive leadership levels of education!
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 2:08:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

As I understand it [cf. Hugh Thomas' 'Spanish civil war'] POUM was constantly attacked by the Community Party in Spain, urged on by Stalin.

Marx never experienced a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' but we have, in total, hundreds of years of experience of it, or of its inevitable perversions, in Russia, China, the Eastern European countries, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Ethiopia, Benin, even Burkina Faso. Dare I say it, Zimbabwe ? And what should we have learnt from those dreadful experiments ?

What should rule, ideology or real experience ? Surely once an ideology is put into practice, and goes belly-up, then we should learn that there may be something wrong, un-real, deluded, about the ideology ?

How come in every case, that 'dictatorship' morphs into rule by the self-proclaimed party of the proletariat,

i.e. the ruling group of the party of the dictatorship of the proletariat ?

i.e. rule by the hardest man in the ruling group in the party claiming to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat ?

Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Ceauscescu, Kadar, Mengistu, et al. ? Yanukovich is, after all, a thuggish child of the 'revolution', as was Milosevitch. Each with their vast apparatuses of repression, extermination and incarceration. Power to the people ? Feh !

A bit like the Mafia, really: a dictatorial power-group, with a captive population, a society in which the only way up is through the power-group, and in which the rule of law means nothing, and so any crime is permissible, in the name of the group - Mafia or Communist Part, it doesn't matter.

Capitalism certainly has its grave faults, but as a product of democratic principles, we have to live with it. But if it can be further 'democratised', thanks to the vigilance of the populace in defending and broadening their rights and powers, then that may be one way to go.

I fear that 'democratic socialism' may also be an oxymoron :(

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 3:51:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You've just gotta love the stupidity and starry eyed pixieitis of the Marxists.

They're all fluttering around mouthing grand schemes and Utopian visions and while they've got their focus on the stars in come the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Zedong and then they're up against the wall with the rest of the useful idiots.

Marxism ALWAYS turns into tyranny and Utopians are the most dangerous people on earth because they think they have the blueprint for perfection.

Capitalism, on the other hand makes no such promises; it thrives with a minimalist government and respects privacy. As soon as those 2 imperatives are encroached you can be sure some of the stary-eyed utopian ratbags and do-gooders are interfering.

I have never yet met a bureaucrat or apparatchik who knows as much as me or knows better about what is better for me yet Marxism is predicated on these self-appointed visionaries assuming they have superior skills. And this superiority is never tested in any merit based fashion, it is always declared.

The author tells me Animal Farm was written by George Orwell. I knew that; it is the best analysis of the failure of the utopian vision of Marxism. The tragedy is there are always new generations of utopian nuisances who want to prove Orwell wrong.

Speaking of nuisances Mr Warren has defaulted to the usual leftist abuse. The left are spoilt children given to tantrums when thwarted. Go and have your nappy changed Mr Warren.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 3:58:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian

Thanks for the paper reference.

I certainly agree that living standards have increased and where once a salary my have purchased a black and white TV they no purchase a colour plasma or where once horse drawn carts moved produce, we now have semi-trailers. However, structurally, if wages increases do not keep pace with productivity then they must fall relatively. This relative fall is the problem.

In later years Marx noted that the revolution had not come his way as he probably expected, but the analysis retains its pertinacity. A long-run tendency to cut labour's factor share is the mode by which the Marxist wage cut is produced. The fact that we have gone from inkwells to biros, from slide rules to calculators, from telegrams to emails indicates rising living standards. Nonetheless you have to compare the share of produce going to workers to discern what is really occurring.

Since the nineteenth century workers and popular movements (Chartists - UK, Populists - USA, trade unions) have produced fundamental changes to what previously could be seen as "capitalism in the raw". The welfare state, secret ballots, elected parliaments, and regulations have all alleviated raw capitalism but, in essence only by pushing problems off into the future.

The present situation in OECD economies is the result of two catastrophic wars plus astronomical increase in debt since 1900 all facilitated by population increase and a shift of exploitation from advanced nations to the Third World.

From 1900, we certainly are in a worse economic crisis than the Great Depression. See: http://archive.is/n9uHY

I would only want to point to an implicit real wage decline from the 1970's.

So with those clarifications, I see Marx's analysis completely vindicated.
Posted by Christopher Warren, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 4:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite

"The GFC is an example of Marxism at work not capitalism."

Most reasonable people will know that Cohenite's statements are false.

Just piling more obnoxious slanders on top of your previous outbursts does not help your cause.
Posted by Christopher Warren, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 4:35:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew points to the Popperian critique of Hegel and Marx - because of the dialectical interpretation of totality.

A few responses:

a) Francis Fukuyama uses the Hegelian framework to support liberal democracy as the 'universal', permanent, final form of social organisation, and of political consciousness. Arguing socialism is to be abandoned because of misgivings about the grand dialectical schema - would then leave us to make the same conclusions about Fukuyama and liberal democracy. Clearly then neither socialism nor liberal democracy are to be rejected on these grounds.

b) Any 'essential' connection between dialectics, totality and 'totalitarianism' is false. Nonetheless Marx's materialist dialectic - with its emphasis on class struggle - should be open to criticism. Revisionists (and self-proclaimed Marxists) like Bernstein (though that is contested) abandoned the dialectic in favour of empiricism, and perhaps Kantian ethics. Yet despite assertions to the contrary Bernstein retained an emphasis on Marxist notions of class struggle, the crisis-prone nature of capitalism, economic democracy, mutual disarmament, and the gradual overcoming of capitalism, etc.

c) 'Totality' exists; but my argument is that it cannot be fully grasped by theory. Interestingly there is the 'Post-Marxism' of thinkers such as Mouffe and Laclau. These are radical voluntarists. (and so were the Bolsheviks as against 'orthodox' Marxism!)

In response perhaps a 'middle way' is most appropriate... ie) there are social dynamics like class struggle that run throughout human history and contribute to the ever-changing evolution of totality... But there are contingent aspects as well - free will, the role of the individual in history, even 'the will to power'; And while 'bourgeois historians' were wrong to emphasise too much 'great men', and the dynamics of nations and empires - 'orthodox' Marxism arguably put too little emphasis on those aspects were are contingent...

Finally: That's not saying that there are not forces which exist which are outside what can be verified immediately and empirically. ...The boom-bust cycle in capitalism, the tendency to monopoly, the falling wage share of the economy, reserve army of labour and so on.

And socialism is NOT inevitable; Arguably barbarism far more likely now...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 5:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Slanders"?! How on Earth do you slander a vile thing such as Marxism and its progenies, bolshevism, communism, Nazism, crony capitalism, which is what the GFC was [it's amazing you can't accept that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac catastrophe was a perfect example of applied Marxism; but then cultists and utopians cannot comprehend any defect with their vision of perfection]?

In regard to the blight of Marxism and what it inevitably becomes I defer to that great man Churchill who said:

"I yield to no one in my detestation of Bolshevism, and of the revolutionary violence which precedes it. ... But my hatred of Bolshevism and Bolsheviks is not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality. It arises from the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practice in every land into which they have broken, and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained"

Marxism is the Dorian Grey of social philosophies; a pretty face, noble clichés, supported by energised and enthusiastic nitwits with a putrid Doppelgänger being the actual reality.

How do you slander that; you don't; it is beyond slander.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 5:38:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan ... I've never read up on Leninist voluntarism. Probably because of Lenin's ideas about putting all the hope-for-socialism eggs in the infallible central committee basket!

The voluntarism of the Russian communist leadership may have helped bring them to power, gave them the hope and confidence to win in the most backward country in Europe, and the Red Army thereby helped to bring like central committee run communist parties to power all over Eastern Europe.

P.S. Let's regard China as a different case, to be discussed separately.

The real question for those who place their trust in the central committee model is why did the whole Russian and Eastern European model collapse? Was it socialism in one country? Was it the command economy? Was it the corruption of ten per cent of the population including almost the entire managerial class being party members with party membership privileges? Do the scum float to the top? And how is top leader hegemony or politbureau rule different from the royalist absolutisms of 1100 to 1600?
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 5:38:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan in a recent reply says: 'Finally: That's not saying that there are not forces which exist which are outside what can be verified immediately and empirically. ...The boom-bust cycle in capitalism, the tendency to monopoly, the falling wage share of the economy, reserve army of labour and so on.' I think he means they can be verified. Certainly boom and bust, the tendency to monopoly, the falling wage share of the economy, the levels of unemployment are all verifiable.

I agree with Tristan that there can be no socialism without democracy. The corollary is also correct in my view - there can be no real democracy without socialism. The current vote every 3 years for one set of capitalist politicians who can only try to make conditions good for capital but not address the fundamental crisis prone nature of the system is not democracy. There is no democracy for example in the workplace, about what we need to produce.

I disagree with Tristan in his caricature of the Bolsheviks as anti-democratic. The workers and peasants councils were much more democratic than the Constituent Assembly, based in the workplace, automatic recall, paid the average wage etc. The reasons for their collapse are complex but the decimation in the Civil War of the Russian working class which made the revolution, the foreign intervention, the failure most importantly of revolutions especially in Germany, saw the revolution isolated. The rise of stalin represented the defeat of the revoluiton and the establishment of a new form of capitalism - state capitalism - in the USSR.

Bolt's idea that people like me should be banned from universities and that we are somehow responsible for the deaths that Stalinist state capitalism inflicted on millions is ridiculous. Stalin had to wipe out the old Bolsheviks who understood the connection between democracy and socialism before he could fully implement his state capitalist project free from dissent and different interpretations of the revolution.

It is ironic that Bolt favours the very cleansing of Universities and establishment of monolithic thought centres that Stalin sought too
Posted by Passy, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 6:46:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christoper
If real wages grow slower than productivity, the labour share of GDP must fall. That does not mean real wages fall. Most developed countries’ real wages have risen substantially since the 1970s (depending on the measure you use, the USA may be an exception). The labour share has fallen in Australia and other countries since the 1970s, but it rose in the two decades before that, and is now pretty much where it was in the early 1960s. There is no inherent tendency for it to rise or fall – it depends on technology, investment patterns, competition, structural change, etc. Nor is there any necessary causal link to real wages.

Yes, technology is a key driver of productivity growth. I would argue that market economies are much better and discovering and adopting new technologies than centrally planned ones.

The supposed “shift of exploitation from advanced nations to the Third World”, which is used to explain why Marx’s dystopian prophesies for workers in capitalist countries did not come true, also does not fit the facts. Economic growth in developing countries is currently much higher than in developed ones. Poverty rates are falling. The countries most successful at escaping poverty have been ones that embraced the western “exploitation” model (Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea).

I agree there have been many improvements in social and economic conditions since the industrial revolution. We live in a mixed economy, neither totally state-run nor totally laissez faire. It seems a pretty successful model to me.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 6:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy
so you disgree with Trotsky, who said "While we repudiate democracy in the name of the concentrated power of the proletariat" ?
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:11:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is ironic that Bolt favours the very cleansing of Universities and establishment of monolithic thought centres that Stalin sought too"

If it wasn't so ironic and indicative of a complete lack of a capacity for self-criticism by the prevailing left in Universities that comment would be hysterical.

"Monolithic thought centres"; you mean like the "science is settled" abomination of AGW; or the complete lack of a critical thesis of the the boat people, the subjugation of aboriginals by left victimhood policies, the corruption within the trade unions as the ostensible dominant vehicle for vitiating capitalism's cruel exploitation of the workers, except for the recent book, Colebatch's analysis of union subversion and betrayal.

Talk about ivory towers!

Marxism is a thought bubble; the Western secular model which sustains capitalism as an expression of individuality works; Marxism would dismantle this and repeat the horrors of the USSR, China, Cambodia, every example of crony capitalism in South America etc etc.

What I read in the above comments by the lefties and commies is an expression of an intricate and erudite exercise in mental onanism.

In this context Marxism offers nothing which has not already been tried, tested and failed completely. The issue for the superior and successful Western model, which owes nothing to Marxism, is how to cater and whether in fact it should cater for ideologies which subvert the Western model which hosts them.

It is galling that the watermelons in parliament include active communists. The difficulty is how does a freedom orientated society mute the parasitic hostility from antithetical and failed ideologies like Marxism and Islam.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:30:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christopher Warren

Do you understand that, if you are so confused that you use the term “capitalism” to refer to government ownership and control of the means of production, you’re only making a fool of yourself?

“You have so many internet search engines available that such questions can only indicate bad faith by those who introduce such canards.”

Four logical fallacies in one sentence, not bad:- and you take offence at being called stupid?

1. assuming what is in issue: Marx’s alleged economic contributions: circularity = irrational
2. appeal to absent authority: “go and prove my argument for me” = fallacy = irrational
3. “can only”: non sequitur: fallacy = irrational
4. “bad faith”: ad hominem, mind-reading, misrepresentation: fallacy = irrational.

Christopher, imagine if my argument took the form of two propositions:
1. “I am just right because I am right” and
2. “For proof go and research on google for me the many ways I am right”.

What would you think of that? Stupid?

“Marx demonstrated that unlike slavery, fuedalism, and merchantilism, capitalism had a structural tendency for crisis that threatened its very existence.”

No he didn’t. He asserted on the basis of alleged historical laws allegedly discovered by him giving rise to alleged inexorable forces, alleged classes which he never defined, involved in alleged exploitation based on the labour theory of value, economic propositions which you cannot defend without embracing the absurdities of the LTV, or contradicting yourself or Marx or both.

“These tendencies also created injustice in the meantime particularly in that the factor share going to labour would fall as the factor share going to capital would increase.”

That proposition depends on the labour theory of value. Without it, Marx’s theory completely collapses, which is why economic departments abandoned it in the 1870s. You haven’t caught up with developments of 140 years ago.

Go ahead. Try and prove the labour theory of value. If you can, I’ll unreservedly apologise for calling you stupid.

“Marx demonstrated that workers real wages would fall as confirmed by the ILO …”

(cont…)
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:49:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gawd, it's amazing the stink that comes out of Cohenite when you hold it up to the light.
Posted by old zygote, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:50:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More circularity. You haven’t demonstrated that the difference is *because of* or *despite*
a) capitalism, or for that matter
b) government.
(Statistics only prove correlation, they do not prove, and *are not capable of proving* causation.)

In other words you have no theory of causation, but only ever assuming what is yours to prove. And you don’t like being called … what?

Furthermore, Marx’s prediction that capitalism would lead to a large proletariat at the brink of starvation, and a small class of obscenely rich capitalists proved FLATLY INCORRECT. Capitalism has raised the living standards of everyone participating, including the poorest of the poor, to the HIGHEST LEVELS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and that’s even *with* socialist morons taking 50 percent of production, and flushing it down the toilet on pink batts, and NBNs, fine-tuning the winds in 500 years time, and Craig Thompson.

Go ahead. Prove causation in what you have alleged. You’re only making my case for me.

“But the real problem is that capitalism attempts to stave-off crisis by increasing debt to astronomical amounts.”

Chris dear, when government uses its monopoly of force and monopoly of law-making, and by statute grants itself a monopoly of fiat money in breach of the Constitution, and then to further inflate the government’s revenues, cartelises banks by government-granted licenses based on government-dictated reserves of government-decreed money, backed up by government deposit guarantees at government-mandated rates, to fund a government-enforced market for endless government debt, by siphoning money off the masses of working people to grant handouts to government pet political favourites to fund government handout schemes like “social” housing, that’s not “capitalism” you fool, that’s what you’re arguing in favour of – government control of the means of production!

Furthermore, *derivatives* are by definition the wrong place to look for the *origin* of something. Derivatives function to hedge risk in their underlying contracts. The gargantuan derivatives bubble is a measure of the risk in the underlying MONEY AND CREDIT SOCIALISM that you are opposed to abolishing, remember? Or do you agree with the Austrian School now?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:53:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don’t like being called stupid, but honestly, read what you’re writing!

“The solution is, as Marx noted, “

Like you, Marx never established that socialism would be any solution. He just assumed it. He never even asserted why social ownership per se would be *any* solution to the problems he alleged.

Like you, he never got to square one in understanding the essential economic problem: how to allocate scarce productive resources to their most highly valued social ends. There is not the slightest reasons to think that socialism would do this any better; and categorical proof that it would be worse.

“So with those clarifications, I see Marx's analysis completely vindicated.

So reasons and facts are no defence against your invincible ignorance.

As soon as you understand that the government interventions you favour, are capable of explaining the evils your confusion lays to capitalism, you will see the fundamental circularity of what you are saying.

Has it ever occurred to you that other people have thought through all these issues more and better than you, and proved with arguments that you can’t refute, that Marx, and you, are wrong?

Go ahead. Refute Mises total demolition of your and Marx's entire argument in the essay to which I posted a link above.

The difference between your arguments and mine is that yours don’t understand, and don’t refute mine, whereas mine do understand, and completely demolish yours - and you simply don't understand what they are!

If you can refute Mises argument in the link I posted, go ahead.

If you can’t do it, or don’t try, you’ve proved everything I said for me.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 7:57:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article Tristan. And I'm relieved to see some great and thoughtful responses. Often the general quality on OLO can be rather disheartening.

The Andrew Bolts of this world spew out the most ridiculous tripe and have far too big a platform to do so, sadly it gets mindless sheep bleating loudly and in unison.

Marxist theory must be taught. His thinking had and still has enormous influence on political and economic thinking in the world.

On the notion of democracy. There are a number of OLO posters who are scared of people who think differently and probably would much prefer to live in a totalitarian state where everything is simply shaded in black and white where everyone agrees on which is what.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 9:30:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that Marxism needs to be renovated to suit the new world we are moving into and that much of the debased commentary we see earlier in this thread is based on past history which was messed up by the Cold War. Even Bolt is running an old-style irrelevant Red Scare.

If capitalism was as wonderful as some think how come there is so much unemployment through Europe, poverty and homelessness in the United States and national debt in Japan and UK?

The MP Andrew Leigh has published a book showing that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and it does not really matter if the poor are increasing their wealth slightly if the middle class stride ahead and executive incomes explode.

So I like the relative argument - argued above.

Following this, I am more interested in Marxism than I may have been a few years ago.

Although I cannot stand the crude tactics of some, but - 'nuff said?
Posted by old zygote, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 10:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Old zygote
I would be astonished if Andrew Leigh has written that the poor are getting poorer. The general tenor of his work is to celebrate the growth in living standards since the industrial revolution:
http://andrewleigh.com/index.php/writing2/92-economics-home-page/writing/economics/238-the-pro-growth-progressive

He has written about the decline in social capital, but that is not the same as financial capital. Can you post a link to your reference?
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 10:52:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be honest, I have never really cared for any theory. I don't actually believe there is an fool proof theory for politics or economics.

However, given Marxism is taught at universities, l wish they had also taught more of Austrian school and other streams of thought.

I read it every now and then, and struggle to understand it, but do agree with elements of it.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/austrian-school-of-economics.asp
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 11:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
for example, I do not believe that socialism can work to deliver the optimal society.

But generally agree with the following:

'The Austrian school holds that business cycles are caused by distortion in interest rates due to the government's attempt to control money. Misallocation of capital takes place if the interest rates are kept artificially low or high by the intervention of the government. Ultimately, the economy goes through recession in order to restore the natural progress'.

I don't agree 100%, but who has benefited most from QE in the US? It is the rich while the economy hops along. I actually shed tears when QE started. Without knowing the details, going on my gut feeling, it just seemed wrong and would ensure economic mediocrity for a longer period.

There are obviously strengths and weaknesses in various theories, but history shows the failure of collectivist theories.

I have always supported liberal democracies that have a history that seeks to balance market forces with the right degree of govt intervention, although the extent of the latter's involvement is open to debate.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 26 February 2014 11:18:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine K. Jardine

Judging by your language and rationality, it seems you do not want a reply.

You use such tone that anyone replying would be bound to use the same, but would be totally embarrassed in doing so.

The only audience you deserve is the bathroom mirror.
Posted by Christopher Warren, Thursday, 27 February 2014 10:22:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Old zygote, like all good commies persists. There is an immense, well pitiful, irony in someone called old zygote supporting Marxism; both are the result of arrested development.

Old arrested development says new Marxism is going to be different from the past one which caused all those deaths and destruction; trust Marxism he says, it's changed.

Yet here we have inner city trendy Yvonne saying:

"The Andrew Bolts of this world spew out the most ridiculous tripe and have far too big a platform to do so, sadly it gets mindless sheep bleating loudly and in unison."

Nothing has changed. The left have always been snobs who look down on the hoi polloi. Such snobbery motivated Finkelstein who was upset the "mindless sheep" were being led astray by Murdoch and for instance no longer believed the priests of AGW.

The left like the workers; as pets; same with the aboriginals and the boat people; they like victims so they can make rules and regulations and look important. Marxism is perfect from them; everyone is equal except the bosses and the bosses are the most useless but the most strident whingers who are the left.

Rhian mentions social capital; Alexis de Tocqueville's definition of SC is still the best and still depends, indeed is a product of individual rights and an open transparent society. This is the antithesis of Marxism. And isn't it odd there is no philanthropy in commie nations; I suppose the Marxists will say none is necessary since everyone is equal.

Anyway Bolt's piece was not about banning the study of Marxism but the advocacy of it by the usual leftie academics who have had such a pernicious influence in recent times.

Chris Lewis is upset at the QE; I guess this will make him distraught:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/02/22/the-end-of-the-age-of-austerity-even-before-it-began/
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 27 February 2014 11:02:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

No I have toughened up a bit, although some documentaries and movies still cause me to shed a tear.

Yes, it is sad. These people, those in power, simply make up new strategies as they go along.

I have my doubts that QE is good for the US or world in the long-term.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 27 February 2014 11:15:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NB: I am making a correction to my last post here where I wrote:

"Finally: That's not saying that there are not forces which exist which are outside what can be verified immediately and empirically. ...The boom-bust cycle in capitalism, the tendency to monopoly, the falling wage share of the economy, reserve army of labour and so on."

These things - boom-bust cycle, monopolism, falling wage share etc - are things that CAN be verified though empirical research. But only collectively...through social effort. Hence my error which funnily enough no one else picked...

What cannot be determined is whether or not capitalism will collapse. Because there is constant technological innovation that improves living standards even as the wage share falls and exploitation intensifies.

But modern capitalism is also based on 'core-periphery' economic relations where the Third World is 'externalised' from the core capitalist economy; serving both as a market to dump some goods; but even more so as a source of cheap labour - which faces hyper-exploitation...

But rebellion against this could upset the whole core-periphery economic order - on which the prosperity of core economies partly rests; And through which many of us are "bought off"; We are exploited ourselves - but we accede to it because we benefit in the grand scheme from the exploitation of others. (the same can occur WITHIN the domestic working class as well; 'aristocracy of labour' etc; lack of respect for the working poor, welfare dependents etc...

The possibility that the advanced capitalist world could ultimately establish such a global order as the basis of peace within that world - was referred to as 'ultra-imperialism' by Karl Kautsky. No more world wars would be good; but a tendency towards such an arrangement is still unjust... Though 'ultra-imperialism' has not been realised in the sense that there is still Great Power rivalry; eg: Russia and 'the West'; China and its neighbours etc...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 27 February 2014 11:17:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few more responses:

Andrew Oliver says that he's sympathetic with Popper's critique of Marxism; But he does not refer to anything specifically said about AUSTRO-MARXISM and its particular history - to which I again point to their historic record. (see: the original article)

Neither is there a response to my point re: Francis Fukuyama. (the logic of my point being that you cannot dismiss socialism on account of objections to Hegelianism - because by the same logic you'd rule out liberal democracy on account of Fukuyama)

The problem with the Hegelian dialectic is that "the real" is identified with "the rational" and it "inevitable" in the logical schema; But even if one thinks something is 'rational' or 'inevitable' does not mean you accept it as right. (See: Adorno and Negative Dialectics, 'bad totality'.

IN any case there are many who have been strongly influenced by Marxism who do not accept 'monism', 'hard materialism/determinism" or 'closure'. (again: take Bernstein and the Post-Marxists) I consider myself very much influenced by Marxist tradition - but also by Post-Marxism and 'democratic Revisionism.' I believe in a mixture of 'logic' or 'structure' and 'agency'... ie: History is partially determined by the logic of economy and class struggle - but while it is difficult - it is not impossible to overcome this through collective 'will to power'; THOUGH hopefully not a take on 'will to power' which involves repression, war and Terror...

re: Absolutism - there were parallels in the sense that if you take a (non-Marxist) definition of class - the privileged strata who benefited most under Stalinism could be interpreted like that... Though even then the distributive inequalities were negligible compared with modern capitalism....

Cohenite admits he knows of Orwell - and yet seems to think it is *irrelevant* that he fought alongside Marxists an was a democratic socialist. (enough said)

He mentions Churchill; But seems to think the First World War and over 20 million deaths is NOT worth mentioning.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 27 February 2014 11:46:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite

Now quoting catallaxy?! - Blimey. The world's worst, crudest, dumbest, redneck, and rightwing peddlers of Bolted rubbish.

They are in a world of their own.

I am OK with Marxism in universities because this is where it can be intellectually test, applied, and developed.

Keep catallaxy out, I say. They seem intent into turning Australia into a debt ridden, low-wage, police-driven, capitalist wasteland.
Posted by old zygote, Thursday, 27 February 2014 12:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan
Your earlier post looked like an inadvertent error – your meaning was clear

Marx made several empirically testable claims about future economic trends, including:

1. Real wages would fall and hours of work would rise
2. Skilled labour would decline and unskilled would increase
3. recessions would become deeper and more pronounced
4. The labour share of GDP would fall

Empirically,
1. Real wages have risen massively and hours of work have fallen
2. The proportion of unskilled workers in the workforce has fallen to all-time lows
3. The business cycle became more pronounced in the late 19th century and 1st half of the 20th, but since WW2 it has become much less so, with recession being shorter, shallower and less frequent. Even the GFC was mild compared to the 1890s or 1930s
4. There is no systemic trend upwards or downwards in the labour share of GDP. It rose between the 1940s and 1970s and has since declined, but is still above pre WW2 levels

Capitalism will doubtless end one day, as every past socioeconomic system has. Whether it collapses in apocalyptic chaos, as Marx expected (and Marxists seem to hope), or evolves into something else, time will tell. But Marx's theory of how and why it might collapse can be empirically disproven
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 27 February 2014 12:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian:

You make a number of observations from a selection of Marxist predictions. Yes Marx got a lot wrong.Bernstein said as much, still considering himself Marxist.

The wage share of the economy HAS been shrinking for *many* decades and surely that demonstrates something. Early Marxists did not predict how far technological improvements would go. They also didn't anticipate the sustained and extreme exploitation of the Third World; or the domestic exploitation of the working poor.

Things they got right:

* The working class grew - the old petty bourgeoisie gradually shrank. Though the working class became divided within itself - the extent of which Marx did not predict. Hence: aristocracy of labour, working poor/underclass etc. Some consider the 'aristocracy of labour' to be 'middle class'; That at least fits in with Bernstein's scheme of the middle class dying in one form - only to be brought back in another...

* the business cycle remains, as does capitalist crisis (eg: the GFC), and built-in obsolescence, overproduction etc.

* Capitalism remains tied to exploitation/domination of the world market; still creating conflict... Hence Imperialism. (a notion shared with liberals like J.A.Hobson)

* There remains a tendency for profits to fall - though technology can ameliorate; and a tendency towards monopolism

* Deskilling is a tendency - but in a similar vein to Bernstein we can see that skill jobs disappear in one form - to be resurrected in another...

* Class struggle IS a driving force in history - But contra Marx there are other factors that meaningfully influence the course of history...

* Wages over the long term have fallen in terms of the proportion of the proceeds of labour being returned to labour... Wages still involve the paying of only a proportion of the proceeds of a workers' labour. There is still unpaid labour time.

* In capitalism - and indeed some other potential forms of modernity - alienation persists - either because of the nature of the work (dull, repetitive, physically demanding); and because of the division of labour and lack of creative control or expression...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 27 February 2014 12:38:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

From what I see of the Austro Marxist and Euro Marxists, they are fractious rabble with ideologies varying from rabidly Stalinist to mildly socialist.

There has not been a single Marxist success story, which is why most exist only in history.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 27 February 2014 1:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/more-proof-rich-getting-richer-poor-poorer-154916333.html

If you read this, you will see

Credit Suisse projects wealth for those in the bottom percentile will steadily fall over the next 60 years.

Geez, I wonder who predicted this?
Posted by old zygote, Thursday, 27 February 2014 3:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don’t verbal me Tristan. I never said anything about the First World War.

And you obviously do not understand Orwell. Orwell was an erudite but practical man. He did espouse Marxism and put his life where his mouth was. But he saw what Marxism inevitably comes: communism with all its attendant inhumanity. Animal Farm is a description of that process. It is you who does not understand Animal Farm

It is sophistry to say that Marxism is fine and distinguishable from the other collective and non-individual social forms. It isn’t, it is a precursor, a necessary pre-condition for the abhorrent progenies such as communism and, as I define above, fascism. In fact communism and fascism only differ to the extent fascism replaces class warfare with national warfare. Both are inextricably linked by a suppression of individuality and the veneration of the leader within fascism is closely mirrored with the adoration received by such communistic leaders as Stalin, ZeDong, Pol Pot and the grotesque North Korean ‘leaders’. So when Orwell and the other Marxists were fighting fascism they were actually fighting themselves to see which totalitarian group would take over.

We see this sort of sectarianism in all totalitarian forms especially Islam.

Tristan is obviously well read. But it is all Ivory Tower BS. The plebs are not going to sit down and have a debate about Fukuyama and Hegel. The leaders will amuse themselves in their parlours with this stuff while the Big Brother bureaucracy, which is inherent in Marxism, will create a grey goo among the proletariat.

And that’s what Marxism is, a grey goo; a big straight jacket on the human spirit. Only the apparatchiks and commissars will stand out like dung beetles.

Taxpayer funded education in Australia used to be vocational. Wyndham has a lot to answer for because from his generalised education principles a generation of useless, self-indulgent academics have sprung up claiming expertise to justify their egos and support for abhorrent social forms like Marxism and islam.

Old zyggy; wants Marxism tested in Uni’s. Take it to Catallaxy for a real test you coward.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 27 February 2014 4:03:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan: As you say, I am sympathetic to Popper's critique of Hegal and Marx ... but I do not see myself as a Marxist and neither did Popper ...

I have some commitment to some social democrat values and agendas, and some commitment to some Christian democrat values and agendas: you'd probably regard me as confused in not adopting a consolidated single value single issue single ideology commitment!

Let's discuss a common situation and the remedies Popper, were he alive today, would regard as moot and just remedies to that situation ...

Imagine an employee whose employer offers inadequate financial consideration, compared to community standards conceded in the community wherein the workplace does business. And, in addition, compared with the community standards, the employee's conditions are substandard. In short, the employee is not receiving valuable consideration for their labour ...

Now, Popper was very committed to liberal civil and political rights. Popper would see it as legitimate for the various employees of said employer to form an association with objects to remedy their situation. And, if need be, being employees, and not slaves or serfs, to resign en masse and stand around outside their former employer's business premises with banners and leaflets advocating that third parties boycott said business for not paying its employees properly! That said, especially after he drifted rightwards after arriving in England just after world war two, he was opposed, as the song would have it, to employees having the right to strike effectively. In other words, criminal damage of the employer's property, physical assaults on the employer or the employer's managers, these tactics were subject to proscription as violating Popper's commitments to the civil and political rights of the employer.

It is some years since I have read Popper on this subject. However, this is my summary of his views, based on my having read, closely or quickly, no fewer than ten separate books he wrote on politics and philosophy ...

Piecemeal social engineering, done de-centralised by individuals by free organization, he could support.
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Thursday, 27 February 2014 5:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jez you blokes

Andrew bolt isn't a threat to democracy. He's part of it. Why do you hate him so much?
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 27 February 2014 5:50:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Andrew bolt isn't a threat to democracy. He's part of it. Why do you hate him so much?" The answer is obvious, they hate democracy; democracy is true equality and Marxists and the left can't stand equality because they, in their own 'minds', think they are so much better than other people.

One of the best rebuttals of Marxism has been written by Mark Latham of all people:

http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/consumers_rule_where_politicians_qP8onOO0SmoeXgXQg7ys3N

Consumption is the ultimate act of individuality, deciding what you are going to buy, frivolous or otherwise, which is why left hypocrites and anti-democrats like Hamilton despise consumption. Latham says:

"The industry’s demise is a tipping point in Australia’s political economy. It’s a victory for consumers over the ineffectiveness of subsidisation. It’s a sign that after 23 years of continuous economic growth and wealth creation, the consumption side of the economy has become more powerful than the production side. Cashed-up shoppers are exercising greater purchasing muscle than the feeble industry plans of union hand-maidens like Carr. Consumerism has finally beaten interventionism.

The political class does not want to hear this, but we have entered an era of marginalised government. Each day, the big news in the Australian economy is the strength of millions of consumer decisions, but this is essentially unreported in the electronic media. Where’s the headline or controversy in people shopping? If politicians focused on the importance of consumer decision-making, how could they blame each other for economic uncertainty and unemployment?"

Consumption is choice, the nemesis of Marxism and the other wretched left dystopias.

As a corollary I wonder whether any of these proto Marxists snipping away have ever been in business and not on the public teat.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 27 February 2014 6:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ShadowMinister points to the diversity of Marxist and Marxist-derived perspectives. He suggests it is a bad thing. But in a sense that diversity is a strength - with people holding everything from 'moderate' to 'the most radical' politics finding inspiration in the Marxist tradition; and the emerging critical theory and post-Marxist traditions. As I've said before - my own politics owe a lot to Marxist tradition - but also to democratic revisionism and radical social liberalism. Bernstein argued socialism was liberalism's 'spiritual successor'. Interestingly if you go all the way back to J.S.Mill you will say that political and social liberals have always had an affinity with the democratic forms of socialism. Personally I don't accept the trendy 'absolute relativism' either; and I've long had issue with interpretations of Marx's 'anti-utopianism' as justifying the lack, at least, of 'provisional utopias' - that is actual 'blueprints' for the future (though always open to revision as circumstances dictate).

We've also established that atrocities have been committed as much for the sake of capitalism as for the sake of 'communism'. But Cohenite says the only difference between communism and fascism is that one promotes class struggle and the other national struggle. Yet capitalism in all its various forms that has brought us wars for over 100 years. (not only during the Cold War either) Go all the way back to the Opium Wars if you wish - with the purpose of 'forcing open Chinese markets'...

And CRUCIALLY Marxists and other socialists always saw the class struggle as dovetailing with the struggle for democracy. As I argue in the article Marxists were at the forefront of the fight for liberty and democracy in a Europe which was entering the twilight of the old Imperial Absolutism. And as I also argued - Marxists like Kautsky, Martov, Luxemburg - criticised the Bolsheviks because they broke this traditional nexus between socialism (equality), liberty and democracy. THERE'S a world of difference therefore between this kind of Marxism and Fascism; internationalism and peace versus nationalism and war; class struggle for democracy and freedom versus extreme authoritarian corporatism...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 27 February 2014 7:01:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

If the internal dynamics of capitalism make a declining labour share inevitable, why did it not happen until the 1970s/80s?

Yes, the business cycle remains, but it shows no sign of tearing the economy apart, as Marx predicted.

See my earlier comments of the fallacies of “dependency theories” and the exploitation of developing countries.

As Cohenite has pointed out, the labour theory of value has long been debunked (except to the extent that it is trivially true – wages do not equal the value of production) it has no explanatory or causative value.

There is no evidence of deskilling, quite the reverse. Unskilled occupations account for a declining share of employment.

How do you square your claim that profits are falling with the falling share of labour? If Labour’s share is falling, Gross Operating Surplus must be rising. And p/e ratios have been pretty stable over 20 years

The important thing is not that some of Marx’s predictions are wrong – all forecasters get stuff wrong – but that he saw these trends as inevitable consequences of the structure and dynamic of capitalism. His model was wrong. In particular, the “law of increasing poverty” is wrong.

This underpinned the political attractiveness of Marxism – if capitalism must produce ever diminishing living standards, longer hours, worse working conditions etc, then an alternative looks attractive. But capitalism has delivered most of the benefits that Marx expected from Communism, and few of the horrors that real-life Communism has actually delivered.

Old zygote

“the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”

It’s what the headline says, but its not what the report actually shows, at least on my inspection. It certainly finds a high level of inequality, (the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer). But in absolute terms, wealth increased for the poor as well as the rich, and is expected to continue doing so (pp.25, 38, 42).

And it’s not by Andrew Leigh
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 27 February 2014 7:31:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris, slimy evasion way too transparent, I'm afraid.

Got that proof of the labour theory of value there, fellahs?

No? Thought not.

What we have just established is that:
1. all the leftists are wrong since every single one of their posts consists of nothing but fallacies endlessly repeated
2. they know this and have not the slightest interest in intellectual honesty
3. they persist in adhering to and propagating by lies what has been demonstrated both in theory and practice, and what they know to be a slave/parasite/genocidal creed,
4. given the chance, they would kill thousands of millions of people, just as their ideal policies - pubic ownership and control of the means of production - killed hundreds of millions in the last century
5. to the extent they resile from supporting full socialism, and recognise that individual and economic freedom are necessary to prevent socialism degenerating into tyranny and genocide, they contradict themselves in alleging the superiority of public ownership and control of the means of production
6. they claim they are not totalitarian but the reason they cannot and will not answer how they identify the limits of legitimate government power is because they don't believe in them and don't recognise any. They are totalitarian authoritarians to the marrow.
7. their support for socialist policies today has the effect of killing large numbers of people for example the 4 million a day dying from energy poverty caused by their idiotic attempts to fine-tune the winds that blow, and by destruction of capital everywhere in the world where socialist policies are followed
8. they support the propagation of their ideology in universities because they know that no-one would voluntarily pay for it
9. they don't understand Marxism
10. Bolt and all of the leftists' critics understand Marxism better than they do.

And what is their only reply to rational disproofs they can't answer? Evasion, circularity and ad hom!

Socialists are by far the biggest single vector of unfreedom, poverty, injustice, violence and exploitation in Australia and the world.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 27 February 2014 9:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the evidence is:

"Credit Suisse projects wealth for those in the bottom percentile will steadily fall over the next 60 years".

Then you would be a denialist to go off searching for some other concept.

The key point has already been made, if the poor go from one bowl of rice to two bowls of rice, while the rich go from 5 bowls of rice to 25, then the poor have got poorer.

Anyone who just prattles on about the fact that the poor improved their rice wealth, irrespective of the overall context, is deliberately looking at this change in isolation. Those who operate from a moral basis will look at the context.

Finally the same social forces that create a greater gap will drive the poor even harder, as Credit Suisse projects.

Some countries, with strong welfare states, may pass most of the burden onto real wage cuts for the middle classes - loss of penalty rates being the first cab of the rank.

Credit Suisse used household balance sheets - the structural trends are better observed in the ILO's factor-shares approach.
Posted by old zygote, Thursday, 27 February 2014 11:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And just to emphasise the inanity of our capitalist loving rednecks, I just happen to have Thursday's Australian Financial Review, and sure enough, on page 26, sourced from UK Financial Times, we see a rare picture of building workers plus the comment:

"Wages have been falling in real terms since the 1990s in Japan"

Marx would be pleased. Andrew Bolt and Catallaxy will probably go into apoplexy.
Posted by old zygote, Friday, 28 February 2014 8:56:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even if you're right old retrobate all the Japanese are shareholders and their dividends have been going up to compensate.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 28 February 2014 10:37:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Old zygote

You say:
“If the poor go from one bowl of rice to two bowls of rice, while the rich go from 5 bowls of rice to 25, then the poor have got poorer”

To show the absurdity of your example, let’s assume a Socialist government is elected and decides to reverse this terrible iniquity. The rich are stripped of their extra 20 bowls a day, and fall from 25 bowls to 5 of rice. The poor also lose their extra bowl, falling from 2 bowls to 1 bowl of rice a day. In your logic, this would be a victory for poverty reduction. In mine, it would be a 50% reduction in real living standards.

As Churchill said:
“the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”

I don’t deny that poverty has both an absolute and a relative dimension. I also support a role for government in income redistribution and poverty alleviation.

And when Marx talked of the law of poverty he was talking of absolute, not relative poverty.

Re Japan
No-one says real wages are always and everywhere increasing, especially in the short term

Have you found that Andrew Leigh reference yet?
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 28 February 2014 11:01:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You must be an academic old zygote, only a fool could put your interpretation on things.

A man with one bowl of rice who finds himself with 2 is greatly enriched. he has gone from insufficient to excess. He can now walk the land with a full belly in happiness.

The man who goes from 5 to 25 has gained stuff all. He can drive a bigger car, live in a bigger house, but those things give but a few minutes gratification, not to be compared with the wellbeing of the other.

I have mixed with people you would consider poor. They could build themselves a house for free from palm fronds, & all the food they wanted was there for the taking. I have not known happier people.

I have met their brothers who have been put through school, & university. That they now hold senior positions in the bureaucracy, live in fine houses & eat in the best restaurants has not made them happy, & their education & wealth make it impossible to go back to the old island life.

Be careful what you wish for, you could be unlucky enough to get it.

Oh & don't put your faith in prophecies by Credit Suisse, climate scientists or anyone else for that matter. Most prophecies are in the bin, with their author trying to pretend they never existed within a few years.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 28 February 2014 11:22:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian; You say that labour theory of value "has been debunked" and that so has Marx's theory of declining wages.

Marx rightly perceived that labour is in a sense the source of all value... (in addition to Nature!) For instance gold is valuable because of its rarity and the difficulty in mining it - this translates in a large amount of labour... But the PRICE also depends on demand and supply... So an extra layer of complexity....

But at the same time Marx erred, I think, in not discerning the subjective value of labour insofar as it relates to of skills, hardship, productivity etc... Produced goods are there because of creative labour... But is all labour equal? That's the problem...

Also importantly, though - It remains true from Marx that workers suffer unpaid labour time as a consequence of surplus value/exploitation... Even if not all labour is equal - exploitation still remains...

Part of the answer (at least in theory; the means of achieving it in the real world is arguably missing for now) is for workers to receive the full proceeds of their labour; but with room for the role of distribution and exchange also... And if the labour market does not give a fair deal to workers - then there is a need to intervene via the welfare state/social wage/tax mix.... (which is achievable now)

Re: Declining wages - You admit the wage share has been falling for about 40 years... Yes there was the post-war boom; and labour was well-organised and powerful for a period.... But I wonder what we would uncover is we looked back to the period spanning the 19th to mid 20 century? I think it would show that declining wage share was a TENDENCY then as well...

Marx and Lassalle were wrong about absolute imiseration; But Marxists have long recognised that productivity and technology have improved living standards even at the same time as exploitation has intensified....
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 28 February 2014 1:17:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

I was not pointing out the Austro Marxists "diversity", I was pointing out that most of them had very little in common in as much as Hitler and Stalin's ideas were diverse. The only common thread is that they wanted greater government involvement in the markets. To try and paint the Austro Marxists as a "movement" rather than a series of diverse groups is disingenuous.

Secondly, that labour is the source of all value is a simplistic and archaic concept, as labour is useless without capital and entrepreneurship. The state can create and control capital, but not entrepreneurship, which is why every communist regime has collapsed or is collapsing.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 28 February 2014 2:34:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister:

You say labour is nothing without capital; Capital serves a particular function as 'oiling the wheels of investment' under capitalism. A legitimate function. But then the question is "who creates capital?", and "who owns and controls capital"? Borrowing and investment aren't a problem - but a Capitalist ruling class IS.

My response would be state aid for credit unions to play a much larger role in the economy - as well as democratic collective capital formation. Point being to pursue the practical functions of investment and credit - but to take steps to democratise these. (again: think credit unions, but also a state owned savings and investments bank; deployment of pension funds etc) The aim would be an economy with capital - but without capitalists - without a rentier class that enjoys grossly disproportionate power as a consequence of its wealth.

You also say there is need for entrepreneurship. But initiative and imagination can work in a collective context as well with producers' co-operatives. And 'entrepreneurs' could enter into business arrangements with co-operative and other democratic bodies - while maintaining intellectual property rights and benefiting thus.

Finally on this theme: Arguably labour can do without capital - but it does not apply vice-versa. That said - savings, borrowing, investment - all 'grease the wheels' of the economy. There is a legitimate place for all this therefore - but co-operative bodies and poorer innovators should also have access to capital. And that's where state-aid could factor in.

AND re: Austro-Marxism - yes they were very diverse in theory. But they were largely unified in seeking a practical 'Third Way' between Bolshevism and opportunist Right Social Democracy. Also they were unified in PRACTICAL efforts through the Social Democratic Workers' Party - and I ask you to look at their specific achievements in Vienna before making the judgement that 'all Marxism and socialism has been a failure'. Again look to my article in the paragraph where I list all their achievements. After you've done that get back to me and we'll see what you say...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 28 February 2014 3:50:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian

The so-called labour theory of value (LTV) was refuted by Marx. He proposed instead that exchange value of a commodity equaled the socially necessary labour necessary for its reproduction (ie to produce the next item). Marx's theory of value is actually a sophisticated, developed form of an earlier LTV.

So when most people criticise the LTV, they usually engage in refuting the LTV of Adam Smith and confuse this with Marx's. Paul Samuelson was a past master at spreading such confusion.
Posted by Christopher Warren, Friday, 28 February 2014 4:24:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

The decline in wage share across the developed world began in the late 1980s after a period of decades when it had been so stable (apart from cyclical variations) that fairly constant shares to labour and capital were taken for granted as a normal feature of the economy (Kaldor in 1957 included it as one of the “stylized facts” about the economy in the long term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor's_facts ).

In Australia, the pattern was somewhat different, with a rising labour share from the 1950s, to the 1970s, falling to the early 2000s, and fairly stable thereafter.

The evidence actually shows for the very long term a trend to rising wage shares in industrialising economies from the mid nineteenth to mid 20th century:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=VFo-VYNURaoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=income+distribution+in+historical+perspective&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cCsQU6vJD4LtkAXI54CgBQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=income%20distribution%20in%20historical%20perspective&f=false
(p.35 and table on p.36)

So there is no evidence of systemic or inevitable decline in the labour share; quite the reverse. It is the more recent trends that appear anomalous. But I do agree they are troubling from a welfare and equity perspective, especially if they continue.

You pick up on one concern in the Labour Theory of Value (not all labour is equal). Even assuming an additive approach to value is correct, others are treating natural resources as essentially valueless until improved by labour, assuming capital adds nothing to value beyond its embedded labour and fixed capital, blurring of capital as a stock or a flow, and inadequate treatment of intellectual capital. Then of course is the question of the value to the consumer of what is produced – though Marx recognised “use-value”, he treated utility as of secondary importance, whereas later the marginalists came to a far more comprehensive and (in my view) plausible explanation of price and value.

To say that profit equates to unpaid labour and is therefore exploitation is more to propound a definition than to provide an explanation.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 28 February 2014 4:35:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I understand Marx's theory is as follows; First there is a tendency towards a falling rate of profit; largely because competition drives constant modernisation of the means of production and more and more labour must go into this modernisation; and while innovation is a good thing the cost of this constant modernisation is passed on to workers and consumers. Many smaller businesses cannot keep up either - and this drives monopolism.

Though this was always understood as a *tendency* and not an absolute. And it was also considered to be ameliorated/offset because innovation can also improve productivity radically. Anyway, though - as far as the tendency does apply - bosses respond by increasing the intensity of exploitation. ie: The wage share of the economy falls;

This can result in under-consumption, and the response of hyper-exploitation of and dumping on to the market of - the Third World. Here improved technology also means some of these Third World countries have improving material living standards even amdist the hyper-exploitation... But the relatively drastic fall of wages since the 1970s can also be traced to the Oil Shocks - which drastically affected cost structures.

Also - I find it interesting - arguments that the wage share didn't fall in Australia until the late 80s - because the Accord saw falling real wages from the early to mid 80s....

Re: the wage share of the economy from the 19th century to 1945 - I tried following the link you provided but could not get access to page 35....

Chris Warren - If you read this; You're probably better read re: Marxism than I am; Do you know of any statistics backing the case that wage share fell during this earlier period? (say 1850 to 1945)
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 28 February 2014 6:23:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now we all need a good laugh.

Here is our struggling Rhian, having to now rely on blatant falsification, given that opportunist arguments have failed and baiting has not worked.

According to Rhian's falsification, I claimed that if:

"the poor also lose their extra bowl, falling from 2 bowls to 1 bowl of rice a day. IAccording to my logic)this would be a victory for poverty reduction."

This is false and Rhian knew it was false when he constructed this lie.

If anyone's wealth falls from 2 bowls to 1 bowl, this is always and only, represents the opposite of poverty reduction.

The reduction in income increases poverty. There is no so-called "victory for poverty reduction"

The stupidity of Rhian's statement is only equaled by cohenite who argued that the GFC was caused by Marxism.

Two peas in a pod here. And they both want champion redneck capitalism.

They really are laughing stocks.
Posted by old zygote, Friday, 28 February 2014 10:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Old zygote
All I did was point out the internal inconsistency of your argument. Neither of us believes that halving the income of the poor Is good for them. But you definition of poverty implies it's ok.
How's the Andrew Leigh reference going ?
Posted by Rhian, Saturday, 1 March 2014 12:21:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

"First there is a tendency towards a falling rate of profit; largely because competition drives constant modernisation of the means of production and more and more labour must go into this modernisation; and while innovation is a good thing the cost of this constant modernisation is passed on to workers and consumers. Many smaller businesses cannot keep up either - and this drives monopolism."

The reality is very different: competition drives modernisation, which drives productivity and specialisation. Productivity drives wage increases, prices of goods dropping, and specialisation drives the creation of small companies to supply the large companies.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 1 March 2014 3:53:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

A Google search:

http://www.google.com.au/#q=real+%2Bwages+historical+data

will bring up several references including a pdf of Orley Ashenfelter's "Comparing Real Wages Rates" Amer. Ec. Rev, April, 2012.

At page 4 he addresses this issue and cites Douglas (1930). This source is in Australian libraries.

Ashenfelter says: "In the United States ... even though output per hour increased in (1890-1914) real wages did not".

This is consistent with Marx.

Trade union struggles have to some extend alleviated 'capitalism in the raw' but today, most unions feel gratified if they get pay increases that merely keep pace with long-run inflation. In effect this is a real wage cut. It can be traced by watching various Australian award rates drop beneath the Henderson Poverty line.

Now we are hearing calls from various companies (QANTAS, Hunter Valley coal) to cut labour costs.

Economically, if a machine is imported from a low wage economy, and increases productivity in Australia by reducing the workforce, or shifting it to part-time, this amounts to a real wage cut in total. Even if the remaining hours are paid at higher rates.

If the machine was constructed and maintained domestically, things may be different.
Posted by Christopher Warren, Saturday, 1 March 2014 7:56:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

Your claim: "Productivity drives wage increases" only applies before Marxist crisis tendencies overwhelm countervailing tendencies.

From then on productivity leaves wages stagnant. This is clear, see:

http://www.archive.is/im398

If you click through to:

... the paper by the economist Lawrence Mishel [Economic Policy Institute] more will be revealed.

In advanced capitalism (eg. from 1970's), productivity does not drive wage increases, probably because with the amount of invested capital, most of the fresh product must go to rent and EBIT to maintain the same rate of profit.

This is a structural problem that must be understood.
Posted by Christopher Warren, Saturday, 1 March 2014 9:05:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem in Australia is that Unions have priced their businesses out of a market share. In every one of the recent business closures from the cars to SPC to Qantas union bast...ry played a crucial role in their demise aided and abetted by the left policy of the carbon tax especially with Alcoa, Qantas and perhaps Virgin greatly affected.

For instance the union background at Qantas is described by Judith Sloan:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/02/28/what-joyce-was-up-against/

This has nothing to do with conditions or wages but is rooted entirely in union dominance. The same dominance and its ideological basis was demonstrated during WW11 as described by Colebatch:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/unions-exposed-as-war-saboteurs/story-fni0cwl5-1226751793596

Unions ran NSW through the crooks Obeid and McDonald; the HSU scandal will have its consequence not through Thomson's jailing but the enquiry which will lift the lid on the putridity through the rest of the union movement and if there is any justice Gillard will face criminal charges.

And this is the point; unions are the foot soldiers of Marx against the evil capitalist; yet like all Marxists they prey on their charges and on the West generally.

Their political wing, the Greens, are even worse:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/03/01/moral-compass/

This is not theory as Tristan belts out but the reality. Marxism sucks.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 1 March 2014 9:55:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite - Yes there's a progressive side to the competition/modernisation dynamic. It helps drive productivity and quality. And I don't see a fully planned economy as an alternative. Further: I'm with Heller/Fehr/Markus when they argue that consumers need markets in order to determine their own needs structures (that was their critique of 'big 'C' Communism')- BUT WITHIN REASON - because of areas of natural public monopoly - including most kinds of infrastructure/utilities etc; and other areas of strategic intervention.

In fact we are locked in to the global capitalist economy by trade; and Australian workers and citizens are better off if they are able to benefit from the innovations of the big multinationals than if they were locked into a kind of 'autarky'. We need to open up markets for our exports too; though again free trade should not be 'absolute' if it means losing strategic capacities, or opening ourselves up for dumping etc....

But there are other problems - such as planned obsolescence, and staggered release of technology in order to boost profits. Consumers are lucky these days if (every expensive) white goods and electricals last five years... This requires regulation.

Also capital flows to the areas of highest profitability - but that's not always where there was the need. For instance - rural Commonwealth Bank branches closing down with privatisation; Australia Post services being compromised to fatten up for privatisation. GM Holden was also profitable "but not profitable enough" for the capitalists - But the auto industry is relatively high wage - and there are the capacities and skills at stake as well... Call it 'market failure' - it's everywhere.

Also we can have the benefits of markets without the exploitation through state aid for co-operative enterprises - consumer AND producers' co-ops. And government business enterprise can actually enhance competition while provide services on the basis of need. In other words a kind of 'hybrid' which responds to market forces - but goes against them when there's an important social interest.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Saturday, 1 March 2014 10:21:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a fantastic thread! It has brought out the best in all our resident intellectuals yet, sadly, it seems to have solved nothing.

It did take a lot of words to solve nothing, didn't it? While the argument raged (what was it all about? Does anyone remember? Does anyone care?) Russia invaded the Ukraine.

Now I know the argument about Bolt in Australia is very important. It is nearly as important as the argument about Abbott and his credentials to be P.M. Did they really experience clerical interference during their formative years? Did either one enjoy it? Did it add to their psycho-social development or their auto-immune system?

I think it's time to spill the beans. It should happen in Parliament of course. Bronny would have such fun. "Did you enjoy it, Dear?" would be one of her more frequent question. "Why didn't you tell your parents," would be another.

As nuclear war breaks out, Australia will be caught up in a massive, messy, sexual investigation which will last for years. The reverberations will be infinite, profound.

The final question that will be asked is: Did Australian political and intellectual development take place under the heaving sheets of Catholic or Salvation Army Institutions, etc, and can its negative effects be reversed?

Perhaps nuclear war will wipe out our unfolding splendid history and leave some questions unanswered!
Posted by David G, Sunday, 2 March 2014 12:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David; I hope it doesn't come to war in the Ukraine. Even more so I hope it doesn't come to nuclear war. The question is whether Europe/the US will intervene if the Russians try and take Crimea. Probably the Russians will want to maintain their Naval Base and hence access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Does anyone remember when the US went into Panama to keep control of the Panama Canal? Or consider the oppression in Bahrain where the US also has a base? This seems to be a similar situation. It's not good; but it doesn't have to spiral into a Great Power conflict. Though there is a significant Russian minority in the east of Ukraine. Perhaps there should be a plebiscite? But the troops have already moved in.

There's also the question that if there is a compromise - maybe it could end in Russia agreeing to use its leverage on Iran to end its nuclear weapons programme.

All this said the arguments we've had here are important. Isn't Marxism partly concerned with imperialism, nationalism, colonialism and the causes of war?
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 2 March 2014 12:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brilliant non sequiturs, David.

Tristan,

So many wrongs make a right ? Ukraine is (at this moment) a sovereign nation, so it has the right to seek assistance wherever and from whomever it damn-well likes.

If those Russian troops based in the Crimea have left their bases tov intervene in the internal affairs of Ukraine, under Putin's orders, then they and Putin have violated the sovereignty of another nation.

A bit like in Tsarist and Soviet times, really. So, once part of someone's Empire, always part of someone's Empire, is that it ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 2 March 2014 12:55:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth; during World War One Britain and France justified their participation in the conflict on the basis of freeing oppressed minorities in the Balkans, North Italy, Czech and Slovak minorities etc. France also expressed its desire to reacquire Alsace-Lorraine - which had been part of its territory for a period up to 1871. I've made a mistake in the past over-estimating the numbers killed in WWI; but checking my facts again the war cost the lives of 10 million combatants. So what I'm saying is if the situation could be solved through a plebiscite or through an agreement locking in Russian maintenance of its naval base - not only could that influence Iran (with Russia agreeing to withdraw support unless Iran dropped its nuclear program)- it might also stop a world war.

And to set the record state I believe in the self-determination of oppressed minorities. But that is complicated by the significant Russian minority in East Ukraine. My main motivation is that we don't end up with an escalating war with appalling casualties - that would make 150,000 killed in Syria look like a 'minor engagement'.

Now you could say that that's appeasement; But do we really want a world war for the sake of Crimea? Somehow there needs to be compromise while still 'drawing a line in the sand'.

And even if we end up with a proxy war (like Syria) - an escalating conflict between Great Powers would make that look like a walk in the park.

The other alternative is containment. But that could lead to an arms race...

There are no 'perfect answers' - but we have to stop and think what a war would actually look like between Great Powers in this day and age.

Recall also the tension between Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, South Korea - and China.. David's right that a world war is not unimaginable.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 2 March 2014 3:04:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tristan,

Of course, the complication here is Russia's licence to use the port facilities at Sevastopol, which they 'share' with the Ukraine. How to carve that territory up without leaving the Ukraine 'out in the cold', navally speaking. The Crimean Tartar population, in the southern part of that Peninsula, on the whole want to remain part of the Ukraine, i.e. they are Ukrainians now and want the status quo to remain.

And, as in most other countries on the planet, there is a region in the Crimea which is strongly pro-outsider, in this case Russian. This raises the question, should national borders be periodically re-drawn to take account of majority-other populations ?

This is getting a long way from a dispassionate discussion of Marxism and Andrew Bolt, but by the same criteria, it signifies how difficult, even impossible, it would have been to bring about a 'socialist Utopia' in the real world, and how historical legacies infect even the most well-intentioned plans.

And with Russia's recent history, it will probably find it irresistible to 'Utopianise' the Ukraine. Or, from another historical point of view, to 're-integrate' 'Little Russia' back into the Tsarist fold.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 2 March 2014 3:59:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Digressing briefly to matters of socialism again; Loudmouth you are right that the ghosts of the past haunt all attempts to build a better world. Nationalism destroyed Yugoslavia because there was not a robust'truth and reconciliation' process after World War II for instance. It may be a bit pedantic also - but Marx's sense of 'utopia' was simply that of a concrete idea of the future. In fact Marx was with Hegel in that he thought we only understand history in retrospect. So in that sense he was not a 'Utopian'. he opposed 'blueprints'. But 'provisional utopias' (interpreted simply as a provisional view of a view society) should be part of the picture - and it has been the lack of will to consider the future that has actually weakened Marxism.

What you're specifically talking about is 'unrealistic' ideas of the future. But I put it to you that "the democratic mixed economy' is a perfectly workable provisional vision for the future.

Just reading Leszek Kolakowski's explanation of Marx's early writings these past few days has actually confirmed to me that Marx sought to promote *INDIVIDUAL* SELF-FULFILIMENT via the fulfilment of our social nature. He sought to free us from slavery - not submit us to it as with Stalin. See: the Paris Manuscripts, the German Ideology etc) Marx did not want conformity or suppression of individuality. And that explanation was from one of the Marxist tradition's most steadfast critics.

But again I think Marx's aversion of concrete visions for the future was mistaken; and that vacuum has been filled by 'really existing Stalinism'. And I think Stalin's interpretation of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would have made Marx vomit...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 2 March 2014 5:20:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Tristan, I'm broadly in agreement with you ...... except that I can't differentiate 'Utopia' from 'provisional Utopia' - surely Marx's notion of a perfectly sweet society in the name of a dictatorship of the proletariat was a prescription for a 'Utopia' ? From which, most regrettably, certain groups, inevitably and in every case up to now, have to be 'extracted' ?

Marx's only real experience of anything approaching his Utopian - sorry, provisional Utopian - ideal was the Paris Commune of 1871. Perhaps to him, if that couldn't get off the ground and encourage workers across Europe to rise up, nothing would. And his comments in letters to Engels about the rising influence of imperialist aspirations on the British working class suggest that he didn't have much hope for them either.

But inevitably, back to Ukraine: how to defuse this situation and avoid a neo-Tsarist invasion ? Perhaps the Ukrainian Parliament could re-affirm the agreement with Russia to extend the agreement on the lease of bases in Sevastopol for 25 years after it expires in 2017, provided, of course, that the Russians strictly adhere to that current agreement ?

Of course, the Russians have actually breached the current agreement by moving more troops, etc., into the Crimea than the agreement allowed. So the Ukraine would be quite within its rights to declare such a current agreement void. But I don't think they will, or should, as a 'stabilisation' measure.

All of this gives Andrew Bolt a free kick, by the way. I don't watch his program but I'm sure he could, without much difficulty, equate Tsarism with Bolshevism with Putinism.

Another proposal, somewhat out of left field, could be for the EU to finance the massive development of Russia's port of Novorossisk, around the Black Sea from the Crimea and near Sochi, as its new warm-water naval base. It used to be Russia's major Black Sea port, after all.

Just trying to help :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 2 March 2014 6:49:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Just reading Leszek Kolakowski's explanation of Marx's early writings these past few days has actually confirmed to me that Marx sought to promote *INDIVIDUAL* SELF-FULFILIMENT via the fulfilment of our social nature."

You're hopeless Tristan. You're a compulsive committee man and talker; you'd still be extoling and explaining the actions of the commies as they took you out to the firing squad: "that's alright, they're just helping me achieve my utmost individuality by killing me and by doing so enabling me to show my maximum support for the individual rights based Marxist revolution".

Hopeless.

The hive mind is the ultimate expression of individuality because it allows the individual to express his maximum capacity for conformity as part of our social nature.

Our "social nature".

Crap.

What's good for me is good for you is good for everyone. Big brother is just in your genes Tristan; you really think this BS is right don't you? You should read 'Hellstrom's Hive' by Frank Herbert.

Our "social nature' my backside.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 3 March 2014 7:46:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite; Look up Karl Kautsky, Julius Martov, Rosa Luxemburg - and note how they are radically opposed to the "Bolshevik model". And once you've done that and understand what I'm talking about pls come back to me. If you actually do so I think you will find it very hard to tar me with 'the totalitarian brush'.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 3 March 2014 7:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Our social nature" (which you mock; probably mistaking it for 'socialist nature') simply infers that humanity is social by nature - in the sense we need to co-operate in order to survive - and to further the aims of civilisation. But Marxists also meant that capitalism creates alienation by taking away peoples' creative control over their labour, and forcing us into menial and repetitive tasks. The idea of Marxism is that by organising socially we can pursue our INDIVIDUAL needs; whether that be through art/music/literature etc. Socialism also makes such fulfilment more likely - as we actually need the free time in order to pursue that kind of life... Capitalism's fault is that it is predicated upon producing more and more ad infinitum. That is: creating abundance of material goods beyond the realm of 'diminishing' (human) returns. Further - that is - we could make do with less and partake of reflection, art, leisure, civic activism, fitness... "The system" - enforced by the capital-state-Ideological nexus - prevents this from occurring.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Monday, 3 March 2014 7:11:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

Bullsh!t. Pre-capitalist societies could hardly be said to be hives of fun, ingenuity and endless creativity, no more than early capitalism. BUT surely you can't maintain that current capitalist societies/economies provide the sorts of limited opportunities as just fifty years ago for creativity, that jobs are just as boring and repetitive as so many were then ?

In the sixties and seventies, I worked in factories, Metters, Arnotts, Balfours, Kodak, in meat works, in a pug mill and in a tyre repair shop. THAT was often repetitive work, and occasionally very boring. Hence the flitting from one to another. Those jobs have almost all gone, they've been computerised, or shipped overseas.

Most jobs these days either tend to involve decision-making, problem-solving, hard choices, OR they confront a skilled worker with unpredictable situations: both pose the risk of being bounced for making a wrong choice, by one's employer or by one's client. Risk rather than boredom is probably more of a problem now than back in the 1950s or 1960s.

Perhaps Marx would say that it is all a function of the development of productive forces and the differentiation of labour, a consequence of capitalism's inevitable need - which they would agree with - for constantly innovating, up-grading and up-skilling. But in the process, work has become less repetitive, more 'judgmental' and - dare I say it - more interesting, more 'challenging', more 'exciting'.

On the other hand, I don't regret those factory years, they were good training years; currently I'm transcribing old documents, at the moment S. A. Aboriginal Depot Ledgers, 1909-1932, which requires a high degree of tolerance of repetition. Only got to be done once !

Joe
www.firstsources.info
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 3 March 2014 9:30:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
old zygote

It is mere stupidity to argue that someone doubling their income shows an increase in their poverty which is what you just argued, stop trying to squirm out of it.

Furthermore it is the oldest fallacy in economics to think that the increase in someone's wealth is despite, rather than because of the increase in someone else's wealth. Thus you have got cause and effect back the front, at the same time as you are stupidly confusing a mutually beneficial process with a zero-sum process: Marxism in a nutshell.

If what you are saying was right, we would all be better off starving to death, which is why attempts to realise socialism result in mass starvation.

Tristan
"But at the same time Marx erred, I think, in not discerning the subjective value of labour insofar as it relates to of skills, hardship, productivity etc... "

Correct. That means his theory - and your theory so far as you assume that premise- are *wrong*. Okay?

Now. Hold that thought.

"Produced goods are there because of creative labour... But is all labour equal?"

No it's not is it? So it's complete nonsense to talk, as Marx and you do, of "labour" or "the workers" as some monolithic lump, and still more stupid to assume that all persons supplying it have some kind of solidary class interest in common.

"Also importantly, though - It remains true from Marx that workers suffer unpaid labour time as a consequence of surplus value/exploitation..."

You've just contradicted yourself. The idea that "workers suffer unpaid labour time as a consequence of surplus value/exploitation" is based on the labour theory of value, i.e. that the value of labour is OBJECTIVE, that the value is in the labour itself, not in people's downstream SUBJECTIVE evaluation of the utility of whatever was produced.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 4:59:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to the labour theory of value, if we spend $10 billion on labour for a gold mine, and it produces one ounce of gold, the value of that gold is $10 billion. But if someone accidentally kicks up a kilogram of gold, its value is the value of the labour that went into it - nothing. It's just wrong, can't you see that?

"Even if not all labour is equal - exploitation still remains..."

No it doesn't. You've just disproved that. You're back to the labour theory of value.

"Part of the answer ... is for workers to receive the full proceeds of their labour"

So you're back to asserting what you yourself have described as Marx's error.

And you're back to your dream that the bliss of socialism is to be attained by socialising the means of production! The means of production are to be owned by the State. And labour, according to Marx, is the means of production par excellence! Therefore the workers are to be owned by "the community" - translation: the State. That is the logical consequence of the labour theory of value.

Therefore it's not some strange coincidence that socialism resulted in authoritarian dictatorship and mass starvation and genocide you fool - it's the logical consequence of what you keep arguing in favour of, without understanding your own self-contradictions!

As soon as you recognise the error in the theory of the objective value of labour, it means Marxist theory is *demolished*. *None* of your beloved socialist conclusions can be salvaged therefrom. It's just simply wrong, epistemologically, economically, factually, logically, ethically, wrong.

And the fact that you don't understand what you're talking about, and keep circularly repeating slogans you don't understand, like "exploitation", does not make it right!

It's you who don't understand Marxism.

Although the slave philosophy of the socialists is most starkly on display in their defence of Marxism, in fact it runs through *all* socialist policies whatsoever, which is why none of them can defend it without self-contradiction or blatant absurdity like Zygote's or Tristan's.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 5:24:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ: well said.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 7:36:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ

To clarify - I believe that all goods are produced by labour; But also depend on the materials in nature; distribution and exchange is different but needs to be accounted for also.

But the remaining problems I have with capitalism are manyfold.

a) the alienating/in-egalitarian effects of the division of labour

b) surplus value does not depend on labour-theory of value -and remains a legitimate category - there remains 'unpaid labour time'; There remains exploitation; and surplus value can be measured.

c) Labour is still the most important aspect of the production process - yet its share grows smaller and smaller; Labour can hypothetically do without capital - but not vice versa.

d) I agree I erred when saying workers receive the FULL proceeds of their labour. (and in doing so effectively supported the Lassallean position) Specifically this was in the sense that the role of distribution and exchange needs to be accounted for. Also there's a need for credit in current society - but this should be democratised as much as is practicable via co-operative/mutualist and state credit...

e) Credit can be valid as recompense for deferred gratification. That's not SO bad in so far as it applied to ordinary worker/investors. Even though technically surplus value still occurs - facing socialists with a dilemma. (ie: we don't like it but we have to live in the real world) But re:wealthy investors - who have gained their wealth through an unfair advantage in the labour market; or worse still through massive inherited wealth - then the operations of credit become manifestly unjust..

f) But you are correct that not all workers are in solidarity with each other; It's differences between workers that helps to maintain capitalism through 'divide and conquer'. Hence the 'aristocracy of labour', 'the working poor' etc.

But JKJ you're good on the rhetoric - but your arguments still don't stack up.

Marxism doesn't stand or fall on 'labour theory of value'. Even then some of Marx's theories of value still stand too - eg: exchange value, use value etc.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 8:20:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nb: the point of all this is that Marx's labour theory of value is flawed; I believe he was in error by abstracting labour - seeing it as all of 'equal value' - based on labour time. Though Marx wrote at a time when labour was being simplified/de-skilled... But in the years since Marx's death there have been conflicting tendencies - both deskilling and reskilling...

But Marx's specific labour theory of value is not the same as surplus value. And the category of surplus value still stands. (even if there is some role for credit coming from average worker/investors (with some benefit for deferred gratification) - the fact remains that workers are not paid the full amount they are due for their labours; there is 'unpaid labour time') And even if we agree there is return on 'deferred gratification' for small investors the category 'surplus value' STILL stands - But then it becomes a question of ethics and justice.... And mainly workers are exploited not by other workers of the same economic standing - but by capitalists of ridiculous wealth.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 8:28:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And mainly workers are exploited not by other workers of the same economic standing - but by capitalists of ridiculous wealth."

No Tristan, mainly workers are exploited by their union leaders.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 8:34:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite
Thanks.

Tristan
All the points you make assume that Marx was right, whereas it's common ground that he was wrong, at least as concerns the labour theory of value.

I maintain that his theory of value being wrong, means the rest of his economic theory is wrong, and all the social theory that relies on it. (Plus his theory of class, materialism, consciousness, historical laws, the state - you name it - were wrong too. Marx never gave any reason for thinking that the workers alleged problems from capitalism would be solved by the public ownership of the means of production.)

If you are going to say that voluntary labour is still "exploited" by some concept of "surplus value" then of course you need to establish that without relying on the labour theory of value.

Go ahead please. What value is the alleged surplus value a surplus *over*? If value is subjective, not objective, then how do you determine something as "full value" over and above the market price for labour?

If your reply *assumes*
- exploitation
- labour theory of value
- Marx was right
- surplus value
- double standards
it means you have to buy me a semi-tanker full of beer for putting up with your nonsense.

Go ahead? Don't use jargon. Actually answer the specific questions and explain the critical concepts in issue.

The core of Marx's theory was disproved in the 1870s by the marginalist revolution, which is why - even though Marx thought of himself first and foremost as an economist - it was the economics departments that were first to reject Marx's theory.

(But the total demolition job came from the economic calculation argument. No socialist has got up off the floor from that, and you don't even understand what it is.)

By all means prove me wrong.

Of course even if you can make your case against capitalism, you still won't have begun to make your case in favour of socialism.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 4 March 2014 11:19:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ Labour theory of value (Marx) supposes the value of goods can be measured by the amount of socially necessary labour put into them - where the different kinds of labour are considered equal. SURPLUS VALUE is different. Surplus value is 'unpaid labour time' - and means a worker is not paid all they are due. Part of that is taken by the capitalist. They are related - but different - concepts.

We've established that labour theory of value is problematic because it doesn't not account for relative value of different forms of labour. (skill, difficulty etc) But we have not established that the same problems applies re 'Surplus Value'.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 5 March 2014 6:42:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

You’re only showing that you don’t understand Marxist theory.

We’re agreed that the labour theory of value is wrong, and Marx’s theory is wrong to that extent.

Now his whole theory is about capital, and rests on the proposition that the value of all capital goods can be imputed ultimately back to the labour factors of production, and only the labour factors of production. Okay, fair enough?

So if you want to say that some part of his theory is salvageable, which is what you are saying, then obviously you cannot make that conclusion based on:
1. the same theory you agree is wrong: LTV, nor
2. the same epistemology that caused the error in the LTV in the first place.

But you’re making both mistakes.

1.
Marx’s basis for saying there was a “surplus value” over and above the market rate for wages, and immorally expropriated into profit, was the labour theory of value. Take that away, and you have no rational basis for asserting that there is anything exploitative about the worker being paid the market rate for wages. I’ve asked you to identify what is the criterion of this alleged “surplus value”. You haven’t done it because you can’t do it.

Answer the specific questions I asked you! Don’t just assert that there is a surplus value – that’s what’s in issue! You need to say what defines the difference between it, and the market rate. A truckload of beer, please.

2.
Furthermore, even if the LTV were correct which it isn’t, the surplus value wouldn’t be due from the employer to the individual worker, because the capital goods that the worker used – the hammer, the factory to make it, the mine to produce the metal, and so on – got their value from the labour of all the other workers further back up the line of production. Therefore the payment is due to the workers AS A CLASS, not to an individual worker, and can only be realised by the socialisation of the means of production.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 5 March 2014 10:30:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Therefore mere social democratic reforms won't answer, which is why Marx despised them. The only solution according to Marx, to usher in the bliss of socialism, is the complete abolition of private property altogether. So when in his later life he supported democratic socialism, he was contradicting his own theory!

You're contradicting both yourself and Marx by suggesting that some workers should join in the exploitative expropriation of the alleged “surplus value” of other workers.

3.
In any event, according to Marx, the transition to socialism will happen with the inexorable certainty of historical laws without the need for anyone to consciously do anything about it, so you’re contradicting yourself and Marx again.

4.
Furthermore, since "scientific" socialism - dialectic materialism - allegedly proves inevitable that capitalism must run its course by exploiting the workers, anything that retards that process is bad and futile because it only delays the inevitability, and the bliss, of socialism.

That’s why Squeers has conceded in earlier posts that it’s good for the workers to be exploited and the planet to be trashed, because when you’ve got a PhD in Marxism, that doubly-garbled confusion –
a) that capitalism does those things, and
b) that it’s logically good -
is what you believe!

Therefore you haven't proved what you allege about "surplus value", and I have disproved it.

And unlike my *correct* understanding of Marxism, you don't even know what the arguments are that proved it impossible in theory, even before it was attempted in practice killing millions!

So the turn-out of the Marxists really couldn’t be any more pathetic. It’s like you’re not just being a bit stupid by accident, you have an active commitment to being as totally stupid as anyone could possibly be if they tried really hard.

The fact is, anyone understands Marxism much better than you do, by understanding no more than that it is a belief system of nauseating hypocrisy, based on despising freedom and civilisation, blindly and stupidly promoting arbitrary power and consistently killing the poorest.

Thanks for proving it so well – and consistently!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 5 March 2014 10:55:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, Tristan, Yebiga, anyone else

Would you please set out clearly what parts of Marxist theory you agree are wrong, and what parts you say are still right.

Make sure, in asserting what's right, you don't use any of the theory and epistemology you agree is wrong.

Let's see it, in two clear categories:
1. Wrong
2. Right

Go ahead please.

(To anyone not stupefied by Marxoidism, it should be obvious that we're going to get a welter of confused contradictions, covered in a slather of ad hominem argument and left wing slogans.)

Please prove me wrong.

It's important to understand the point that these liars are trying to squirm out of. Marxism is completely wrong, and NOTHING of it is salvageable.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 6 March 2014 6:00:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marxist ideas that remain right:

* class struggle a force for progress
* Surplus Value - effective 'unpaid labour time' as a consequence of exploitation
* need for international solidarity
* the need to counter alienation - which exists partly because of the division of labour; partly because of commodity fetishism and menial/punishing/non-creative work - instead provide all people with the opportunity to engage in creative labour - artistic, musical, literature ad infinitum
* business cycle; periodic destruction of capital; a consequence of overproduction and the inability of small capital to remain competitive
* tendency towards monopoly
* tendency of the rate of profit to fall; intensifying exploitation
* reserve army of labour
* aristocracy of labour (working class can be divided internally)
* progressive forces must 'win the battle of democracy'
* transitional demands such as free education, progressive tax
* the state does not represent the 'universal' interest; and is driven by social/economic forces to defend the interests of the capitalist class
* Gramscian emphasis on hegemony
* Emphasis of the Centrist and Leftist Marxists on freedom and democracy under socialism
* Imperialism and exploitation of the Third World driven by Great Powers wanting captive markets/resources; the innate drive in capitalism to expand - even if this does not fulfil humanity's interests
* End secret diplomacy that leads to terrible wars; attempt to pursue multilateral, mutual disarmament where possible
* difference between exchange value and use value
* co-operatives "attack exploitation at its roots"
* democratise production and consumption

Not sure of:

* can we explain history dialectically?;

* Some form of 'revolution'? - perhaps... - but peaceful if at all possible - revolutionary reforms, 'slow revolution' as the Austro-Marxists put it - Here I mean qualitative reform of the constitution as a consequence of democratic pressures - and not violent insurrection (MORE COMING)
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 6 March 2014 5:01:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some Marxist concepts I don't believe in:

* Marx's 'labour theory of value' in *unmodified* form
* Marx's outright rejection of religion
* Marx's philosophical materialism
* Centralisation of all major production in the hands of the state during the socialist phase (I support a democratic mixed economy instead)
* Communism in its pure form - don't know if it's possible
* teleological progress in history can't be guaranteed - there are setbacks as well - we can't be sure history will bring progress
* the working class as a 'universal class' - the proletariat does not necessarily champion the liberation of all oppressed groups - that consciousness needs to be fought for - it doesn't grow 'naturally' out of capitalism
* Leninist emphasis on the vanguard party
* simple class bifurcation
* Leninist acceptance of Terror and centralisation - which leads to demoralisation, Stalinism
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 6 March 2014 5:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks ever so much for your posts Tristan comparing sound and unsound Marxist ideas ...

However, I don't see democracy and democratisation, as advocated in the working class movement, as having much historical connection to Marx, either in terms of origins or in terms of nineteenth and twentieth century history.

For example, what about the history of democratic ideals and slave revolts in the ancient world?

Jesus (and Spartacus) remember, were leaders of slave revolts. There are some who would see St Paul the Roman Citizen as being a spy from the powers that be in Imperial Rome. That St Paul and St Peter founded the church of Rome, from which almost all Christian churches and sects derive doctrinally today, and that the Council of Nicea included all of Paul's writings in the new testament, detracts from Jesus's message. But read The Gospel Of Matthew.

The class battles between the aristocracy the merchant class and the slave class in ancient Athens also led to institutional suggestions about how to organise society in ways more democratic than letting Plato's guardians be noble all-wise dictators ... Like the idea of balloting for jury service, for bodies to make some sorts of decisions. And some original ideas that led a thousand years later to the common law of meetings. (Previous question?)

Not to mention Proudhon, Berkman, etc etc.

I'd suggest Tristan you read up on the Spanish revolution ...
Posted by Andrew Oliver, Thursday, 6 March 2014 5:24:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

Are you honestly telling us you can't see the self-contradictions in what you're saying.

I started to point them out, but stopped at 7, and many of them are stand-alone refutations of your whole theory.

What I can't understand is, firstly you should be able to spot them yourself. Secondly, even Marxists must have pointed them out in the 150 years since Marx was writing. Thirdly, even after I have pointed them out, you just keep repeating them over and over and over and over and over and over again.

What gives? Do you just not care that what you're saying doesn't make any logical sense? Do you think it doesn't matter that what you're saying is untrue?

Whatever your answer is, what we have established that
a) no-one can defend Marx's theory in its own right; even the Marxists admit that it was erroneous
b) the common left-wing fall-back position, of arguing that despite the errors of Marx's theory, it's still valuable as theory, cannot be maintained without either relying on its errors, or failing to distinguish between the public and private control of the means of production.

By the way, notice how all of the leftists who assert or imply the validity of Marx's theory, just slink away when challenged, leaving Tristan to try to brazen it out by his technique of invincible ignorance?

That's it people. That's the intellectual foundation of the left wing. You're looking at it laid bare.

Like I said, no-one can be as dumb as you guys are pretending.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 6 March 2014 6:38:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ tries to make a sweeping dismissal without referring to anything *SPECIFIC* - and as a consequence he doesn't explain or justify his rejection of specific claims I have made with regards Marxist categories and concepts that remain valid. He presents rhetoric without content. It's hard to take his dismissals seriously. Though those who want to believe him will accept what he says despite the fact is involves almost no actual content.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 6 March 2014 7:13:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about you answer the SPECIFIC points I have repeatedly explained and justified?

1. You have no basis for your argument about "surplus value", and therefore you whole argument about exploitation collapses, and therefore your whole argument collapses.

Marx's argument about alleged surplus value was based on the labour theory of value, which you have conceded is incorrect.

But because you don't understand Marx's theory, you misunderstand the problem. The LTV doesn't just fail to come to terms with different kinds of labour. It fails to prove *that the value of the end product is imputable solely to the labour factors*.

Therefore you have conceded that Marx's process of reasoning:
market value of final product, minus market value of wages = expropriated surplus value = exploitation
is wrong.

Now you're contradicting yourself in alleging some "surplus value" exploitatively expropriated by the capitalist.

Now you have the gall to say I haven't specified anything, when I asked you to prove surplus value relative to what, and you dishonestly ignored it TWICE.

That disproves your entire critique as to capitalism, which is based on Marx's exploitation theory.

2.
And secondly, you haven't proved that socialisation of the means of production would make the worker better off. We are already seeing that in the destruction of Australian businesses caused by democratic socialist overheads
SPC
Alcoa
Qantas
that the workers are WORSE OFF, not better off, as a result of trying to extort a non-existent "surplus value" from capitalists.

There is no need for me to waste time citing further proofs - and there are many - of why your adherence to socialist policies is unjustified, even in your own terms; until you answer these two SPECIFIC critiques.

We have just established that you cannot defend any of Marx's economic or social theory, because ALL that you assert depends on proposition you concede are wrong.

So I ask again, why do keep saying things that are self-contradictory?

How come you guys don't care that that what you're saying is untrue?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 7 March 2014 9:48:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ; First you can believe in the MECHANISM of surplus value even if you don't believe there is an objective and universal measure of the value of all labour. This is similar to Eduard Bernstein's position.

Take the example of Bangladeshi textiles workers. There's no objective, universal measure of labour's value. Some might argue a doctor deserves a higher wage - that's a subjective judgement. But when those textiles workers are receiving less than 5% of the proceeds of what they produce you can be certain they're being exploited; Effectively - there is unpaid labour time. Again: the MECHANISM exists regardless of the absence an objective and universe measure of the value of ALL kinds of labour.... And the falling wage share of the economy and increasing working hours/working life shows that exploitation is increasing.

This is also regardless of other factors. As I've suggested earlier. Marx did not anticipate the emergence of small investors who have made great personal sacrifice deserve a return on investment. Those who have 'deferred gratification' under circumstances of hardship and sacrifice deserve a return. Those who have inherited enormous wealth don't fall into this category.

Also there are the costs of distribution and exchange. And even if labour pertaining to that is 'unproductive' in the Marxist sense - they are still crucial to the economy.

Also there's the share taken by the state in providing infrastructure; But with user pays, austerity and regressive taxation - workers in their capacity as citizens and taxpayers are 'picking up more of the tab' for capitalists.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 7 March 2014 10:53:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why not 100%?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 8 March 2014 5:22:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you mean in Bangladesh? Well in that case my ideal scenario would be producer's co-operatives owning 100% of any enterprise. Consolidated as much as possible to maximise economies of scale. But there would have to be an accounting for transport, marketing, retail etc. These are structural costs that exist outside of the extraction of surplus value for the workers in any single textiles enterprise. But once all these costs had been accounted for the workers should receive 100% of the remaining returns. And in order to make a fair return for the workers that might mean the price needs to increase substantially. Competitive enough to maintain market share - but as much of a return as is possible in that context. And if it means it costs us an extra $10 for a shirt, then so be it. Rigorous health and safety regulations need to be part of the picture given recent events as well.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 9 March 2014 10:41:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So how do you know the increase in price wouldn't cause even worse worker conditions somewhere else?

You're just displaying that you don't understand what you're talking about.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 9 March 2014 7:38:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy