Rhian

'... Communism is unworkable, or that it inevitably degenerates into tyranny.'

Communism as an extreme is unworkable, but so too is capitalism as an extreme. The latter inevitably degenerates into unworkable inequality and exploitation. We are fast reaching that point in Western capitalism. Forget wage growth. Debt is the ball and chain that is sinking the Western working class.

The most workable system is a combination of the best of both - i.e. a market economy balanced with a socialist-based social contract.

Also, to be fair, the communist examples you give do not look at the wider factors that have made communist regimes 'unworkable'.

Firstly, regimes like the Soviet Union and Communist China replaced violent capitalist/feudal tyrannies that had themselves become unworkable. In the new power vacuum created after revolutions occur, the new regime usually has to carry on many of the tyrannical aspects of the old regime in order to survive.

Secondly, the West - in particular, the US - makes no secret of its hysterical hatred and fear of socialism/communism. Neither does it make any secret of its malicious intent to destroy and destabilise any regime that is communist or even mildly socialist. Chile (under Allende), Cuba, Venezuela (under Chavez and now Maduro), Vietnam, North Korea, Bolivia and Ecuador, Iran under Mossedeh, Afghanistan in the 1970s, the Ba'athists of the Middle East, Indonesia (under Sukarno), and even Australia under Whitlam.

The economic and political viability of these countries have all been seriously undermined and compromised by Western belligerence - through political isolation (especially via the UN), embargoes, sanctions, terrorism/assassination campaigns, proactive destabilisation, externally provoked civil wars, and media smearing and disinformation. Though the tactics vary, the one destabilisation constant is always the 'monsterfication' of their leaders.

How many Western capitalist countries would remain economically or politically viable after years/decades of living under this level of stress?

Rhian; The first Social Democrats were Marxists. They were the most ardently democratic movement of their time. You ignore the Austro-Marxists, the Second International, the Eurocommunists - because they don't fit in with your narrative.

Also Marxists of different sorts have believed in ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE IMISERATION. Today few Marxists believe in the schema of absolute imiseration, though - given improvements in productivity and technology. But private (capitalist) wealth continues to grow more and more quickly than wages.

Also the world economy is structured at different levels in such a way as to radically intensify exploitation. At one extreme we have corruption in the exploitation of African resources and labour; In Bangladesh we have extraordinary exploitation of textiles workers who receive less than 5% of the product of their labour and whose lives are constantly in danger for unsafe working environments and practices... Within the US itself we have a class of working poor whose exploitation props of middle class consumption. Capitalism survives on the basis of ever-increasing intensity of exploitation. It appears to 'work' at home in Australia - but should that intense exploitation stop the system would be rocked by the consequent instability and discontent.

ALSO the business cycle continues as a feature of capitalism, as do overproduction and a falling rate of profit - the consequence of disproportionate over-investment in 'fixed capital'. Capitalism is driven by competition - and that drives price and quality signals - drives innovation... There's a place for this. But the inefficiencies are masked by the living standards that flow from innovation, intense exploitation of 'peripheral' economies and classes, and because of technology.

'What can be done' to begin with is to return to a 'hybrid' economy. With efficient cost structures through public infrastructure including natural public monopolies. Though theoretically at least we have the resources to drastically reduce the working week and yet maintain very good material living standards. Capitalism gets in the way as it is predicated on constant expansion into new markets. When this fails it intensifies exploitation in order to maintain stability at the political and economic 'core'.

Leslie

Marx produced some insightful analysis, and some of the things he expected of capitalism did eventuate. But the most important ones did not. This doesn’t mean that Marx was partly right. He set out to describe underlying laws governing the dynamics of capitalist economies that must inevitably produce certain effects. Increasing poverty, declining profits and monopolisation are not mere hypotheses or even predictions. They were “laws”.

This is important in the context of the article we are debating because the most important things Marx got wrong relate to the effect of capitalism on workers.

Modern Social Democracy, which sees workers’ welfare as dependent on successful private and public sectors, mediated by government regulation and redistribution (progressive income tax was one of Marx’s good ideas!), has proved more effective than Marx dreamed in raising workers’ quality of life.

It’s time to leave class war behind.

On your specific points:
- Australian real wage growth does not cause foreign wars.
- I discussed the wage share measure because Tristan raised it. It measures income, not wealth. I agree wealth disparities are widening.
- I don’t lightly dismiss Marx’s predictions of economic cycles, but Marx expected them to get more severe and more frequent. They haven’t.
- The fact that most of us enjoy much better living standards than our parents disproves Marx’s Law of Increasing Poverty

Killarney.

I agree, a mixed economy is best.

The USA has done some vile things, mostly where it perceives its direct interests are threatened. But I don’t think it can be blamed for every failed socialist regime.

On your earlier post, I suspect the SNP vote was driven by nationalist sentiment and a backlash against Labour for supporting the “No” case in the independence referendum. Nationalism was also much more important south of the border. UKIP got more votes than the Lib-Dems and Greens combined, though just 1 seat.

Miliband, arguably the most left-wing UK Labour leader in years, was trounced.

Tristan

“Social Democrat” has meant different things at different times and places. The Communist Manifesto speaks of alliances with Social Democrats, so they clearly weren’t identical with Communists. I use it above in the modern European sense of a leftish mainstream party.

I understand that Marxism and neo-Marxism have been through many iterations and reinterpretations since the 19th century, and there are many different currents of thought within them. I lived in the UK in the 1970s and 80s and watched the Euro-communists with interest. That was the first time I became aware of the move from class to identity politics, which my Trot friends bemoaned though they shared the EuroComs’ hostility to the USSR. But none of them has succeeded in persuading the outside world that they have anything useful or important to say.

On your specific points:

Modern Marxists may not believe in absolute immiseration, but Marx did.

Profits are cyclical but the dividend yield shows no structural decline.

http://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/share-markets.html

Wealth inequality has risen in the last few decades but fell over most of the 20th century.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feconomics.uwo.ca%2Fpeople%2Fdavies_docs%2Fcredit-suisse-global-wealth-report-2014.pdf&ei=8V1cVfztG-XBmwWd5oGIDA&usg=AFQjCNFZEbPpTEHCG-mIfi4tFa6vbx7yJg&sig2=Z2Nzd2joWUcNV6UGdvgmSg

We already have a hybrid economy, as do all prosperous societies. Our main arguments are about where the balance between public and private activity should sit. Labor is not going to privatise the banks. The Liberals are not going to abolish Medicare.

Rhian you say 'Its time to leave class war behind': Tell the Liberals that! And tell anyone who's pursuing an agenda of austerity; criminalising industrial liberties; winding back labour market regulation; taking privatisation to the utmost extreme etc.

The fact is that a minority holds the vast majority of wealth; and hence exercises a practical 'veto' on public policy - especially economic policy. If you try and question that you will be accused of 'class warfare'. The double standards are blatant - but it's probably no surprise its rarely questioned in the MSM.

Further Rhian;

a) Show me where in the Communist Manifesto Marx talks of alliances with social democrats; I'm not even certain the term existed in 1848!

b) The Euro-communists effectively reclaimed the terrain of (Marxist) democratic socialism. Social movements have ups and downs. The Western communist parties suffered greatly from the impression of 'the end of history' after the collapse of the USSR. That doesn't mean they 'had nothing to say'; And indeed you can see the Left making a comeback in Spain and Greece now because of the crisis in the EU. Capitalist crisis isn't over. Neither is democratic socialism or social democracy. But its an uphill battle because of triumphant capitalist ideology; and the omnipresent Ideological conditioning...

c) Its also worth mentioning that the democratic Marxist movement PRECEDED Bolshevism and Stalinism. To take 'big 'C' Communism' as 'the real and authentic Marxism' compared with which the others are merely variations - would be a mistake.

d) Re: imiseration - Yes Marx got some things wrong; but do you throw the baby out with the bathwater?

e) Finally: You say we're a 'hybrid economy': But not very much! Privatisation has gone so far; and they're not finished yet! A meaningful hybrid economy would include strategic government business enterprises, producers and consumers co-ops, natural public monopolies; democratic collective capital formation.... But all these are marginal compared with the position of private-monopoly capital.