Good one Rob,

Not only does Yabby’s logic come up short, we could also draw a conclusion from his example that, contrary to Shorbe’s claims that “greed” is the fundamental survival characteristic of humans, not only do we have the ability do “altruistic” things, i.e. things that benefit others without apparent benefit to ourselves (except maybe psychological and physiological), but that it is ultimately in our collective survival interest to do them – which is why we have developed the feel good reward. It could be argued that co-operative behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation which enabled the human species to be successful – in fact given our relatively long development to “self reliant” adulthood, if we didn’t engage in mutually beneficial individual behaviour, our species would probably not exist today. Indeed our “self sufficient” adulthood is not really “self sufficiency” at all, because we are always reliant on others for our survival.

This self-interested altruism is a far cry from the greedy, selfish, alienating, and humanity destroying behaviour we see capitalists engaging in, and which capitalists like Shorbe try to ascribe to all of humanity.

Yabby you said: “Tao,-its-high-time-you-educated-yourself-beyond-the-old-Marx-dogma,-the-infomation-is-out-there,-if-you-are-interested.”

It is high time you educated yourself about what Marxism is – the information is out there if you are interested, however I suspect you are not.

Far from being a “dogma” Marxism draws upon all of the cultural achievements of mankind, including and particularly, science. Marxism, or dialectical materialism, recognises that everything is constantly in a state of change, and that static descriptions of things, or logical categories, are at best incomplete and at worst obsolete or incorrect. Marxism seeks to understand, at any given point of time and over history, by analysing its internal contradictions and the external forces acting upon it (i.e. attempting to view something in its entirety (or at least what we know of it)), at what stage in a PROCESS something, and in particular human society, is. A Marxist theory or conclusion, being scientific, is always open to modification, or abandonment, if sufficient evidence becomes available to disprove or invalidate it.

Ludwig,

I will respond to your specific questions later, however my following comments to Shorbe might give you an idea about how Marxists see that things won’t be solved within a nationalist and/or capitalist framework. Marxists take an international and historical perspective – capitalism is global and an historical stage in human economic-development. It might be helpful for you to consider the economic-system like an ecosystem – a change to one part inevitably affects another.

Shorbe,

“tao:-I'm-still-not-going-to-answer-the-question-about-the-inevitability-of-Stalinism-from-socialism-until-you-answer-the-question-about-what-to-do-about-the-masses-of-people-who-won't-accept-the-revolution,-or-who-want-to-change-back-after-the-revolution.”

I believe I answered your question here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=464#9575

Further to your last post, I note you actually contradict yourself. You say that humans are fundamentally greedy which is the driving force of our behaviour, but you also say that various ideologies appeal to “higher notions of man”. Doesn’t this suggest that our behaviour is not solely determined by our basest biological instincts or functions such as “greed” (which is a debatable “instinct”), but can be affected by our higher “ideals” or “notions”?

Do 19 year olds sent off to kill innocent Iraqis and possibly themselves do it for “greed” or do they do it because of higher notions of “freedom” and “democracy”. Granted some join up for the money (although not necessarily greed for possessions), but I would hazard a guess that training someone to actually kill someone else would entail a lot of psychological preparation, including telling them they are doing it for a cause.

Do 19 year old suicide-bombers kill themselves and innocent people for “greed” or is it for some higher notion of Allah or martyrdom? Sure they might think they are getting 72 virgins, but they are not doing these things for material reward on earth, it is not “greed” for possessions – and they must be carefully inculcated into their “cause”.

To you and me, these young people are misguided, however they are evidence that people don’t just do things for “greed”. People can be very self-sacrificing even if it is, as Yabby says, self-interested “altruism”.

Marxists don’t deny the less than idealistic aspects of “human-nature” or human-behaviour, however they recognise that much of our behaviour is socially-conditioned.

Apart from the basic survival drives and behavioural characteristics, much of our behaviour is learned, or develops as a result of social conditions. Human behaviour is complex, and not fully understood scientifically, and it is disingenuous to suggest that one behavioural characteristic such as “greed” will always, and in all conditions, outweigh other more “selfless” behaviours.

In fact, Marxists consider that because human technology has the capacity to produce more than enough for everyone’s survival, if it was owned and distributed rationally and equally amongst all people, the impetus to “selfish” behaviour would abate. It could be argued that the biological drive to ensure one’s own survival only turns into “greed” or becomes destructive to others when there is not enough to go around, or the perception is that there is not enough to go around.

The “selfish” behaviour we see in capitalist society is different to behaviour that would have been exhibited in feudalism, or in more primitive society. In primitive societies, the means-of-production, such that they were, were owned in common within a tribe or family, and the products of their labour were owned in common - individual poverty and homelessness would have been pretty much inconceivable – they naturally shared what they had. Their social norms were based on their means-of-production.

This is not to say that Marxists believe we should go back to primitive production, or that capitalism was not progress. Marxists consider human history is a process of mankind progressively gaining more control over the natural environment, through the understanding and manipulation of it. It is also a history of class struggle – different classes, based on different means-of-production, at different times hold power. The development of modern capitalism (characterised by industrial capital and wage labour – mass socialised production) was the result of technological progress.

The Enlightenment period was a product of, and furthered, that technological transformation. Early capitalist theory and ideology like that of Adam Smith was based on the interest of, and was the product of the thought of, small scale producers

Enlightenment thought was progressive in that it, among many things, broke humanity from the hold of religion and brought scientific thought and method to the fore as a means of knowing the world. Private property was also a necessary stage, and product, of economic-development, and the Enlightenment furnished the ideology that legitimised private property rights against the divine right of the feudalist nobility and Church - progress.

However small scale production inexorably developed into large scale industry and monopolies and capitalist-ideology developed accordingly. Capitalism also brought into being a propertyless class in whose interest it is to further develop human thought, to break free from capitalist-ideology and economic-relations, just as capitalism broke humanity from feudalism and religion. Whatever you call it - socialism, communism, or Marxism, or anything else - the next stage of economic-development (i.e. progress) will be to abolish private property in the means-of-production, i.e. abolish the right of the few to own the means-of-production (just as capitalism abolished divine-right) and bring the means-of-production under the democratic-control of all of humanity.

None of this is to say that a socialist revolution will inevitably occur, however if it doesn’t, Marxists believe that the logic of capitalism will reduce humanity to barbarism, examples of which we can see in WWI, WWII and now the Middle East. Capitalism is no longer a progressive-force, and capitalists who want to maintain their own power and wealth at the expense of the rest of humanity are now reactionary – they are attempting to hold back progress, just as the nobility was reactionary and attempted to hold back progress. The only solution is an international-socialist-revolution i.e. the working class forcibly taking power. Stalinism and Maoism were also reactionary and counterrevolutionary because they actually assisted in the strangulation of revolutionary movements.

A socialist-revolution will not just happen spontaneously – Marxists consider although that the objective conditions of capitalism will produce a revolutionary situation, in order for a revolution to occur the working class must become conscious of its task and will be required to consciously struggle against reactionary forces.

Tao and Rob, no flaws in my thinking at all! The thing is,
there are alot smarter people then you two, working in the field
of neuroscience and understanding how the mind works. The mind
is what the brain does.

I disagree with Shobe, greed is not a basic condition of
human nature, but self interest is. There is a difference.
Some people are greedy, but they are greedy, no matter which
system is employ. Greedy officials, greedy religious nuts,
you name it, they exist under whatever system you create.
Altruism and reciprocal altruism are part of human nature
too, but once again, there is a compotent of self interest.
Even in love. Do you not love somebody, because how they
make YOU feel?

In my experience, some of the wealthiest poeple, don't in
fact do it for the money at all. Money is simply a measure
as to how well they are doing. 500 grandmothers ago we
still lived in caves, genetically thats not very long ago.
That tribal hunter instict still applies. For many of these
guys, going out and making a killing, is a huge mental buzz,
thats why they do it.
Look at the two wealthiest men on the planet, giving their
fortunes away to charity.

There is no need to be greedy under a capitalist system.
Plenty of 50+ people are saying they have enough for security,
time for a tree change or sea change etc. A capitalist system
gives us the option to do that, unlike socialism, where Govt
officials get most of the benefits.

Under Marxism, there is simply no good reason of self interest
to bother getting out of bed. I will be provided for anyhow,
so I might as well let others do the work and screw the system.
So of course it fails again and again.

You ignore human nature at your peril

Tao - as I've mentioned earlier - I hear plenty of rhetoric but not much by way of practicalities.

When it comes to implementing socialism, I understand the why. You've yet to tell me the how, which is all I'm really interested in.

We're all agreed that capitalism has flaws. Most are agreed that this is the case for socialism.
In order to make a realistic case for socialism, you'll need a lot more than a collection of flaws associated with capitalism.