Nick Hanauer, a capitalist, wrote:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014_full.html#.VVAvPZOTauI

Victor Bien summed it up:

“Beyond a certain level having control of money like Scrooge McDuck is self-defeating and a threat to peace... Wealth is produced by economic activity. If people are rendered so poor they can't function the economy will go into a slump. It was prolonged slumps which worried Keynes because if left to go on for too long insurrection will start.”

We are hung up with words. The Soviet society was called communist. Our society is called capitalist. However, are they basically different? Modern societies whatever you call them rest on an accumulation of capital. The accumulation of capital could not produce sufficient wealth in the Soviet society because it was controlled by a stultifying bureaucracy. The accumulation of capital cannot produce sufficient wealth in our society because it is more and more tied up in a small class. Their society imploded. Ours may explode. However, I see a great similarity between the societies and the role of capital.

The Soviet society imploded largely because of the maldistribution of capital. Our society may explode for the same reason.

I agree with you comments in principle.

At least in the capitalist societies we can openly criticise the government and individual politicians including the Leader without fear of disappearing or having our family harmed.

We live in a Catch 22, we need governments to maintain social order; governments need our money to provide services; and no one likes the government they have or feels their taxes are fair.

Maybe its just human nature to be dissatisfied with whatever we're given. Its funny how we all know more than anyone else.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

You wrote: "At least in the capitalist societies we can openly criticise the government and individual politicians including the Leader without fear of disappearing or having our family harmed."

That is true in our capitalist society. It is not true in all capitalist societies. Some of them are dictatorships which do and did not allow open criticism. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, clerico-fascist Franco Spain and others were also capitalist societies.

Well you got that one very wrong didn't you. Trying to justify not big but huge government will do that for you.

When you bring in the third possibility of dictatorship you get a match for your communist society, that is only even approached by capitalism when an Obama convert it to crony capitalism.

In a true capitalist society anyone can prosper greatly if they have a good idea at the right time. Just look at those whose forbears started the railway age, or those who started the computer age.

In communist countries, or dictatorships you can only really prosper if you have government support & financial backing.

Crony capitalism as refined by such as Obama can give huge amounts of public capital to supporters, as is seen in his gifts to the alternative energy industry, & those with huge union backing.

There is no capitalist society left today. That once fine system is too corrupted by a huge bureaucracy, augmented by the public education system, that we are approaching the communist system, & bound to fail sooner or later. Unless we shut down our out of control bureaucracy & others such as such as the EU, & the attempt by the UN to become a world controlling bureaucracy, that failure will be rapidly accelerated.

How long before the "classic" capitalistic society, the US breaks down into their next civil war between whites and blacks, poor and very rich and military/industrial complex and the rest.
The way they are going it will be a race to see which starts first.
The black v white has already been positioning to start.
It will be on the agenda here as the economy declines and there is a bigger gap between the ultra rich and total poverty.

Yes Robert, & that should warn us we must stop all immigration of any people who will not fully integrate into our society.

Funny you should say that Hasbeen because I have a solution.
If we offered a free trip with citizenship into Australia for any woman who had already had two or more children providing she was willing to have a hysterectomy and also any married man who had two or more children and was willing to have a vasectomy that would slow down the flood.
Of course the present huge flow of migrants and various workers visa holders would have to be stopped.
It would also be made clear that any migrants or refugees would not be allowed to settle here unless they met these requirements i.e. they were now infertile.
The big corporations would scream at having their flow of cheap labour cut off but hard luck for them.

Paul Hollander wrote a book, "Soviet and American
Society: A Comparison" way back in 1978.
I feel it may be still relevant today.

Hollander tells us that the example of democratic
socialism, with its blend of capitalist and
socialist elements, has led some observers to
postulate "convergence theory," the hypothesis
that similar problems faced by capitalist and
socialist societies may influence their evolution
toward a common ultimate form.

He points out things like: -

There are many similarities between the advanced
capitalist and socialist societies. Both are
heavily industrialised, urbanised, and bureaucratized.
Both face the need for constant growth to satisfy
the demands of their respective consumer cultures
and to avoid economic stagnation. Both face problems
of resource depletion and environmental pollution.
Both must find incentives for their workers to
produce, and means to distribute the production among
the population in a way that is perceived as fair.

He tells us that -

The United States, as we've seen is by no means a pure
capitalist society. Many services have to be provided,
for example, even if they profit nobody - so schools,
sewers, police forces, and the like are socialised and
publicly owned. Governments have intervened repeatedly
in the "free" market in ways more reminiscent of a
socialist country - saving mammoth corporations in the
past from bankruptcy, supporting agricultural prices,
giving direct and indirect subsidies to industries,
regulating the money supply, shifting income from
workers to Social Security recipients, and so on.

We're also told that -
Conversely, there are signs that the communist-ruled
societies are embracing aspects of capitalism, especially
through their use of financial incentives. Some of
the communist ruled countries are finally confronting the fact
that their system is inherently inefficient.

Any comparison of similar capitalist and socialist societies
yields the same impression about the relative standards
of the populace. The United States is more prosperous than
Russia, South Korea, more than North Korea; Taiwan more so
than China, and so on. Even the most productive and
prosperous socialist countries like Hungary and Rumania
have least centralised economies and the most "capitalistic"
incentives.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

The trend according to Hollander in all these societies,
seems to be toward greater rewards for individual effort.

However the question that needs to be asked is - if
economic convergence does appear to be taking place
will political convergence also follow?

All democratic socialist societies and all advanced
capitalist societies are democracies, with a free press,
an independent judiciary and regular free elections.
There is no prospect that this situation will change.
On the other hand, no communist-ruled country is a
democracy. Ultimately "convergence" according to
Hollander may depend on whether more liberal economic
politices will lead to democratisation in the
"Soviet-style" economies.

'The Soviet society imploded largely because of the maldistribution of capital'

the idiotic communist/socialist dogma ignored the very easy observation that man (and woman's) hearts are corrupt. That is what brought communism down and what will bring capitalism down. A denial of this requires blind ignorance. We actually have many in the public service who think they are overworked and underpaid.

Maybe ask the millions who are desperate to flee communism whether there is any real difference?

There is a gulf of enormous proportions between the two. One word, 'freedom' says it all.

Better to discuss totalitarianism and why the hell there are misled fools (the 'useful idiots' of Marxism) who would promote totalitarian creeds and ideology to benefit a clique whose first priority, apart from feathering their own nests, would be to deal with the aforementioned 'useful idiots'.

The following link may be of interest:

http://sustainablehuman.com/capitalism-and-communism-two-vehicles-to-the-same-direction/

The question is asked - "So what do capitalism and
communism have in common?"

We're told that both assume nature's resources to be
indefinite and both place value on extracting resources at
faster rates distributing them through an ownership-based
model.

With infinite resources you can meet everyone's needs
through individual ownership since there is enough, in theory,
to make one for everyone. However, we're told that many
(especially the youth) see the futility of the idea that
nature is limitless, that the earth has an infinite capacity
to absorb our pollution or hide our waste.

In a world with finite resources - the goal of one of
everything for everyone is impossible - not for 7 or
potentially 10 billion of us.

Therefore, just like their goal growth-based capitalism and
growth-based communism are both inherently invalid.
When the pie doesn't get any bigger, ideologies that
champion growth strategies to solve hunger and poverty issues
lose their appeal.

New economic systems must emerge that allow us to share the
world efficiently but also justly. A world in which some
people die systematically from malnutrition while others
throw away the necessary food to feed them will not work
any longer.

Values must change to base one's self-worth on the quality
on one's relationships and experiences instead of the number
of their possessions.

Access to quality resources for all of the world's people
must take precedence over satisfying insatiable desires of
the few.

cont'd ...

My apologies - another typo -
I mistyped the link I gave -
it should be:

http://sustainablehuman.com/capitalism-and-communism-two-vehicles-to-the-same-destination/

David F,
Fascism and Hitlerian Socialism were not capitalist systems, the Soviets had their bureaus, the NS had their state approved monopolies, both states organised and distributed labour and resources to their bureaus and official suppliers, told them what they could make, when and at what price. NS Germany had limited privatisation in some sectors, the Soviets allowed some bureaus similar levels of autonomy.
Only your more thuggish, beetle browed Commie cretins like those found in the Scottish Nationalist Party still claim that Fascism was a capitalist system, or they did until the internet laughed so hard that they were forced to shut up.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

The defining characteristic of capitalism is that the means of production are in private hands. The defining characteristic of socialism is that the means of production are in public or government hands. Fascism did not touch the property of landowners or corporations as long as those owners were not Jewish.

To say that only the Scottish nationalists considered Fascism capitalist is laughable.

The Fascists opposed liberal capitalism,but they were quite happy with authoritarian capitalism. Landowners and corporate interests financed the rise to power of both Hitler and Mussolini, and the alliance continued through their rule.

runner wrote: "the idiotic communist/socialist dogma ignored the very easy observation that man (and woman's) hearts are corrupt."

Dear runner,

I haven't observed that, and I doubt that you have observed it. I cannot observe what it is someone's heart, and I doubt that you can either. It is more of the religious dogma of original sin - not something one observes. Speak for yourself. Maybe your heart is corrupt, and you assume other people's heart must also be corrupt.

Please cite when and under what circumstances you have observed that someone's heart is corrupt. I wish you weren't so inordinately fond of making statements that cannot be backed up. Religious belief is not a substitute for proof or facts.

.

Dear david f,

.

« The defining characteristic of capitalism is that the means of production are in private hands. The defining characteristic of socialism is that the means of production are in public or government hands »
.

That’s correct, David, in the economic sense of the word. In the financial sense, this is what the Online Etymology Dictionary has to say:

« The financial sense is from 1610s (Middle English had chief money "principal fund," mid-14c.), from Medieval Latin capitale "stock, property" »

Those primeval human tribes that headed north from their early beginnings in Africa and migrated to Europe found themselves in a much less idyllic environment than those which migrated to Australia. The cold winter climate obliged them to wear animal skins to stay warm and they were constantly exposed to attack from competing tribes for access to available natural resources.

The struggle for survival in these more difficult conditions became the motor for evolution away from the traditional nomadic, hunter-gatherer way of life to the sedentary activities of agriculture and animal husbandry. It enabled the accumulation and storage of food (an instinctive form of capitalism practiced by many animal species) in order to survive the long winter months which, in turn, stimulated the development of science and industry.

This was a major turning point in the development of mankind. It occurred some 10,000 years ago, during what is known as the Neolithic era or “new stone age”.

Many animal species practice “private capitalism” (individual accumulation and storage of food) but some rare species practice a form of “state capitalism” (sharing of resources among the community). Ants, bees and wasps are typical examples of the latter.

Both systems, “private capitalism” and “state capitalism” (socialism) seem to co-exist quite harmoniously in nature. Both appear to be equally efficient and give satisfaction to the particular species which practices either one or the other.

These two natural phenomena obviously find an echo in Adam Smith’s free market economic theory on the one hand and Karl Marx’s theory of communism on the other.

.

Banjo Paterson: Your account of the raise of civilisation and complex social structures (eg: structured society, pulic works and government) is very wrong. Europe was not a "cradle of civilisation". The break from hunter-gathering to permanent agriculture occurred in a number of places at different times and mostly independently and sometimes completely independently. The most common regions recognised as cradles are: The Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia and Levant), Lower Nile of Egypt, Indus River in modern day Pakistan, Yellow River of China and the Norte Chico civilization in present day Peru and the Mesoamerican cultures from current central Mexico to Belize.

Nor have the colder European cultures been a dominating global force for long. In fact if you remove the Mediterranean based powers/societies of Greece, Rome and later Spain then Europe has only been home of the largest economic and military powers for a very, very short time when compared to the whole of civilisation (just a few centuries upto the late 1800's/early 1900's when USA took the title). Eg: did you know that the Meso american societies have had cities which dwarfed anything that Europe had at the time?

I once read that the region which holds the title of the greatest economic production for the longest time is China-- it held the title continuously for millenia. (Of course the politics, culture and ethnicity of this region has change a lot during this time). According to some, China has just recently regained this title.

When viewed over the entirety of civilisation, economically and militarily, Europe excluding the Roman empire, doesn't have much claim to fame. The thing that they did contribute, something which has had more effect on humanity than any other in history, is its developments in rational thinking and empirical investigation of reality: ie, its developments in math and the philosophy and practice of modern science.

If Banjo's theory is correct, which is a big stretch, then as I see it, the human animal is the only one capable of greed and therein lies our inherent problem as a species.

There are always those who feel the need to have more than their fair share; as they acquire excessive capital they also acquire power; the powerful feel the need to rule over others; power corrupts and we eventually end up with flawed systems that are not experienced in the beehive or ant hill.

If we could talk to the bees perhaps we'd gain a different perspective on what its like to live as a drone serving one ruler for life.

I think one should distinguish between the political and economic frames of reference.

On the political level, the opposite of “communist society” is “free society” (that is how we who lived there referred to the world behind the Iron Curtain, although true, the comrades called it pejoratovely “capitalist society”).

On the economic level, the opposite of “capitalism” is “controlled (or managed) economy”. E. g. the Nazis had a semi-managed economy and certainly were not a free society.

I am not an economist but I think a free society CAN function with both a capitalist economy or a managed economy (whether it DOES function in this or that particular case, is a different question). Only the extremes in both directions lead always to a less than free society (or worse). The Germans like to refer to their system as “soziale Marktwirtschaft” (social free market economy), perhaps a kind of a hybrid.

Dear George,

I lived in the US during most of the Cold War and found the term Free World completely objectionable. It gave the illusion that outside of the communist world everyone was free. There were non-communist dictatorships in much of Africa and South America, the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines, Franco's dictatorship in Spain and other authoritarian governments. It was a locution designed to say that they were the bad and unfree world and, outside of THEM, everything was rosy. It was part of the strategy to paint US and everyone outside of the communist orbit as good and THEM as bad. The term Free World was only propaganda.

The comrades were accurate. The society outside of the communist world was capitalist and both free and not free. I regard neither capitalism nor communism as a pejorative term. In reality any society is both free and not free, and any society has both private and public ownership. There are only degrees of freedom and degrees of private ownership.

However, in regard to managed and non-managed economy, the industrial revolutions in England and Germany were different. In England the industrial revolution was effected largely by private capital with minimal government intervention. In Germany the government encouraged the industrial revolution, and the entrepreneurs were supported by government investment. Both were quite successful.

Dear David,

I did not want to defend the phrase “free society” only mentioned it as a term that expressed our admiration of - as we saw it - the West, in particular America (not e.g. South Africa - not many people dreamt of escaping to South Africa), in spite of all of its blemishes. I think it also reflected the fact that the refugees, (and many more would-be refugees) would keep on crossing the Iron Curtain in that, rather than the opposite, direction. After all, "free" here was always meant as "freer than".

Later I found out that many Americans and Australians found the description “free” for the world Americans brought also to Wesgtern Europe after WWII objectionable, as you put it. So the choice of the word to describe it (a world or society, that after all does not exist any more, the same as its opponent), is rather subjective, a matter of personal experience with the European world on both sides of the Iron Curtain a few decades ago.

Nevertheless I still think it is a good thing to keep apart the political/cultural and economical characterisations of a society, whatever names we prefer to give them.

I agree that ruthless capitalism, economic liberalism, as being now imported also to Germany, is being felt as alien; ther more so in Southern Europe.

Dear George,

Although I am not religious I think there is wisdom in the Bible.

Luke 6:42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?

One can fail to see the flaws in your own country or system when criticising the other side. I felt we were doing that during the Cold War when we encouraged the phrase, 'free world'

What on earth does a society have to do to be free in your opinion David. The only thing is you have to pay your dues, if you wish to be productive, & acquire property.

Here we are free to work or not work, & have everyone else provide for us if we can't be bothered.

Women are free to decide to bread, & have everyone else provide for them, or pay their own way.

WE are free to acquire an education, or remain a socialist.

We are free to leave the country, or return to it at will.

We are free to acquire any property we desire, provided only that we must acquire the money to pay for it.

About the only thing we are not free to do is get rid if the bludgers taking a free ride on the backs of the productive.

'Please cite when and under what circumstances you have observed that someone's heart is corrupt.'

often when I read what you say David f.

Dear runner,

That is merely a wisecrack which you are good at. It is not an answer.

Capitalist or socialist?
Good question.
Perhaps the following may demonstrate just what suckers we are he in the "Lucky Country"
Go to any pub, club or casino in Australia where there are poker machines and see that the highest winning combination payouts are the same for every like machine in the country.
Forget the progressive jackpots just concentrate on maximum combination payouts.
The reason they are all the same all over the country is because the Federal Government sets the payout figures as maximums.
In America and Europe the owner of the machines set their own payout levels, free market, competition whatever you may call it however here in Australia payouts must be regulated.
Why?
Imagine this scenario.
Your local bowling club with a dozen or so poker machines competing with the football club up the road with two hundred machines or the local casino with a thousand.
Now picture the situation if the casino with more patrons,more revenue and more entertainment attractions is able to set its own poker machine payouts.
The smaller clubs cannot compete so the go out of business all over the country and there are a few hundred thousand workers without jobs.
A social disaster.
Capitalism propped up by socialism.
Makes you think

.

Dear thinkabit,

.

« Banjo Paterson: Your account of the raise of civilisation and complex social structures (eg: structured society, public works and government) is very wrong. Europe was not a "cradle of civilisation". The break from hunter-gathering to permanent agriculture occurred in a number of places at different times and mostly independently and sometimes completely independently. »
.

That is also my understanding, thinkabit, but I did not indicate that Europe was a "cradle of civilisation".

According to Wikipedia :

[ The concept 'cradle of civilization' is the subject of much debate. The figurative use of cradle to mean "the place or region in which anything is nurtured or sheltered in its earlier stage" is traced by the OED to Spenser (1590)."

The phrase "cradle of civilization" plays a certain role in national mysticism. It has been used in Eastern as well as Western cultures, for instance, in Hindu nationalism (In Search of the Cradle of Civilization 1995), and Taiwanese nationalism (Taiwan — The Cradle of Civilization 2002). The terms also appear in esoteric pseudo history, such as the Urantia Book claiming the title for "the second Eden," or the pseudo archaeology related to Megalithic Britain (Civilization One 2004, Ancient Britain: The Cradle of Civilization 1921). ]

I was only referring to the transition in Europe from hunter-gatherer to sedentary activities :

« The struggle for survival in these more difficult conditions became the motor for evolution away from the traditional nomadic, hunter-gatherer way of life to the sedentary activities of agriculture and animal husbandry. »

Wikipedia :

[ The majority of "Westerners" belong to sedentary cultures. In evolutionary anthropology and archaeology, is often applied to the transition from nomadic society to a lifestyle that remains in one place permanently.

The Natufians were sedentary for more than 2000 years before they, at some sites, started to cultivate plants around 10000 BC.

The first sedentary sites were pre-agricultural, and they appeared during the Upper Paleolithic in Moravia in Europe and on the East European Plain during the interval of c. 25000-17000 BC. ]

Hopefully, this clarifies any misunderstanding.

.

Dear david f,

The moral maxim presupposes that you know which is the “speck” and which the “plank”.

I was talking about times bygone, the Soviet (Stalinist) system and the American (McCarthyist) “system”. I had personal experience with the former not the latter, you probably the other way around. So our impressions about relative freedom were subjective. As I said before, one simple way to objectively compare is to count the number of people escaping (or trying to escape) the American/Western rule to live under the Soviet rule, and those who went (or would have gone if allowed to) in the opposite direction.

I agree that a society calling itself free is something like a person calling himself clever, generous, etc. It is always relative, and for others to say in both cases. However, politicians need labels and slogans.

Dear chrisgaff1000,

I can't imagine any thinking person playing the pokies.

.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

.

« If Banjo's theory is correct, which is a big stretch, then as I see it, the human animal is the only one capable of greed and therein lies our inherent problem as a species. »
.

Not so, ConservativeHippie. This is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject about animal behaviour :

« Although a small handful of species share food stores, food hoarding is a solo endeavour for most species, including almost all rodents and birds. For example, a number of jays live in large family groups, but they don't demonstrate sharing of cached food. Rather, they hoard their food supply selfishly, caching and retrieving the supply in secret. »

Selfishness or “greed”, as you suggest, seems to be more frequent than altruism or “sharing” among those animals that accumulate and store food.

That is why I wrote that “many animal species practice “private capitalism” (individual accumulation and storage of food) and that this particular “natural phenomena obviously finds an echo in Adam Smith’s free market economic theory”.

Adam Smith is quoted as having said :

« It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. »

But he is also quoted as having said :

« Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another. »

« To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature. »

Whereas, Karl Marx is quoted as having said :

« Capital is dead labour, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. »

« The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. »

But he is also quoted as having said :

« The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people. »

.

Never been a fan of neither point of view. They are 2 extremes. Communism would work well on paper, but in reality, not very much. Capitalism may seem tempting, but it creates huge problems.

George wrote
:
“I agree that a society calling itself free is something like a person calling himself clever, generous, etc. It is always relative, and for others to say in both cases. However, politicians need labels and slogans.”

Politicians may or may not need labels and slogans. One effective tactic of a politician is to claim he or she is not a politician but is running for office in opposition to a political culture.

It is our task as informed voters to see through the labels and slogans to determine what the politician's program really is. That is not always possible because the press is often slanted, and the politicians are often not straightforward.

Banjo Paterson quotes Marx. Marx was good at making witty aphorisms. Quite often they were completely wrong.

Marx wrote:

« Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another. »

Here Marx is completely wrong. The animal world is replete with bargains. The most successful insect societies are those of the social insects where the worker bees or ants works for the hive or nest and in return is given a home. Monkeys groom each other in return for support when threatened. The ancestors of dog, the wolves, hunt in packs where the prey is shared between all members of the pack not just those who did the killing.

Peter Kropotkin, a Russian geographer, economist, activist, philologist, zoologist, evolutionary theorist, philosopher, writer and prominent anarchist, wrote "Mutual Aid" which recounts the many instances of cooperation and bargaining in animal life.

« To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature. »

The growth of altruism in society could possibly be due to the realisation of the benefits of reciprocity. “I’ll scratch your back. When I need it, you’ll scratch mine.” Altruism can be enlightened selfishness.

« The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.»

Karl might have howled if someone used his toothbrush.

for 2500 years religions have freed humanity from Chaos, Chaos being humans competing with each other for limited resources, murdering each other to take over each other's land. religions are basically leaderships maximising controls over the masses using an unproven magical god. priests speaking to a god with peasants unable to doubt whether an actual god exists. I say new religions of worshiping money has populations working to exhaustion, willingly competing with each other for limited resources, is no more than another religion tyring to maximise results. I would claim Capitalism is another works best when faith in capitalism is at its highest emotional stimulated beliefs. Capitalist finance news reports are no more than convincing confidence tricks. The new priests are politicians, the new god is market forces. the better convincing religions are, the fewer heretics there are to find.

Dear david f,
You are obviously not on the dole or the disability pension or indigenous or South Sea Islander or even a visitor (shoo don,t tell immigration I,m here) from New Guinea otherwise you would dutifully paying homage to the great god "Pokie"
But that is another story

Late to this thread, I've read "The Pitchforks" - thank you David.

I am not an economist nor would I pretend to be one, so as Nick Hanauer claims that the minimum wage is good for the economy I would for now accept his word at face value.

So what if it is good for the economy: what right has anyone to force others, under the threat of police and gaol, IN THE NAME OF ECONOMY, to deal between them in this way rather than in that way?

So what is common between communism and capitalism is materialism, or more specifically, placing the entity of economy above you and me and our individual freedom.

It just so happens that unlike communism which unabashedly tells people where to go, capitalism claims "let the mice run loose in this maze - they will come out right and bring us more cheese": both treat us as mice, economy-fodder.

.

Dear david f,

.

« Banjo Paterson quotes Marx. Marx was good at making witty aphorisms. Quite often they were completely wrong. »
.

I couldn’t agree with you more, david.

It reminds me of the famous 80%/20% rule that people used to come up with when speaking of their professional activities, a few years ago, no matter how passionate and enthralling they appeared to be.

I recall, for example, a famous professor of medicine declaring during an interview on French television, I guess it must have been sometime during the late 1970s :

« 80% of my work is dull, tedious and uninteresting and only 20% is innovative and exciting. »

So I imagine the same 80%/20% rule applying to the activities of people such as the Scottish moral philosopher and political economist, Adam Smith and the German philosopher, economist, and revolutionary socialist, Karl Marx, i.e., :

« 80% of their ideas were nothing but hogwash and 20% changed the course of history of mankind. »

I suppose that same basic principle applies even to geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci, Einstein, George and david f.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank you putting me in the illustrious company of Leonardo da Vinci, Einstein and George.

However, I question an aphorism you quoted in reference to Marx and Smith:

« 80% of their ideas were nothing but hogwash and 20% changed the course of history of mankind. »

Marx’s ideas did change the world. However, my opinion is that his ideas that changed the world belong in the 80% of hogwash. Some of his ideas that changed the world are expressed in the Communist Manifesto. In my opinion that document is largely hogwash.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 is my article which tells why I think it is hogwash.

.

Dear david f,

.

« Marx’s ideas did change the world. However, my opinion is that his ideas that changed the world belong in the 80% of hogwash. »
.

I know you detest Marx and Marxism and I am sure you have good reason to do so.

Allow me simply to observe that Marx’s ideas were revolutionary at the time but he, personally, never put them into practice nor did he ever incite anybody to harm or kill anybody.

His intentions were motivated by the highly laudable humanist desire to emancipate the working class from the domination and exploitation of capitalism.

The standard common law test of criminal liability in democratic regimes is expressed in the Latin phrase, “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an “actus reus”, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of “mens rea” to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged.

It seems to me that a clear distinction should be made between the analysis of the mechanisms that allowed a small elite to dominate and exploit the majority, indicating what they should do to emancipate themselves (“Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains”), and the brutal methods of the political dictators who implemented those ideas.

Under no stretch of the imagination could this be interpreted as an incitation to slaughter tens of millions of innocent people.

Having said that, paradoxically, I could only imagine the citizens of theocracies such as the Islamaic State, Iran or the Vatican and, perhaps, some other fanatical religious communities voluntarily adopting Marxism – despite (or, precisely, because of) Marx’s opinion of religion as “the opium of the people”.

In my view, anybody would have to be a religious fanatic to voluntarily accept to live the life of a colony of ants, or a swarm of bees or wasps, renouncing his individuality (and accepting another form of enslavement) in exchange for the security of the community.

.

Dear Banjo,

One is guiltless if one's intentions were noble is one moral rule. Another is that your acts are good or bad depending on the results. What happened in the Marxist states seem a direct consequence of the Marxist ethos.

A person is guilty of homicide even if he or she did not intend to kill anybody if the logical consequence of the act results in someone else’s death. Marx is guilty of negligent homicide.

However, Marx's intentions were not completely noble the way I see them. For one thing he was a bigot. Like other people who come from a heritage that some despise he tried to distance himself from his Jewish heritage. He wrote “On the Jewish question”. It is on the net. As far as I can see it was a vile attack on Jews which could have been written by a Nazi.

He thought of nations as in different stages of progress. That is an idea which he apparently took from Hegel. Thus he supported the Polish attempt to free themselves from Russian domination and also supported the Turkish domination over the Greeks. He saw the Poles as more advanced than the Russians and the Turks as more advanced than the Greeks.

In seeing people as defined by their class, nationality, religion or ethnicity and disregarding their individuality it is not a great leap as far as I can see to justify slaughtering them according to their class, nationality, religion or ethnicity.

One should treat an employee with dignity and consideration. Marx impregnated the family maid. An upper class man took advantage of a lower class woman.

You wrote: “Marx’s ideas were revolutionary at the time.”

The idea that people oppressed for one reason or another should be free is a very old idea. It is at the heart of messianism. Abolition of private property is recommended in Plato’s Republic and the Bible. Marx made an excellent study of the capitalism of his time and was an eloquent writer, but his ideas were neither new nor original. Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Proudhon et al had similar ideas.

.

Dear david f,

.

I understand the reasons for your indignation toward Karl Marx despite his noble intentions.

However, I note that you condemn his “acts”:

« One is guiltless if one's intentions were noble is one moral rule. Another is that your acts are good or bad depending on the results. »

« A person is guilty of homicide even if he or she did not intend to kill anybody if the logical consequence of the act results in someone else’s death. »

Marx was a theoretician, a thinker, a philosopher. He elaborated and promoted a particular political and socio-economical ideology, rightly or wrongly considered original and revolutionary at the time. But he never, personally, put his ideas into practice. Nor did he ever harm or kill anyone or incite anybody to do so.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN, in 1948, 65 years after his death, clearly establishes in its Article 18 freedom of thought, conscience and religion and in its Article 19 freedom of opinion and expression. These latter rights include “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Marx may well have been a bigot, as demonstrated by his “vile attack on Jews which could have been written by a Nazi” as you rightly point out. The fact that he abused of his position as an “upper class man” in taking advantage of his “lower class” housemaid by impregnating her is both morally condemnable and contrary to his proclaimed philosophy.

Nevertheless, if I were a member of a jury assigned to judging him, based on the evidence, I honestly cannot see any good reason to find him guilty of the mass murder of which you accuse him.

On the other hand, I should have little hesitation in condemning the brutal “acts” of political dictators who were responsible for the manner in which Marx’s ideas were imposed on their countries’ citizens, just as I should the brutal “acts” of non-communist dictators, by virtue of some other ideology.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Marx was not only an political thinker and philosopher but was also a political figure. We condemn Hitler for his acts although he may never have personally killed anyone. However, he was a political figure who led others who committed vile acts under his guidance. Analogously I condemn Marx.

Marx in 1864 founded the First International which was designed to carry out the Marxist program. In 1872 it split up partly because Bakunin saw that the Marxist program would result in tyranny. Bakunin led his followers out of the First International, and it was dissolved.

The Second International was founded in 1889 after the death of Marx in 1883. It broke up in 1914 due to the conflict between socialist and nationalist loyalties occasioned by WW1.

The Third International was founded in Moscow in 1919 and controlled the USSR as well as a number of communist parties throughout the world. They carried out the program specified by Marx.

However, had the times been ripe in the nineteenth century for Marx to take over a country or countries it is reasonable to expect that he would have done during the First International roughly what Lenin did in the Third International. His language in the Communist Manifesto suggests that.

From the Manifesto: "In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

.

Dear david f,

.

« Marx was not only an political thinker and philosopher but was also a political figure. We condemn Hitler for his acts although he may never have personally killed anyone. However, he was a political figure who led others who committed vile acts under his guidance. Analogously I condemn Marx. »
.

William L. Shirer, “The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich” :

Hitler was Chancellor of Germany. He won the approval of the Reichstag, on 23 March 1933, by 441 votes to 84, despite his party's lack of parliamentary majority, for it to "temporarily" delegate, (and subsequently renew), its powers to him, under what became known as the "Enabling Act", granting him dictatorial rule, free from all legislative and constitutional constraints.

Wikipedia :

[ On 22 February 1942, Hitler was recorded saying, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews". Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced, his public speeches, orders to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials demonstrate that he conceived and authorised the extermination of European Jewry. He approved the Einsatzgruppen - killing squads that followed the German army through Poland, the Baltic, and the Soviet Union - and he was well informed about their activities.

Hitler ruled autocratically by asserting the Führerprinzip ("Leader principle"). The principle relied on absolute obedience of all subordinates to their superiors; thus he viewed the government structure as a pyramid, with himself - the infallible leader - at the apex.

He assumed the role of supreme commander of the armed forces during 1938, and subsequently made all major decisions regarding Germany's military strategy.

The military did not challenge Hitler's dominance of the war effort, and senior officers generally supported and enacted his decisions. ]

Karl Marx, by comparison, never held any position of political power in his life and was never in a position to order or authorize anybody to kill anybody.

The only persons he may possibly have commanded were his wife, seven children and his housemaid. None of them ever killed anyone either.

.

Dear Banjo,

I agree. Marx never killed anyone or had anyone killed as far as I know. However, I don't think it was for want of trying. The First International did not have the success in carrying out the Marxist program that the Third International had. Marx was not as successful as Hitler and Lenin in rising to power.

The time was not ripe for a Marxist takeover during his lifetime. I think he was no better than Hitler and Lenin - just less successful.

https://archive.org/stream/selectedworksofs030023mbp/selectedworksofs030023mbp_djvu.txt

contains "The Curfew Tolls". It is a short story by Stephen Vincent Benet and tells of a retired French army officer. It's a good story so even if I tell you the plot it won't spoil it for you. The protagonist is Napoleon born at a time that was not ripe for him to rise to power. As you read the story you become aware of the identity of the retired French army officer.

IMHO Alexander, Julius Caesar, Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler were all successful monsters. I didn't include Stalin and Mao since they merely continued the work of Lenin and the program of Marx.

There may be millions who would have been similar monsters had they been able to gain the power that Alexander, Julius Caesar, Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler did. We don't know the names of most of them. However, from what I have read of the political strivings and writings of Karl Marx he was one of the unsuccessful monsters.

.

Dear david f,

.

« There may be millions who would have been similar monsters had they been able to gain the power that Alexander, Julius Caesar, Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Lenin and Hitler did. We don't know the names of most of them. However, from what I have read of the political strivings and writings of Karl Marx he was one of the unsuccessful monsters. »
.

Well, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that he (Karl Marx) may have been a “monster” if he had had the opportunity?

The principal piece of evidence of his “intentions of mass murder” appears to be contained in the phrase you cited in the Manifesto :

« In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. »

Does "violent overthrow" necessarily imply the mass murder of tens of millions of innocent people? If we reply "yes" to that question, at most it means that it is a threat of civil war. In which case the next question is "who would be to blame if it materialized", the insurgents or the dominating, ruling class, who exploited the laborious masses?

Who was to blame for the French revolution, for example? The insurgents, the common people who suffered from hunger and injustice, or Louis XVI and the rich aristocracy who exploited them?

It seems to me that that remains a matter of conjecture. I doubt that anybody will ever be able to provide conclusive, incontestable proof of responsibility of either one or the other. Who is there to judge?

And what about the possible responsibility of the socio-political philosopher? Are there sufficient grounds for condemning Karl Marx, beyond reasonable doubt?

I vote “no”. Do you maintain your “yes” vote?

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

There's a saying - The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Marx was aware of the suffering of the working class so he had the good intentions of relieving that suffering. The expression of his good intentions were the blueprints for the activities of the monsters.

Marx like Wagner was a genius. Wagner was an inspiration to Hitler, but he made beautiful music. Marx was an inspiration to Lenin, but he made a wonderful analysis of nineteenth century capitalism.

I have enjoyed listening to Wagner's music and reading Marx. However, they both inspired monsters. Wagner didn't produce a program for tyranny. He merely expressed his bigotry. Marx produced a program for tyranny.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm tells about the conflict between Bakunin and Marx which resulted in the breakup of the First International. From that: Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”

The monsters, idealists and fools who followed Marx were not as perceptive as Bakunin.

.

Dear david f,

.

« Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian” »
.

That is correct. Subsequent events have proven that the only way Marxism can work is by an authoritarian government ruling a largely subservient population.

If I may (exceptionally) be so pretentious as to cite myself from a previous post on this thread:

« In my view, anybody would have to be a religious fanatic to voluntarily accept to live the life of a colony of ants, or a swarm of bees or wasps, renouncing his individuality (and accepting another form of enslavement) in exchange for the security of the community. »

Which brings me back to my original thesis (here I go again):

« Many animal species practice “private capitalism” (individual accumulation and storage of food) but some rare species practice a form of “state capitalism” (sharing of resources among the community). Ants, bees and wasps are typical examples of the latter.

Both systems, “private capitalism” and “state capitalism” (socialism) seem to co-exist quite harmoniously in nature. Both appear to be equally efficient and give satisfaction to the particular species which practices either one or the other.

These two natural phenomena obviously find an echo in Adam Smith’s free market economic theory on the one hand and Karl Marx’s theory of communism on the other. »

I have a lot of affinity with Bakunin’s philosophy of liberty but I think we have a long way to go (probably several million years) before we could envisage doing without the state and living in complete anarchy. I see that he is quoted as having admitted: “I am a fanatical lover of liberty....”. In that he too was, perhaps, a potential “monster”.

I tend to think that, at least for the next few million years, we should realistically continue to apply Rousseau’s bourgeois liberalism which considers the rights of all, represented by the State, as a limit for the rights of each …

Thank you for the link to that interesting analysis.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

One of the things that I have observed on olo and other places that my views which seem perfectly reasonable to me are opposed to the views of other people whose views seem perfectly reasonable to them. No matter how long we continue to discuss the matter we will each maintain our own position.

You wrote: "And what about the possible responsibility of the socio-political philosopher? Are there sufficient grounds for condemning Karl Marx, beyond reasonable doubt?

I vote “no”. Do you maintain your “yes” vote?"

Why would you think otherwise?

I maintain that Karl Marx was the evil genius of the nineteenth century and Napoleon was the greatest monster of that century. They both ostensibly favoured liberation.

There is one point of view which maintains that everything that happens has a purpose. That purpose may be determined by God, historical necessity or something else. This purpose leads to an end which may be the millennium, the classless society or something else. I think things that happen are constrained by the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology, and there is no purpose except in our minds. The only end I am sure of is eventual extinction and the heat death.

Do you favour either point of view?

.

Dear david f,

.

I wrote :

« I vote “no”. Do you maintain your “yes” vote?" »

And you replied :

« Why would you think otherwise? »
.
I wouldn’t. My initial thought was « I presume you maintain your “yes” vote.» But I wrote instead :

« Do you maintain your “yes” vote? », for three reasons :

1) I considered that my initial thought was too presumptive,
2) I always favour open questions rather than closed questions
3) I never provide the questions and the answers - just the questions
.

You also wrote :

« Do you favour either point of view? »
.

I think the “points of view” you are referring to are :

1) Life has a purpose and, 2) life does not have a purpose.

I consider that life does not have a purpose but that I can (and do) give my life a purpose.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Many of our arguments or discussions in olo seem to me rather pointless. Different sides restate their positions. Abortion/woman’s rights is one example. That has a resonance in the present world as it refers to a legal position which may be changed. However, the arguments themselves rarely state something new.

You wrote: "1) I considered that my initial thought was too presumptive,
2) I always favour open questions rather than closed questions
3) I never provide the questions and the answers - just the questions"

When one uses absolute words such as ‘always’ and ‘never’ one invites the opponent to search your previous statements for exceptions. I don’t feel like doing that.

Some questions I prefer to consider as closed. Evolution seems to me to have overwhelming evidence for it, and no counter evidence although some do not accept it because it contradicts their religious beliefs. However, since those who reject it may, if they get on school boards, interfere with the teaching of science it then becomes not a matter of argument but a struggle for control of the schools.

I think you are an erudite, thoughtful and courteous person, and I don’t feel like arguing more with you on this particular subject. May we have a future go.

.

Dear david f,

.

« Many of our arguments or discussions in olo seem to me rather pointless. »
.

That’s odd, David. Apart from that surprising statement and your opinion on the responsibility of Karl Marx in the practical application of his socio-economic policies, I have exactly the opposite impression. I find myself in agreement with the essentials of just about everything you say, whatever the topic.

I should even go as far to say that if our arguments or discussions on olo are rather pointless it is precisely because we basically agree on the essentials of just about everything. In my mind, our differences are, generally speaking, quite marginal. I don’t know anyone on olo with whom I am more in agreement than you.
.

« When one uses absolute words such as ‘always’ and ‘never’ one invites the opponent to search your previous statements for exceptions. I don’t feel like doing that. »

I don’t wish to be pretentious, David, but I honestly don’t think you would find any. As all the members of my (French) family could readily testify, I am notorious for constantly waging war against the abuse of such absolute expressions as ‘all’, ‘none’ ‘every’ ‘totally’, ‘completely’, ‘always’, ‘never’, etc. I do not use such words lightly.

I seem to recall that on one occasion, I even went as far to say, in respect to one of your posts during a discussion with George, that I should have liked to sign that post myself.

Eureka ! :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#268881

[ The link doesn’t seem to open on the exact post. You will find it in my comment dated Thursday, 3 October 2013 7:06:28 PM in George’s article: “Is being a scientist compatible with believing in God?” ]

Must I say more ?
.

« I don’t feel like arguing more with you on this particular subject. May we have a future go. »

With great pleasure, David, as always, and … please believe me ... that is no exaggeration!.

.