Extreme Leftism

[infoterror]

Class systems blow. Every good Nationalist should hate them. Only caste systems are real. Under the class system, not only do the poor get screwed, but the aristocratic get screwed as well. That is why you have no intelligent leaders these days. You did them in with money problems and drove them out of society's favor. Or rather, the Undermen did.

 

[Korona]

The Spanish Anarchist communities are the only example of a sucessful implementation of Marxist theory and they were a SUCCESS! (untill Franco and the Nazis crushed them in the Spanish Civil war) They prove that Anarchist Socialism of the type Marx envisaged is in fact a viable system.
Learn your history and your Marxism!

 

[Silver Incubus]

I have always thought socialism and Marxism where doable, I did a whole political philosophy paper on Marx and Engel's communism, and it seemed that if it did work, it would be a great place to live. But the so called communisms today are just dictatorships under the flag of communism. They still have rulers, and as such, no true democracy.
Socialism and Democracy should go hand in hand. As clearly representitive government will always become corrupt, just like anyone else in power.

 

[speed]

The Spanish Anarchist communities are the only example of a sucessful implementation of Marxist theory and they were a SUCCESS! (untill Franco and the Nazis crushed them in the Spanish Civil war) They prove that Anarchist Socialism of the type Marx envisaged is in fact a viable system.
Learn your history and your Marxism!

I have read the entire works of marx, and it is important to remember he was a theorist, until one reads the Communist Manifesto, in which he contradicts most of his theory.

Marx's theory, although totally based on capital and labor, predicted that in the future, there would be no more demand because technology and machines would outstrip humanity and labor, causing only a small few to have jobs--thus no one would be able to buy any commodities and companies would be forced to close down. He also made some incorrect assumptions about money--as in he never foresaw credit, plus he never realized how service and white collar indistries would become the great employers of modern society--due to his belief money and labor was tied to producing things/commodities for human consumption.

Still, he may still prove to be correct with his fundamental assumption that the capitalistic economic system will bring about its own cataclysmic ruin.

hell, I wrote this short reaction paper for a Phd economics class I took last year in graduate school. I am posting it below. And his best book is the Grundrisse, that explains the entirety of his economic theory succinctly and in all of its scope. Why it wasnt published until 20 years ago, I do not know.


Before reading the collected works of Karl Marx, I must admit I had a rather low perception of the man. Marx is so widely despised and forgotten in mainstream America, that one almost cannot take his thought seriously. The obvious failures of Communism, and his use of the dialectic, make him even less attractive to the modern American. I had always found his essentially messianic thought to be quite dangerous; to me communism seemed a secular religion separated from reality. My perceptions changed after reading The Grunderisse and Das Kapital. Instead of political revolutionary, Marx to me became a harsh critic of the capitalism of his time, a relevant economic theorist, and a visionary philosopher.

Marx the economist is chiefly concerned with labor. Labor as Marx states, is a commodity; and wage labor is a commodity that presupposes capital. The capitalist’s seek to create surplus values of commodities, and do so by exploiting labor, by paying labor the value of his sustenance, and working the laborer longer. Thus, the capitalist, has reduced the common human being into a commodity, nothing better than cattle; the common laborer of the bourgeoisie age has thus lost their humanity to the insatiable greed of the capitalists. Even the union and the idea of division of labor are nothing more than capitalist innovations to increase the productive power of their labor; hence, unions etc are alien to the proletariat, they were forced upon him. And the division of labor, or the subjugation of a laborer to one specific operation, is another mendacious capitalist innovation to increase production with no thought at all of the humanity of the worker. In fact, Marx levels what I think is his greatest criticism at capitalism when he claims that Capitalism’s defense of the division of labor, creating humans into commodities, and the unassailable rights of capital and trade are those things that Capitalists claim as freedom, and use every power-from state to social- they have to protect these ‘rights’.

Marx also clams the capitalist creates in reality nothing--but more capital. The capitalist inserts himself in between property and labor; he creates in totality nothing, but the exchange of money—Marx uses the equation M-C-M. The capital or money is transformed into a commodity, which is sold for not another commodity, but money or capital. Of course the whole problem of this aforementioned problem is the commodity. As Marx states in Crisis Theory, depression and crises ensue when commodities are no longer profitable, and cannot be reconverted into money. In the Grundrisse and the end of Vol.1 of Das Kapital, Marx predicts the end of Capitalism itself, as the rise in productive powers through technology etc., will depreciate labor commodities, and capital to the point production is no longer possible.

In my opinion, Marx’s aforementioned criticism and analysis of capitalist economics and economic history, I think is quite excellent. In terms of his contemporary age of the industrial revolution, I truly do believe he had a greater understanding of the workings of the economy than his contemporaries. And in The Grundrisse I was amazed at how forward thinking he was; and in fact, many of his predictions are starting to become true; American companies are no longer making sufficient profits in the American market, and are thus forced to sell their products to underdeveloped countries—who knows how long this can continue? Yet, it is clear that the contemporary economy is not as tied to commodities and labor as Marx thought. Services, diffusive capital, and State social programs have thrown a number of wrinkles into Marx’s analysis. But it is clear to me that Marx is a truly great economic historian and theorist, who must be read and understood by everyone in the field.

I became quite uncomfortable with Marx, when he crosses the threshold between the realm of abstract political economic philosopher, into the realm of political realist. This is most evident in The Communist Manifesto; the first section, the excellent historical analysis and criticism of capitalism is breathtaking. And then, the practical applications and ideals of the Proletariat and Communist party are stated. These ideals, and applications are for the most part antithetical to Marx’s previous analysis. In fact these ideals seem hastily drawn, unsupported—like the need to create a classless society in which the State is the business etc. Where in the historical dialectic do they come from? Primitive ‘slavic’ history as Marx calls it? Why do they work? Why is there a need for a communist party in the mid 19th century? By his own analysis, Capitalism has a long way to go, before it reaches that critical stage where it must be destroyed by the proletariat. To me, Marx parallels Plato in this regard, he created a political way of life, and instead of leaving it as merely an ideal, he tried to create it in reality.

 

[metu]

Well done Speed. I'll freely admit to not knowing much about Marx; that was an informative read. Hopefully this will help kick up the level of conversation a notch. I have a couple of questions:

Wasn't the Manifesto written in collaboration with someone else? Were Marx's other works co-authored by this same person and do you think that there was some influence; perhaps this guy he met got him all fired up about revolution?

Did Marx argue that once upon a time, there was no social hierarchy? This makes sense if someone is trying to use a vision of an idealized past as an inspirational tool, but it seems irresponsible for an historian. Was this part of the Manifesto?

Your assertion that he made sense as a theorist, but was dangerous as a realist seems to fit well with my understanding. I always thought that he argued socialism as an inevitable development. Do you think that perhaps he was growing concerned and frustrated with his lack of impact? Did he maybe kick it up a notch hoping to turn some heads?

End questions.

There’s an book called Totalitarian Language (I forget the subtitle) which explores the language used by the Soviets and the Nazis in their propaganda and relates it to Orwell's 1984. It seems interesting. I've picked at it for research, but I've never really read it. I read a book about the Chinese Communist propaganda machine, Mass persuasion in Communist China by Frederick T.C. Yu, and I think they win. The vocabulary of the peasantry after their "education" is truly impressive.

--------------------------------

For the rest of this thread:

My first problem is the use of this “left/right” political science concept which was proven useless over fifty years ago. Politics are ridiculously complicated and constantly becoming more-so, yet this two dimensional spectrum continues to be the yardstick for people, movements, and ideas. I mean, shit, G.W. Bush is further to the left and the right than anyone I know.

As for the term “extreme”, I highly recommend looking into Daoist philosophies. These philosophies also address big government and just about everything y’alls is arguin’ ‘bout. The progress of harmony is a slow, but worthy goal. Socio-political extremes lead away from harmony toward conflict, blame, demonization, hatered and revenge. That's why the eye of black is white and the eye of white is black.

 

[speed]

Well done Speed. I'll freely admit to not knowing much about Marx; that was an informative read. Hopefully this will help kick up the level of conversation a notch. I have a couple of questions:

Wasn't the Manifesto written in collaboration with someone else? Were Marx's other works co-authored by this same person and do you think that there was some influence; perhaps this guy he met got him all fired up about revolution?

Did Marx argue that once upon a time, there was no social hierarchy? This makes sense if someone is trying to use a vision of an idealized past as an inspirational tool, but it seems irresponsible for an historian. Was this part of the Manifesto?

Your assertion that he made sense as a theorist, but was dangerous as a realist seems to fit well with my understanding. I always thought that he argued socialism as an inevitable development. Do you think that perhaps he was growing concerned and frustrated with his lack of impact? Did he maybe kick it up a notch hoping to turn some heads?

End questions.

There’s an book called Totalitarian Language (I forget the subtitle) which explores the language used by the Soviets and the Nazis in their propaganda and relates it to Orwell's 1984. It seems interesting. I've picked at it for research, but I've never really read it. I read a book about the Chinese Communist propaganda machine, Mass persuasion in Communist China by Frederick T.C. Yu, and I think they win. The vocabulary of the peasantry after their "education" is truly impressive.

--------------------------------

For the rest of this thread:

My first problem is the use of this “left/right” political science concept which was proven useless over fifty years ago. Politics are ridiculously complicated and constantly becoming more-so, yet this two dimensional spectrum continues to be the yardstick for people, movements, and ideas. I mean, shit, G.W. Bush is further to the left and the right than anyone I know.

As for the term “extreme”, I highly recommend looking into Daoist philosophies. These philosophies also address big government and just about everything y’alls is arguin’ ‘bout. The progress of harmony is a slow, but worthy goal. Socio-political extremes lead away from harmony toward conflict, blame, demonization, hatered and revenge. That's why the eye of black is white and the eye of white is black.

Hell I'm tickled you even read it. I have a 40 page paper I could upload if anyone wants to find good sleeping material.

1st question:
Marx collaborated with Engels on the Manifesto, and Engels was by far the more politically active of the two. I would still like to find out how Marx came to the conclusion of many of the points of the Manifesto after reading the totality of his other works. There is an excellent reader by Robert Tucker that has all of Marx's books and essays. His essays on Hegelianism are first rate, and far easier to pick up than reading Hegel himself.

2nd Question:

A quote:

• The history of how labor becomes capital, its relation to capital: 1) Dissolution of the relation to the earth—original property is direct common property, community, 2) Dissolution of the relations in which he appears as proprietor of the instrument—no longer specialist, member of guild etc, a journeyman, 3) dissolution of the means in which the workers themselves belong directly to the objectivity of production; for capital the worker is not a condition of production, only work is (p. 264).

and while I am at it, here are some other wonderful qoutes detailing his future without capitalism:

• As machinery develops with the accumulation of society’s science, general social labor presents itself not in labor but in capital. Full development of capital takes place: the means of labor has not taken the form of fixed capital, but when fixed capital appears as a machine within the production process opposite labor; and the entire production process appears as not subsumed under the direct skillfulness of the worker, but rather the technological application of science (pp280-281).
• As soon as labor in the direct form has ceased to be the great well spring of the wealth, labor time ceases and must cease to be its measure, surplus labor is no longer a measure of development of wealth. Production based on exchange value breaks down and direct material production is stripped. The free development of individualities, and the artistic, scientific, development is set free. Wealth becomes disposable time outside that which is needed for direct production (pp.284-285).
• The highest development of production power together with the greatest expansion of existing wealth will coincide with the depreciation of capital, degradation of the laborer, and an exhaustion of his vital powers. These contradictions will lead to explosions, cataclysms, crises, in which the suspension of labor and annihilation of a great portion of capital is violently reduced to the point where it cannot go on (p.291).

3rd question:

I think I answered in the 1st question as well. I would agree with your hypothesis and have three possible answers: 1) I suppose he could have become insecure about the value of his work; 2) came under the spell of the revolutionary Engels; 3) ended up thinking the end was closer than he originally intentioned. Who knows? There really should be a biography about him. I do think the Grundrisse was held back by Marxists, and NeoMarxists, because it shows explains just how far in the future he thought Communism really was: He lists all the steps capitalism must go through before it gets there, and in 1850, only 1 or 2 had been completed.

In fact I am looking at my long paper and I have quoted or paraphrased it:

• Marx’s historical development of capitalism: 1) General abstract determinants of society; 2) Development of inner structure of bourgeois society and on which fundamental classes rest; capital, wage labor, landed property, the three social classes, exchange, circulation, credit system; 3) Concentration of bourgeois society in the form of the state, unproductive classes, taxes, state debt, public credit, population, colonies, emigration; 4) international relation of production, international division of labor, international exchange, export and import, rate of exchange; 5) The world market and crisis (p 244).

A little known fact about Marx: his brother wrote a book in praise of laziness. Marx essentially believes once labor is obsolete, we shall enter a golden age where labor is no longer necessary. Now wouldnt love that idea? I think I quoted the gist of it already in the above 284-285 reference.

 

[speed]

I sent a rather lengthy reply, but it was eaten by UM. but I was flattered you read my little paper.


So I am rather tired. I will post quotes from Marx that I paraphrased in a rather lenghty research paper I wrote on Marx. If anyone cares, Robert Tucker's Marx-Engles reader contains every piece of writing done by Marx, and is the source of these references. And I dont know if I explained this, but i am of the opinion that the foolish Marxists and Neo-Marxist's kept the Grundrisse out of circulation until 20 years ago, because it shows the full development and explanation of his theory, and how his theory is a total contradiction to his immediate plea for communism--which his theory in the Grundrisse had quite a few more stages to go through--read quote #1 reference p 244.


1) Engels co wrote, and was Marx's patron as well. he was very radical and very politically active--engels that is. Perhaps his sponsership lead Marx to his madness?

2) Historical nature of capitalism:

• Marx’s historical development of capitalism: 1) General abstract determinants of society, 2) Development of inner structure of bourgeois society and on which fundamental classes rest; capital, wage labor, landed property, the three social classes, exchange, circulation, credit system, 3) Concentration of bourgeois society in the form of the state, unproductive classes, taxes, state debt, public credit, population, colonies, emigration, 4) international relation of production, international division of labor, international exchange, export and import, rate of exchange, 5) The world market and crisis (p 244).

• The history of how labor becomes capital, its relation to capital: 1) Dissolution of the relation to the earth—original property is direct common property, community, 2) Dissolution of the relations in which he appears as proprietor of the instrument—no longer specialist, member of guild etc, a journeyman, 3) dissolution of the means in which the workers themselves belong directly to the objectivity of production; for capital the worker is not a condition of production, only work is (p. 264).

• As machinery develops with the accumulation of society’s science, general social labor presents itself not in labor but in capital. Full development of capital takes place: the means of labor has not taken the form of fixed capital, but when fixed capital appears as a machine within the production process opposite labor; and the entire production process appears as not subsumed under the direct skillfulness of the worker, but rather the technological application of science (pp280-281).

This is an important quote: It essential lays out the quite distant future where labor is no longer required thus allowing each individual limitless free time to develop. Marx's borther wrote a book in praise of laziness. Truly, I cannot think of a greater aim than total freedom from the morbid monotony of work.

• As soon as labor in the direct form has ceased to be the great well spring of the wealth, labor time ceases and must cease to be its measure, surplus labor is no longer a measure of development of wealth. Production based on exchange value breaks down and direct material production is stripped. The free development of individualities, and the artistic, scientific, development is set free. Wealth becomes disposable time outside that which is needed for direct production (pp.284-285).

• The highest development of production power together with the greatest expansion of existing wealth will coincide with the depreciation of capital, degradation of the laborer, and an exhaustion of his vital powers. These contradictions will lead to explosions, cataclysms, crises, in which the suspension of labor and annihilation of a great portion of capital is violently reduced to the point where it cannot go on (p.291).

And now when he gets all riled up against the bourgeousie:

• The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the entire bourgeoisie…The bourgeoisie has torn asunder ties of natural superiority amongst classes, has left no other nexus between man and man other than naked self interest, than callous cash payment. It has resolved personal worth into an exchange value, and in place of numberless freedoms, has set up the single freedom of free trade (p.475).
• Revolutionary nature of the bourgeoisie: Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeoisie epoch (p.476). With free trade, and the pain of extinction, it draws all the world nations into civilization…it creates a world after its own image (p.477).