Inevitability of Marxism?

[Bob]

Karl Marx believed in the societal evolution of Capitalism to Socialism to Communism. Does Socialism always lead to Communism? I haven’t decided, as many European countries have been living under socialism for many decades now, but with the apparent inevitability of economic collapse – and the addiction of the people like in Greece to early retirement and government goodies – to me it seems like Marx might be right about the small inevitable step from socialism to communism.

While on the other hand I don’t see it as being evolutionary as much as I see it as a devolutionary process of individuals becoming increasing addicted to “help” of government, which in truth is offered not to help but to incrementally enslave.

[Jay3]

You make a good point and raise a good question. A lot of people forget that Karl Marx wasn't purporting to lay out a blueprint for the best way to manage an economy -- he was making a prediction about the inevitable trend in the life of an economy.

And you could make a good case that eventually, the mob takes over and takes all the stuff. (Of course, the value dissipates, but the mob doesn't really know that or care). You can see that collectivist, Marxist impulse arise again and again, in many mutant variations (socialism, communism, fascism, etc.)

[pricejj]

You are right Bob.

In a Socialist society, the cost structure escalates upwards due to government involvement in private industries. As the costs skyrocket, an already too powerful government's tendency is to take further control, in an attempt to contain costs. Eventually, the private sector of the economy is strangled out, leaving the government in complete control. This is why the founding fathers established the United States of America as a free-market representative Republic, to provide a series of checks and balances in order to limit the power of government, and thus create a free and prosperous nation.

[epicSocialism4tw]

De-evolution would be a good way to describe it.

[W*GS]

Marx was wrong.

There's no "inevitability" at all. And no, socialism does not lead to communism.

Capitalism isn't intrinsically tied to a democratic political system; capitalism can happily co-exist with a non-democratic system. See China, for example.

Insisting that the only "real" capitalism is a libertarian laissez-faire setup, is committing the fallacy of the True Scotsman.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Marx was wrong.

There's no "inevitability" at all. And no, socialism does not lead to communism.

Capitalism isn't intrinsically tied to a democratic political system; capitalism can happily co-exist with a non-democratic system. See China, for example.

Insisting that the only "real" capitalism is a libertarian laissez-faire setup, is committing the fallacy of the True Scotsman.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Marx was wrong.

There's no "inevitability" at all. And no, socialism does not lead to communism.

Capitalism isn't intrinsically tied to a democratic political system; capitalism can happily co-exist with a non-democratic system. See China, for example.

Insisting that the only "real" capitalism is a libertarian laissez-faire setup, is committing the fallacy of the True Scotsman.

Marx felt that there was a connection -- it does seem logical, that as folks become depenedent they will ask for more "help" and as government gives more help, they will want more in return. China is an interesting example though, as they have become more "democratic" over the past 35 years or so.

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Marx was wrong.

There's no "inevitability" at all. And no, socialism does not lead to communism.

Capitalism isn't intrinsically tied to a democratic political system; capitalism can happily co-exist with a non-democratic system. See China, for example.

Insisting that the only "real" capitalism is a libertarian laissez-faire setup, is committing the fallacy of the True Scotsman.

You're breaking down over definitions. Your definition of capitalism is a warped one.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bob

Marx felt that there was a connection -- it does seem logical, that as folks become depenedent they will ask for more "help" and as government gives more help, they will want more in return. China is an interesting example though, as they have become more "democratic" over the past 35 years or so.

Marx was wrong.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Jay3

You're breaking down over definitions. Your definition of capitalism is a warped one.

What is capitalism, then?

What makes China's version of capitalism not-real capitalism?

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by W*GS

What is capitalism, then?

What makes China's version of capitalism not-real capitalism?

The fundamental respect for private property, including the defense of it by the government, such that owners invest capital in an enterprise and receive (by right) the return on that investment, is an essential element of capitalism.

If government decides where capital may be allocated, chooses the winners and losers, and what is a permissible level of profit before confiscation, it does serious damage to the notion of "capitalism" as Marx meant it when he decried it.

If you define capitalism so broadly as to mean the pooling of capital to invest in a productive enterprise, then even the worker committees (the soviets) are engaging in capitalism when they spent their funds on building a factory.

All governments utilize private contracts and create great profiteers. But in a socialist regime, the currency of profiteering is influence. The affluent are those closest to the power of government, as it doles out success in whatever form it can. In the height of decadent Soviet Russia, prominent Party members were the ones who lived well. In China, it is again single party rule -- the Party members are the lords of industry, of banking, of commerce.

It is the dream of economic libertarians that the top dog is the one the market chooses, not the government. That capital flows freely to that which is perceived to be a good investment, and the government stands to the side and protects the property rights of the capitalist.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Marx was wrong.

There's no "inevitability" at all. And no, socialism does not lead to communism.

Capitalism isn't intrinsically tied to a democratic political system; capitalism can happily co-exist with a non-democratic system. See China, for example.

Insisting that the only "real" capitalism is a libertarian laissez-faire setup, is committing the fallacy of the True Scotsman.

I thought socialism was a gateway drug?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Jay3

If government decides where capital may be allocated, chooses the winners and losers, and what is a permissible level of profit before confiscation, it does serious damage to the notion of "capitalism" as Marx meant it when he decried it.

Ideally, in a representative democracy, government doesn't "choose the winners and losers" - it just ensures a level playing field.

The notion that private interests, when left to their own devices, can do this all by themselves his been discredited so many times (particularly in the last 30 years) it's not even funny.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Jay3

In China, it is again single party rule -- the Party members are the lords of industry, of banking, of commerce.

In America, the "lords of industry, banking and commerce" control the levers of government power.

That would be the diametrical opposite of both socialism and Marxism.

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Ideally, in a representative democracy, government doesn't "choose the winners and losers" - it just ensures a level playing field.

It's a cliche, but a pretty good analogy. My post was in response to the notion that "capitalism" reigns in China. I assure you that "the Party" does not strive to "create a level playing field."

The notion that private interests, when left to their own devices, can do this all by themselves his been discredited so many times (particularly in the last 30 years) it's not even funny.

Private interests pursue their own interests. I know that I do. The question is how free they can be allowed to be. The first principle, the founding principle, should be "as free as we can possibly make them." Government should not be a transformative force. It should first and foremost protect the liberty of its citizens. It should not be concerned that its citizens end up in entirely different destinies.

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

In America, the "lords of industry, banking and commerce" control the levers of government power.

That would be the diametrical opposite of both socialism and Marxism.

First of all, yes -- we have a borderline corporatist, socialist society. The legacy is of the New Deal is a very soft form of fascism that prevailed in America. The power of government is too great, and where there is great government power, that power inherently spreads and rests into those who have influence over it. We should work to always maintain a libertarian economy that allows yesterdays "lord of industry" to get stomped in the mud if he can't keep up. Instead, the regulatory power of government is influenced to maintain position by colluding corporations.

Second -- no, it is not the diametrical opposite of both socialism of Marxism. The lords of banking, industry, and commerce reside more directly in the ruling party. Socialism and Marxism do not even pretend to be free market -- they openly seize the means of production and rule them. The power brokers are those who control the levers of government.

[NUB]

Originally Posted by Jay3

very soft form of fascism

Interesting.

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by NUB

Interesting.

Do you do your part?

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Marx was wrong.

There's no "inevitability" at all. And no, socialism does not lead to communism.

Capitalism isn't intrinsically tied to a democratic political system; capitalism can happily co-exist with a non-democratic system. See China, for example.

Insisting that the only "real" capitalism is a libertarian laissez-faire setup, is committing the fallacy of the True Scotsman.

Hey, the "black & grey" markets are the freest markets a-hole! (Kidding wags)

[alkemical]

This country has been "socialist" for so long, that some of you argue against it, even when it's in your own best interest...(and/or you benefit).

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Marx was wrong.

There's no "inevitability" at all. And no, socialism does not lead to communism.

Capitalism isn't intrinsically tied to a democratic political system; capitalism can happily co-exist with a non-democratic system. See China, for example.

Insisting that the only "real" capitalism is a libertarian laissez-faire setup, is committing the fallacy of the True Scotsman.

Why did you put "real" in quotes? Because your definition of capitalism is different than what everybody else thinks is real.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Ideally, in a representative democracy, government doesn't "choose the winners and losers" - it just ensures a level playing field.

The notion that private interests, when left to their own devices, can do this all by themselves his been discredited so many times (particularly in the last 30 years) it's not even funny.

We haven't had a free market the last 30 years. Why are we using debt-based federal reserve notes instead of debt-free US notes?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Arkie

We haven't had a free market the last 30 years. Why are we using debt-based federal reserve notes instead of debt-free US notes?

I'm using American Dollars, Indian Rupees, Saudi Riyal , Mexican pesos and Euros. They all spend exactly the same for the same reason.... people believe and know they will (welcome to the global economy).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Jay3

First of all, yes -- we have a borderline corporatist, socialist society.

We have socialism for the wealthy and private enterprise for everyone else.

Originally Posted by Jay3

The legacy is of the New Deal is a very soft form of fascism that prevailed in America.

This couldn't be more bass-ackwards.

The New Deal is the only real safeguard against fascism that has been put into place since the era of the robber barons and the last Republican great depression.

No New Deal, no American middle class (which is precisely why the American aristocracy and "landed gentry" hate it.)

Originally Posted by Jay3

The power of government is too great, and where there is great government power, that power inherently spreads and rests into those who have influence over it. We should work to always maintain a libertarian economy that allows yesterdays "lord of industry" to get stomped in the mud if he can't keep up. Instead, the regulatory power of government is influenced to maintain position by colluding corporations.

Government no longer has any intrinsic power of its own in America.

It's merely a proxy for the rule of private interests/the highest bidder.

Originally Posted by Jay3

Second -- no, it is not the diametrical opposite of both socialism of Marxism. The lords of banking, industry, and commerce reside more directly in the ruling party.

Sure it is.

Corporatism is the complete merger of corporate interests and government power.

Originally Posted by Jay3

Socialism and Marxism do not even pretend to be free market -- they openly seize the means of production and rule them.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Our present government is neither socialist nor Marxist by your definition (which is accurate.)

In America, private interests have openly seized the levers of power and now control them completely - not the other way around.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Arkie

We haven't had a free market the last 30 years. Why are we using debt-based federal reserve notes instead of debt-free US notes?

It's definitely a free market if you're a banker.

But let's not confuse "monetary system" with "market."

"Free" is code for "unregulated" in the lexicon of the white collar crooks who benefit from the rigged game.