Marxism - Not dead?

[Neil]

... whether it becomes more capitalistic or less, or something else altogether, it will change. everything does.

I have a feeling we've yet to see the full fruition of Laissez-faire markets.

I rather doubt it.  Democracy isn't going anywhere any time soon, and in democracies the government will always be required to work in the economy for the common good.  Laissez-faire requires an orderly state, and all orderly states are either democracies or totalitarian hellholes like China.

[The Minsky Moment]

Marxism isn't dead - it's just resting.

[crazy canuck]

If one takes the view that many of the elements of «capitalism» existed well before they were re-constructed into a (somewhat) coherent body of thought, I do not think we will require a conscious choice between two abstract ideas as in a referendum when we move «away» from capitalism.

Before there could be capitalism somebody had to think of how to create something akin to a limited company so that capital could be accumulated and invested in order to obtain further profits.  My recollection is the Dutch were the first to do that to finance ventures in the Dutch East Indies.  Someone also had to think of a method of Banking that would help with finance.  I suppose there are a number of innovations we could point to here.

The point is that before we can move beyond capitalism (assuming for a moment that is desirable) there would have to be some method of producing goods and services to replace it.  Marxism was the only thing which attempted to do this.  Since Buddha ruled that out he is left with nothing which can replace Capitalism, unless he wants to regress to past methods, until some bright bulb creates some kind of innovation that might allow for that.

[crazy canuck]

[quote author=BuddhaRhubarb link=topic=1217.msg55316#msg55316
I'm not talking about overnight here. and what I mean is not change, but evolve, really.

Communism only works, on paper. Capitalism works, only with paper.

Obviously some things are a bit touch and go, but I think it'll just naturally change as our cultures do, whether it becomes more capitalistic or less, or something else altogether, it will change. everything does.
[/quote]

I think you are misusing the word capitalism here.  What I think you are talking about is the degree to which profit motive is the primary factor in decision making.  That is not more or less capitalistic.  Capitalism is the basic economic framework in which we live.  There is a lot of judgments that can be made within a Capitalist system with regard to more or less regulation, more or less taxation to provide services to society in general, etc.  We call that politics.  But the politics of the day do not make the system more or less Capitalistic.  The only thing that would make our modern system less Capitalistic is if our means of producing goods and services moved toward some other economic model.

[Oexmelin]

The point is that before we can move beyond capitalism (assuming for a moment that is desirable) there would have to be some method of producing goods and services to replace it.  Marxism was the only thing which attempted to do this.  Since Buddha ruled that out he is left with nothing which can replace Capitalism, unless he wants to regress to past methods, until some bright bulb creates some kind of innovation that might allow for that.

Yes and no. What you describe, for instance, was not about producing stuff *at all* but to redistribute risk. Just like people had to see the idea of maximizing profits as a good thing, a thing to be pursued. No one actually woke up one morning trying to create, our of nothing, a different system to replace «feudalism» (if we stick to the Marxist denomination) and submitted it to popular approval. My guess is therefore that these slight changes of values and objectives are going to happen before we will try to organize them (and afterwards, further them) into a different set of ideas. Just like the basic ideas to which we return were thought up in a world where the means of producing goods was not very much different from what was happening under feudalistic / proto-capitalist ideas.

Even then, this would be remaining within the framework established by Capitalism / Marxism where the importance lies upon the production and consumption of goods. Other modes of organizing society might focus on other factors or values, where the modes of production and consumption might not be thought to be important at all.

[crazy canuck]

Even then, this would be remaining within the framework established by Capitalism / Marxism where the importance lies upon the production and consumption of goods. Other modes of organizing society might focus on other factors or values, where the modes of production and consumption might not be thought to be important at all.

The one reality that no one will ever be able to escape from is the importance of producing goods.  Without that we cannot survive.  You might be right that people might overlook the importance of how their goods are produced (perhaps because capitalist methods become so efficient that the amount of effort society makes to produce goods become relatively minimal) but that will not change the fact that without a means of producing goods, nothing else is possible and indeed without an efficient means of producing goods (and especially food) it would not be possible to divert their attention elsewhere.

[Oexmelin]

Indeed, but if we look at your sentence, it would be pretty difficult to argue that the capitalist society is all about producing goods necessary for survival...

Every society looks for survival (I do not know a single human society that willfully pursued a self-destruction path); every human society had time for «something else» for their attention. The point is that capitalist society looks at the production and consumptions as *central*; it has slowly moved production and consumption from means to ends.

[Berkut]

How do you know that that is a function of capitalist society, rather than a function of human society?

[Valmy]

The point is that capitalist society looks at the production and consumptions as *central*; it has slowly moved production and consumption from means to ends.

That strikes me as a chicken and egg thing.  Is capitalism set up in reaction to that or does it cause it?

[crazy canuck]

Indeed, but if we look at your sentence, it would be pretty difficult to argue that the capitalist society is all about producing goods necessary for survival...

Every society looks for survival (I do not know a single human society that willfully pursued a self-destruction path); every human society had time for «something else» for their attention. The point is that capitalist society looks at the production and consumptions as *central*; it has slowly moved production and consumption from means to ends.

I realize that the biggest complaint about Capitalism is that it creates intentives to create things that we dont actually "need" but then we get into the debate of how to define "need".   I have come to love my iPod, I have come to rely on my computers, my cars, and a lot of other things I dont technically "need" to survive.  But my life experience would be more thin without them.

Capitalism is the system we use to produce the goods we need for survival (in the larger sense that I am using the word need).   Moving from means to ends simply means that the system we have created has become more productive over time and so we are able to produce things that were not possible before.

The point is that production and consumption are central.  We are after all animals who need to produce and consume goods  The things you are talking about are only made possible by an efficient means of doing that.

[grumbler]

I think we need to make sure we distinguish between capitalism and the market economy.  Capitalism is about the belief that the rewards for economic activity go to those who provided the capital to make the production and distribution possible, and that labor is simply another tool to be employed by capital in production and distribution - it is the equivelent of machinery.

I think the market economy is unquestionably the most efficient means we currently have to distribute a limited supply to meet an unlimited demand.  In many places, efficiency isn't the primary desired end, though, and a level of "command distribution" has been undertaken by every political entity of which I am aware.

Capitalism is less clearly the optimal way to distribute the rewards from the production and distribution, and, indeed, we see the rewards also being subject to a level of government interference.

Marxism challenged both the market economy and the capitalist distribution of rewards.  Its particular solutions to those problems are, as JR noted, at least resting, and maybe stunned to boot.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler I think that is a fair distinction to make.  But is it possible to have an efficient market economy without capitalism?  ie, how are the goods for the market economy to be produced without capitalism?

[Admiral Yi]

Grumbler I think that is a fair distinction to make.  But is it possible to have an efficient market economy without capitalism?  ie, how are the goods for the market economy to be produced without capitalism?

State-owned enterprises can manufacture goods.  Whether efficiently is another question.

[grumbler]

Grumbler I think that is a fair distinction to make.  But is it possible to have an efficient market economy without capitalism?  ie, how are the goods for the market economy to be produced without capitalism?

State-run enterprises have produced goods and services (and distributed them) and will do so in the future.  What level of such effort is optimal is uncertain.

One of my points was that Marxism had a sure answer to the question, and that answer has been pretty much universally rejected.

The other point is that the diametric opposite of Marxism (on both counts) has also been pretty much universally rejected.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler I think that is a fair distinction to make.  But is it possible to have an efficient market economy without capitalism?  ie, how are the goods for the market economy to be produced without capitalism?

State-run enterprises have produced goods and services (and distributed them) and will do so in the future.  What level of such effort is optimal is uncertain.

Yes, state run enterprises have produced goods but not goods that can be successfully produced for a market economy which is one of the reasons why Communism failed in most of the world.  The Chinese recognized this and have allowed, to vary degrees of success, capitalists to produce goods and services within China while also trying to keep their hands off the business generated in Hong Kong.

The profit motive inherent in Capitalism is the best fit for a market economy so far.  If Sask entered this thread he would probably say that "green" motivations are also entering the market but companies that best adopt to that trend will also maximize their profits.