A piece from the Globe and Mail. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to proclaim Marx was right after all.
QuoteWhen I announce that I am a socialist, I guess it is no surprise because we are all socialists now. We just bought General Motors ... The fact is that we now have Marxism realized. We own the means of production and we did not have to fire a single shot. It is really quite phenomenal what went on today.
– Pat Martin, NDP MP for Winnipeg Centre, in the House of Commons, Monday, June 1, 2009
Leo Panitch knew that Marxism was back, brothers, when he was asked by AM640 ("Home of the Leafs"), a sports-mad radio station in Toronto, to talk about the GM deal. The Canadian people suddenly own a few levers of the means of production, and some of the comrades wanted to know what they'd gotten themselves into.
The financial collapse has been manna for Marxists. Most Canadians don't realize York University's Professor Panitch is one of the world's most prominent Marxist thinkers, a contender for the mantle of E..P. Thompson, the founder of the British New Left and, like Mr. Thompson before him, editor of the Socialist Register. This is a huge deal among Marxists, who wear their sense of history the way the rest of us wear underpants.
But the money meltdown has pushed Prof. Panitch to centre stage. Last month at Ryerson University, he delivered the Phyllis Clarke memorial lecture, in which he explained why Marxism is more relevant today than ever. A version of the speech is the cover story of the latest edition of Foreign Policy magazine, the bible of the Washington political establishment.
In Germany (where they're thinking of nationalizing banks), sales of Das Kapital, Karl Marx's masterwork, increased tenfold last year. (To over 1,000) More copies of Prof. Panitch's Renewing Socialism have sold in the last four months than in the previous seven years. The London School of Economics – the once-leftist school where the professor did his doctorate, although he complains it now offers nary a course on Marx – has invited him back to a conference. Title? "Revisiting Marxism."
FROM BERLIN WALL TO WALL STREET
To top all that, last week Prof. Panitch lit out for Moscow to take part in Russia's version of the Davos forum on global economics. He was invited by none other than Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's President, to discuss whether the financial crisis could reinvigorate socialism as much as the fall of the Berlin Wall collapsed it. "Political systems with state capitalist elements seem to have advantages over countries with a pure liberal model," the conference's literature points out, before concluding that "liberal capitalism ... obviously heads towards its historical end."
"They're flying me business class at a cost of $4,000 because I have a PhD defence Monday morning in Toronto," Prof. Panitch says. "It's ridiculous. Marxism seems to be the flavour of the month."
CEOs aren't abandoning their bonuses for worker committees and the power of the people. But Prof. Panitch and others point out that Marx predicted this collapse – right down to credit default swaps and other kinky tricks of finance. Marxism, they say, is a powerful tool with which to understand the mess we're in – so powerful it will make us question the system that produced the crisis in the first place. Prof. Panitch has zero patience for the leftish wimpdom of the New Democrats or of Bob Rae, whom Prof. Panitch refers to as a "moral dwarf."
He saves his deepest scorn for Stephen Harper. The spectacle of the Prime Minister, a free-market economist once bankrolled by the insurance industry, admitting that governments had no choice but to take over the North American car industry was rare redemption for a Marxist.
"What does that say? What it indicates is that these huge corporations, while they may be legally private, are incapable of operating as private institutions. And if they can't function without being public, then the state has to maintain order."
Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian Auto Workers now own more than $10-billion worth of GM stock. But neither the union nor taxpayers have a real voice on the board, and GM executives in Detroit are still pretending they own the joint, refusing to disclose financial details and vowing to close 2,500 dealerships, regardless of whether they're profitable.
"That shows you how bizarre it is," Prof. Panitch says, "that we call ourselves a democracy, but we have all these 'private' corporations that control our lives. Who owns them? The shareholders? Who are the shareholders in this case? Who owns GM? What's being taken over by whom? And the fact that that question hasn't been asked is frightening. Really, it has nothing to do with being a socialist. It has to do with being a democrat."
Like Marx, the radical left insists capitalism brought these problems on itself. The tumultuous late 1970s – the last time organized labour had any power, when politicians still bragged about "mixed economies" – were followed in short order by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, who managed to kidnap the affections of working people. Free trade, globalization, the near-death of trade unions, slashed social spending and the erosion of the economic power of the middle class ensued.
That, the Marxists say, is why people have been forced to overuse their credit cards and dive into debt – a situation then inflamed by the profligate, irresponsible behaviour of Wall Street.
And don't expect Leo Panitch and his ilk to be heaping praise on your man Barack Obama: The new President is just part of the problem. Paul Street, a leftist historian in Iowa City, hammers out blogs and essays for Z Magazine, an influential new fount of leftist thinking in the United States. Mr. Street calls Mr. Obama a "fake progressive." He likes to point out – when he isn't lamenting how ignored Marxists are in his country, where they have an even lower profile than they do in Canada – that the finance, insurance and real-estate industries contributed $38-million to Mr. Obama's election campaign, including a $900,000 chunk from Goldman Sachs. No wonder the Obama administration hasn't thrown Wall Street to the pigs.
"The left has been immobilized by Obama, for the most part," says Mr. Street's comrade Doug Henwood, a Manhattan Marxist who produces the popular Left Business Review and hosts a weekly radio show with socialist sympathies in New York and California. "A lot of people think the country's being run by a left-wing radical." But in fact Mr. Obama is "a kind of centre-slightly-left politician" overseeing the resale of America's financial assets at fire-sale prices to the same private interests that screwed them up in the first place.
(Mr. Henwood cites Old National Bancorp, an Indiana bank that sold stock warrants to the U.S. Treasury Department in return for bailout money. ONB recently became the first bank to get out from under the Troubled Asset Relief Program's executive compensation restrictions by buying its warrants back for $1.2-million – about 20 per cent of what they may eventually be worth. Those larger profits could have gone to taxpayers, or so the Marxists would have it.) "The irony," Mr. Henwood says," is that, if Bush were still president, there might be more anger." In his critique – every Marxist has one – "Wall Street, or the financial markets, are the institution through which a ruling class is constituted. Stepping on their toes is a no-go. And the contrast between Obama and Roosevelt is telling in that regard. The fact that Roosevelt came out of the aristocracy himself made him much more comfortable about stepping on their toes when he had to. The fact that Obama came out of the middle class and the meritocracy makes him much more reluctant to do so. I think he wants to do what they want."
REFRESHING JARGON
The ruling class The aristocracy When was the last time you heard that ringing cry? Marxism has been out of favour so long, even its jargon sounds refreshing.
Marx would be unimpressed with the West's handling of the biggest calamity since the Depression, Prof. Panitch says, because we haven't been bold enough. "No ambitious vision for enacting change has resulted from the current financial crisis." Financial-transaction taxes? Taking stakes in outmoded car companies? That's thinking inside the box.
But the Marxists see encouraging signs. "The failure of my generation," Prof. Panitch says, "has been that we haven't been able to produce parties or social movements that go beyond social-democratic parties. If you're not speaking to people through the mass media, you're not speaking to people." The Internet (and the success of Internet-fuelled inventions like microfinancing) may change that: Z Magazine is packed with provocative ideas about participatory economics, and Marxists in Canada and Europe are being picked up again by the mainstream media. Public anger over executive bonuses, collapsing pensions and trenchant unemployment is simmering on the gas – to say nothing of the coming fury if interest rates explode because of the bailout.
Even mainstream economists are now making radical, Marx-like noises. Willem Buiter, an economist at the London School of Economics, last week proposed socializing and nationalizing the entire banking system, given that it can't keep itself afloat as a private enterprise. That, Prof. Panitch says, is the kind of opening
Marx wanted the organized masses to use to seize control. For a Marxist, the revolution is always just around the corner.
And even if it isn't, Marx has his uses. "The point of still being a Marxist today," Prof. Panitch says, is to think ambitiously, "to recover the spirit of the revolution." Karl Marx, a freshman of 19 at the University of Berlin as his brain began to explode with ideas, sent his father a letter. "There are moments in one's life that represent the limit of a period and at the same time point clearly in a new direction," the young genius wrote. "Every change is partly a swansong, partly an overture to a new epic that is trying to find a form in brilliant colours that are not yet distinct." Surely one can be forgiven for seeing a little pink in the sky.
Shouldn't people wait to see what happens to GM first..as in like if there is a favorable outcome? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2009, 12:56:40 PM
Shouldn't people wait to see what happens to GM first..as in like if there is a favorable outcome? :unsure:
Of course not. They need to make hay while the sun is shining, not while the unions, government and short-term, uninspired executives destroy the auto industry again.
Still dead.
it's an interesting thought but it's premature.
increasingly, the "proletariet" does in fact own "the means of production" when it comes to media, starting with blogs and extending through a number of digitally-orientated and digitally-dependent businesses, but obviously this is still only a fragment of the economy.
most folks still work for the man and are like, "alienated" from their labour. this will continue beyond our lifetimes.
so, largely dead.
I wish the proletariat would choke on its blogs and twitter.
If anyone's showing to be right after all, it's the Keynesians. FUCK CHICAGO.
More than 1000 copies of Das Kapital were sold last year in Germany and that's a sign that Marxism is not dead? And the year before that only 100 copies of it were sold? I can't really believe that. There must be at least a few hundred political science or history students that have to buy it every year.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 14, 2009, 03:59:47 PM
it's an interesting thought but it's premature.
increasingly, the "proletariet" does in fact own "the means of production" when it comes to media, starting with blogs and extending through a number of digitally-orientated and digitally-dependent businesses, but obviously this is still only a fragment of the economy.
It an intersting thought but as soon as anything looks like it will be profitable it gets bought mainly because that is the goal of most of the digitally orientated businesses out there - at least the ones hoping to make money. As an extension of your thought the proles have owned more an more of the means of production as more and more workers invest in companies either directly by holding stocks or indirectly through their mutual funds and pension funds.
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 14, 2009, 04:57:31 PM
More than 1000 copies of Das Kapital were sold last year in Germany and that's a sign that Marxism is not dead? And the year before that only 100 copies of it were sold? I can't really believe that. There must be at least a few hundred political science or history students that have to buy it every year.
According to the article many universities did stop teaching Marxism.
Depends what you mean by «teaching Marxism». Teaching Marxism like it was the Gospel, yes, I would say that all - save one or two - universities have stopped teaching Marxism. However, it is still a very much useful tool of analysis, or at the very least, something to learn and understand. It certainly was part of my teaching.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 14, 2009, 05:52:47 PM
Depends what you mean by «teaching Marxism». Teaching Marxism like it was the Gospel, yes, I would say that all - save one or two - universities have stopped teaching Marxism. However, it is still a very much useful tool of analysis, or at the very least, something to learn and understand. It certainly was part of my teaching.
When I went through my undergrad I had a number of courses with a heavy dose of Marxist content. It was taught, maybe not as Gospel, but as the beginning of the proper way to view the world - Foucoult was becoming popular and Marxism was seen as a stepping stone to teaching Foucoult. My guess is that current teaching teaching Marxism in its historical perspective (pun intended :D) and students wouldnt be required to buy and read Marx's works to learn that.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 14, 2009, 05:52:47 PM
Depends what you mean by «teaching Marxism». Teaching Marxism like it was the Gospel, yes, I would say that all - save one or two - universities have stopped teaching Marxism. However, it is still a very much useful tool of analysis, or at the very least, something to learn and understand. It certainly was part of my teaching.
Marxism is certainly valuable as a historical curiousity. The movement terrorized the globe during the twentieth century, and no political movement before or since has so completely captivated the essence of evil.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2009, 06:10:03 PM
When I went through my undergrad I had a number of courses with a heavy dose of Marxist content. It was taught, maybe not as Gospel, but as the beginning of the proper way to view the world - Foucoult was becoming popular and Marxism was seen as a stepping stone to teaching Foucoult. My guess is that current teaching teaching Marxism in its historical perspective (pun intended :D) and students wouldnt be required to buy and read Marx's works to learn that.
Today, it is mostly linguistics that serve to «get to» Foucault ; Marxism is still very much important in, say, the sociology of Bourdieu, the language of class, which we still use (incl. on the forum), etc. It is certainly taught to be a useful tool of analysis - not just as a historical curiosity. E. P. Thompson's narrative, for instance, is still yielding a good number of insights. Just like we use, say, Keynes or the Chicago Boys to structure our world, Keynes and the Chicago Boys become part of the tools of analysis useful to study it. Marx came before, and we did structure a lot of our reality in relation to it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2009, 04:05:30 PM
If anyone's showing to be right after all, it's the Keynesians. FUCK CHICAGO.
Naomi Klein is jumping of joy :yes:
Nope, still dead thankfully.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 14, 2009, 06:28:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 14, 2009, 06:10:03 PM
When I went through my undergrad I had a number of courses with a heavy dose of Marxist content. It was taught, maybe not as Gospel, but as the beginning of the proper way to view the world - Foucoult was becoming popular and Marxism was seen as a stepping stone to teaching Foucoult. My guess is that current teaching teaching Marxism in its historical perspective (pun intended :D) and students wouldnt be required to buy and read Marx's works to learn that.
Today, it is mostly linguistics that serve to «get to» Foucault ; Marxism is still very much important in, say, the sociology of Bourdieu, the language of class, which we still use (incl. on the forum), etc. It is certainly taught to be a useful tool of analysis - not just as a historical curiosity. E. P. Thompson's narrative, for instance, is still yielding a good number of insights. Just like we use, say, Keynes or the Chicago Boys to structure our world, Keynes and the Chicago Boys become part of the tools of analysis useful to study it. Marx came before, and we did structure a lot of our reality in relation to it.
I think we are saying the same thing. Your students dont have to read the original works of Marx to understand what you are teaching. I assume you are getting them to read other derivative analysis - such as E.P. Thompson.
Which goes to the point of the article that up until recently nobody was buying Marx's works.
I'll keep the red flag flying here. Enrico :wub: :weep:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metaforum.it%2Fberlinguer%2Fimg%2Ffunerali.jpg&hash=8102d2ccc92392ca920116d8fa95c77da924aef1)
The article is more referring to state interventionism in the economy during economic crisis, as opposed to collectivising everything (as commies like to do). :bowler:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2009, 04:05:30 PM
If anyone's showing to be right after all, it's the Keynesians.
Bookmarked.
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 14, 2009, 10:01:11 PM
The article is more referring to state interventionism in the economy during economic crisis, as opposed to collectivising everything (as commies like to do). :bowler:
We might as well start referring to monetary policy as Marxist.
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 14, 2009, 04:57:31 PM
More than 1000 copies of Das Kapital were sold last year in Germany and that's a sign that Marxism is not dead? And the year before that only 100 copies of it were sold? I can't really believe that. There must be at least a few hundred political science or history students that have to buy it every year.
Come on, you can find a complete copy on the Net in the time needed to google "Marx The Capital"... I don't know if Marxism is dead, but Marxist texts in dead trees certainly are.
Regarding the general question, I would say Marxism is dead as a philosophy, and at least close to death as a political movement, but Marx the economist is very much alive.
Quote from: Alatriste on June 15, 2009, 05:51:34 AMCome on, you can find a complete copy on the Net in the time needed to google "Marx The Capital"... I don't know if Marxism is dead, but Marxist texts in dead trees certainly are.
Regarding the general question, I would say Marxism is dead as a philosophy, and at least close to death as a political movement, but Marx the economist is very much alive.
Just like not a single work of Shakespeare is sold anymore because they are all freely available on the net? :huh:
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 15, 2009, 05:56:36 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on June 15, 2009, 05:51:34 AMCome on, you can find a complete copy on the Net in the time needed to google "Marx The Capital"... I don't know if Marxism is dead, but Marxist texts in dead trees certainly are.
Regarding the general question, I would say Marxism is dead as a philosophy, and at least close to death as a political movement, but Marx the economist is very much alive.
Just like not a single work of Shakespeare is sold anymore because they are all freely available on the net? :huh:
Not the same thing... In all probability most persons buying Shakespeare works are students that don't do it by their own free will, while most persons willing to read Karl Marx deserve a golden :nerd:
Besides, I would bet the sales of Shakespeare probably have fallen a lot since his works are available for free on the Net, but sadly I have absolutely no evidence at the respect.
I once had Das Kapital on the floor when the basement flooded. All the other books were ruined, the waters refused to engage Marx.
True story.
ya know It's not like there are only two ways of thinking - Marxist & Capitalist. The financial "crisis" will have fallout imho that takes us beyond such outdated quaint notions as Capitalism/Communism.
as far as I'm concerned... not fast enough... the sooner humankind geta away from the whole "ism" way of thinking about something that is completely integrated into the fabric of our lives (the trading of goods and services for either other goods & services, or some markers (money) denoting a certain value of goods & services that can be gotten later or in a different location.) Why are these things the beginning and end of each other? Neither "system" is realistic or any kind of Utopian panacea.
we must move beyond capitalism, just as the world sped past Marxism, decades ago.
Go back to Russia, commie.
Quote from: PDH on June 15, 2009, 12:25:51 PM
Go back to Russia, commie.
can't do it, he just got elected President.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 15, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
we must move beyond capitalism, just as the world sped past Marxism, decades ago.
Why
must we move beyond capitalism? Especially when there is no viable alternative it seems foolish to say we must abandon it.
I agree. I think Buddha is out of touch with reality. Capitalism has its downfalls, sure, but when the sun sets on everything and we all go home for the day, we have the peace and comfort of knowing our economic system works.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 15, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
we must move beyond capitalism, just as the world sped past Marxism, decades ago.
Why must we move beyond capitalism? Especially when there is no viable alternative it seems foolish to say we must abandon it.
why not? because people are moral and the markets are not moral. they are just markets.
I guess it all turns on how we define capitalism as an ideology.
What does the markets not being moral matter? What are you planning on replacing capitalism with that would be moral?
We could try barter.
Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2009, 01:12:39 PM
What does the markets not being moral matter? What are you planning on replacing capitalism with that would be moral?
because people like to think they are moral in their personal interactions.
of course, hammers are tools, and they are neither moral or immoral. but a hammer is not an personal interaction. are markets hammers or are they interactions?
getting about 1% in a general election in a country where people are obliged to vote. in that case you're pretty dead as an ideology. During one of the biggest financial crises in years.
Quote from: Jaron on June 15, 2009, 01:15:06 PM
We could try barter.
Or raid dragon lairs for their treasure.
Quote from: Jaron on June 15, 2009, 01:15:06 PM
We could try barter.
My Serbian friend always loves to say that Serbia is such a good country because things work that way there.
I don't have the heart to point out all the flaws in what she says.
QuoteOr raid dragon lairs for their treasure.
I like that one. Instead of going to work or school we instead head out into the long grass and beat up animals for exp and gil!
Anyway. Marxism=dumb.
Socialism is something that has been gradually fazing in for years now and will continue to do so until a few centuries down the line what do you know, we're socialist. Evolution, not revolution. This financial crisis has shown that is a mistake to take a Thatcherist step back, forward is the way.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 15, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 15, 2009, 01:15:06 PM
We could try barter.
Or raid dragon lairs for their treasure.
If you like that idea Ed, I could send you a code for a WoW free trial!
Quote from: Jaron on June 15, 2009, 02:56:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 15, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 15, 2009, 01:15:06 PM
We could try barter.
Or raid dragon lairs for their treasure.
If you like that idea Ed, I could send you a code for a WoW free trial!
Thanks, but no. I don't play well with others.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 15, 2009, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2009, 01:12:39 PM
What does the markets not being moral matter? What are you planning on replacing capitalism with that would be moral?
because people like to think they are moral in their personal interactions.
of course, hammers are tools, and they are neither moral or immoral. but a hammer is not an personal interaction. are markets hammers or are they interactions?
A market is neither a hammer or an interaction.
What is your "moral" interaction that is going to replace capitalism, and what exactly about capitalism at the transactional level (if we are simplifying) is immoral?
If we are looking at transactions, what again is immoral about you giving me something I want in return for something you want?
I would argue that you taking something from me I do not wish to give in return for something (or nothing) that I have not asked for is rather immoral, in fact.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb link=topic=1217.msg54979#msg54979
we must move beyond capitalism, just as the world sped past Marxism, decades ago.
Marxism is the only economic model to attempt to move past capitalism. Indeed the very notion of moving beyond capitalism is a Marxist concept. For something to take the place of capitalism someone first needs to create a cogent system under which we can produce a reasonable standard of living.
Unless you want to go back to the future with subsistance farming, capitalism, for all its warts, is the only system available.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 15, 2009, 05:07:44 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb link=topic=1217.msg54979#msg54979
we must move beyond capitalism, just as the world sped past Marxism, decades ago.
Marxism is the only economic model to attempt to move past capitalism. Indeed the very notion of moving beyond capitalism is a Marxist concept. For something to take the place of capitalism someone first needs to create a cogent system under which we can produce a reasonable standard of living.
Unless you want to go back to the future with subsistance farming, capitalism, for all its warts, is the only system available.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2009, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 15, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
we must move beyond capitalism, just as the world sped past Marxism, decades ago.
Why must we move beyond capitalism? Especially when there is no viable alternative it seems foolish to say we must abandon it.
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 from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 15, 2009, 10:04:24 PM... 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.
Isn't there some Muslim market where beads are legitimate currency? Marakesh maybe?
Quote from: citizen k on June 15, 2009, 10:25:58 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 15, 2009, 10:04:24 PM... 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.
Marxism isn't dead - it's just resting.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 15, 2009, 05:12:54 PM
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.
[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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2009, 09:44:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 16, 2009, 12:55:35 PM
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.
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.
How do you know that that is a function of capitalist society, rather than a function of human society?
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 16, 2009, 01:54:47 PM
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?
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 16, 2009, 01:54:47 PM
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2009, 05:37:20 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2009, 05:37:20 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 16, 2009, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2009, 05:37:20 PM
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.