5 ms·

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Marx was describing a reproducible commodity economy, i.e most of what we have within capitalism, with his theor

by ue_ 9y ago

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Marx was describing a reproducible commodity economy, i.e most of what we have within capitalism, with his theory. Besides this, Russia is a capitalist country. My apologies if you weren't stating that it wasn't.

wayn3 9y ago
And capitalism is a term coined by Marx to denounce the idea that in a free society, outliers naturally occur. I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. In the 1920s. And the result was not pretty. Sure, russia is "capitalist" now. Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept that results in the creation of value (and they obviously have no problem with value, but the returns should absolutely, entirely, end up in the hands of the peasants, not some hokey dokey CEO. That aside, russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences. Specifically in the case of Russia, they have another big problem - which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues. People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris. They took stock options over vacation time.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. No, it didn't. The Leninist vanguard were not all (or even largely, especially at the highest ranks) peasants.
  - wayn3 9y ago
    Is this the "no true communism" argument?
    - ekiru 9y ago
      The government of Russia in the 1920s was not composed of peasants; it did not even consider peasants as its allies. It largely considered them to be class enemies of the proletariat and counter-revolutionary. During the 1920s, it began its efforts to collectivize them. The peasants resisted these efforts initially. Ultimately, the effort succeeded only when the Russian government expropriated the peasants' property, and it deported, it imprisoned, and/or killed millions of them. That occurred mostly in the early 1930s, but Russian rural policy in the 1920s was a persistent struggle against the resistance of the peasants to the government's policies aimed toward collectivization. Saying that Russia was not ruled by peasants is not a "no true communism" argument, it is an accurate reflection of the continued efforts of the Russian government throughout that period and beyond to coerce the behavior of the peasantry and to break down their existing social structures and communities.
      - wayn3 9y ago
        Oh I get it. "Peasants" are not land-owning farmers. Peasants are menial labor on farms. They are part of the proletariat. Didn't mean to confuse you.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > "Peasants" are not land-owning farmers. Peasants are menial labor on farms. Even in feudal economies, peasants had individual or collective property interests in land (serfs and slaves might not, but those are different than peasants, and serfdom had been abolished in Russia generations before the Revolution.) Russian peasants at the time of the Revolution generally were individual landholders because of the recent breakup of collective ownership (other places similar reforms were implemented eventually led to most former peasants ending up as wage laborers as large capital interests bought up agrarian land, but that hadn't had time to happen yet in Russia, and the de-collectivization was still popular among peasants, which is probably a big factor in why peasants in Russia were seen as class enemies of the proletariat by the Bolsheviks; they were, if only tenuously and transitionally, essentially situated like members of the petit bourgeoisie.)
- ue_ 9y ago
  >Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept This is patently (excuse the pun) false. One of the largest economic texts it Capital by Karl Marx; in this book his only objective is to critique classical political economy, and by doing so set out what constitutes capitalism. It's not vague, Marx defines capitalism in very concrete terms. Her refers to the capitalist mode of production, which consists of production to maximise exchange value of commodities, the private ownership of social means of production, and the primacy of wage labour. >and they obviously have no problem with value This is false. Communists do have a problem with value, their qualm is with exchange value ruling production, which is almost a unique quality of capitalism. It results in shoddy goods, goods not made to be used, but to be exchanged in a money-commodity circuit. >end up in the hands of the peasants Not even Communists argue for this; the Communists argue for the means of production to be put into the hands of the people, who can, within themselves, elect leaders who are qualified for the task. This is democratic rule, rather than autocratic rule (which is what there is now) of a particular firm's productive capacity within an industry. >russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences. You're right, it had the feudalist mode of production for that time. With the advent of the USSR, it had the state-capitalist mode of production. On what basis do I declare this? On the basis of Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of production. >which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues. What issues are you talking about, in particular? I think the requirement to sell one's labour to a class of property owners is a rather big issue. >People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris. That doesn't mean that they are not exploited; janitors driving Ferraris has nothing to do with the problems of capitalism.
  - wayn3 9y ago
    You mix marxism and communism, which is not the same thing. Which do you want to argue? I consider Marx a clown, and marxism is a clown fiesta, and "capitalism" is the cause they fight against. Of course it contains "meaning". Communism, on the other hand, is at least a valid idea. Its by no means viable, because its in direct conflict with human nature, survival instincts, intrinsic properties of physics and a bunch of other issues, but as a concept, communism is kinda cool.

by ue_ 9y ago

wayn3 9y ago

And capitalism is a term coined by Marx to denounce the idea that in a free society, outliers naturally occur. I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. In the 1920s. And the result was not pretty. Sure, russia is "capitalist" now. Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept that results in the creation of value (and they obviously have no problem with value, but the returns should absolutely, entirely, end up in the hands of the peasants, not some hokey dokey CEO. That aside, russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences. Specifically in the case of Russia, they have another big problem - which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues. People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris. They took stock options over vacation time.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. No, it didn't. The Leninist vanguard were not all (or even largely, especially at the highest ranks) peasants.
- wayn3 9y ago
  Is this the "no true communism" argument?
  - ekiru 9y ago
    The government of Russia in the 1920s was not composed of peasants; it did not even consider peasants as its allies. It largely considered them to be class enemies of the proletariat and counter-revolutionary. During the 1920s, it began its efforts to collectivize them. The peasants resisted these efforts initially. Ultimately, the effort succeeded only when the Russian government expropriated the peasants' property, and it deported, it imprisoned, and/or killed millions of them. That occurred mostly in the early 1930s, but Russian rural policy in the 1920s was a persistent struggle against the resistance of the peasants to the government's policies aimed toward collectivization. Saying that Russia was not ruled by peasants is not a "no true communism" argument, it is an accurate reflection of the continued efforts of the Russian government throughout that period and beyond to coerce the behavior of the peasantry and to break down their existing social structures and communities.
    - wayn3 9y ago
      Oh I get it. "Peasants" are not land-owning farmers. Peasants are menial labor on farms. They are part of the proletariat. Didn't mean to confuse you.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > "Peasants" are not land-owning farmers. Peasants are menial labor on farms. Even in feudal economies, peasants had individual or collective property interests in land (serfs and slaves might not, but those are different than peasants, and serfdom had been abolished in Russia generations before the Revolution.) Russian peasants at the time of the Revolution generally were individual landholders because of the recent breakup of collective ownership (other places similar reforms were implemented eventually led to most former peasants ending up as wage laborers as large capital interests bought up agrarian land, but that hadn't had time to happen yet in Russia, and the de-collectivization was still popular among peasants, which is probably a big factor in why peasants in Russia were seen as class enemies of the proletariat by the Bolsheviks; they were, if only tenuously and transitionally, essentially situated like members of the petit bourgeoisie.)
ue_ 9y ago
>Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept This is patently (excuse the pun) false. One of the largest economic texts it Capital by Karl Marx; in this book his only objective is to critique classical political economy, and by doing so set out what constitutes capitalism. It's not vague, Marx defines capitalism in very concrete terms. Her refers to the capitalist mode of production, which consists of production to maximise exchange value of commodities, the private ownership of social means of production, and the primacy of wage labour. >and they obviously have no problem with value This is false. Communists do have a problem with value, their qualm is with exchange value ruling production, which is almost a unique quality of capitalism. It results in shoddy goods, goods not made to be used, but to be exchanged in a money-commodity circuit. >end up in the hands of the peasants Not even Communists argue for this; the Communists argue for the means of production to be put into the hands of the people, who can, within themselves, elect leaders who are qualified for the task. This is democratic rule, rather than autocratic rule (which is what there is now) of a particular firm's productive capacity within an industry. >russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences. You're right, it had the feudalist mode of production for that time. With the advent of the USSR, it had the state-capitalist mode of production. On what basis do I declare this? On the basis of Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of production. >which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues. What issues are you talking about, in particular? I think the requirement to sell one's labour to a class of property owners is a rather big issue. >People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris. That doesn't mean that they are not exploited; janitors driving Ferraris has nothing to do with the problems of capitalism.
- wayn3 9y ago
  You mix marxism and communism, which is not the same thing. Which do you want to argue? I consider Marx a clown, and marxism is a clown fiesta, and "capitalism" is the cause they fight against. Of course it contains "meaning". Communism, on the other hand, is at least a valid idea. Its by no means viable, because its in direct conflict with human nature, survival instincts, intrinsic properties of physics and a bunch of other issues, but as a concept, communism is kinda cool.