5 ms·

I'm still amazed at how effectively we have collectively shunned thought along these lines by turning the founding father of the relevant branch of economical p

I'm still amazed at how effectively we have collectively shunned thought along these lines by turning the founding father of the relevant branch of economical philosophy into a real life he-who-shall-not-be-named. Anyone who wants to talk about these problems either has to either re-invent the wheel or mention the unmentionable name and doom themselves to immediate dismissal as a kook.

danharaj 8y ago
A spectre is haunting Hacker News...
csallen 8y ago
Who are you talking about?
- java_script 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Brothers e: Oh shit I just realized who I'm replying to. Serious answer time. Socialism will be a disruptive new paradigm for start-ups and other businesses where (following the idea of a meritocracy) workers, and not stuffy old capitalists, each own an equal number of shares at their place of work. And even more innovative in structure than Zappos and Valve, it allows for capital investment decisions to be voted on by individual contributors, throwing away traditional management structures you see at crufty old firms. Pretty cool stuff! According to some dusty old theories it's the "Exit Strategy" for our largest firms.
  - csa 8y ago
    I liked your original answer. It got the point across while being absolutely fucking hilarious.
    - java_script 8y ago
      Thanks. People keep getting mad at my jokes though (I'm on thin ice with dang) so I wanted to contribute a little bit more.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    Fast Company was reporting on a bill that would implement part of this idea for companies with over $1 billion in revenue. https://www.fastcompany.com/90223130/how-elizabeth-warrens-accountable-capitalism-act-works https://www.fastcompany.com/90223130/how-elizabeth-warrens-a...
  - virmundi 8y ago
    Who's dang and why are you self-censoring? Are you afraid of getting banned from HN? I don't think the site can remove your comments. If you are banned, I'd take it as a badge of honor.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Who's dang and why are you self-censoring? dang is the HN admin, lead moderator, or whatever the official title is. > If you are banned, I'd take it as a badge of honor. Some people would rather continue to participate then accumulate honor badges.
      - virmundi 8y ago
        It's a waste of time contributing. Everyone has their little bubbles. I do this while my RL agent learns. Once I'm out of ML, probably out of HN. #OrangeManBad
- simias 8y ago
  Karl Marx. And I see the point the parent is making, although that's probably more of an issue in the USA than in Europe for instance. And I do agree that it's a shame because the writings of Marx are extremely interesting and deserve to be studied and discussed even if you don't believe in socialism and communism, it's really about economy in general first and foremost. Dismissing this important ground-breaking work because of what people did in its name decades after Marx's death is pretty strange. You could argue that he was wrong in his "praxis" but the diagnostic is very thorough, methodical and unfortunately a lot of it is very much relevant. And let's not even talk about whatever rebranding of Marx is used as a strawman these days, like this "cultural marxism" dog whistle I hear 10 times a day and I can't be bothered to figure out what that's even supposed to mean anymore. Actually I just tried to search the term and the first result was an entry on "urban dictionary" which goes like: >An umbrella term for identity politics, affirmative action, feminism, radical LGBT activism, Islam apologetics, white privilege, political correctness... Basically the SJW ideology. I think I missed that part in Das Kapital...
  - thanatropism 8y ago
    In a past life I went to film school at a very very left-leaning university and distinctly remember learning about Lukács, Gramsci and Althusser as a "Cultural Marxist" wave that was all about correcting the excessive emphasis on economics of previous orthodox marxism. So there -- not only the phrase makes perfect sense if you do read Gramsci like I have, it's been uttered by Marxist professors somewhere in the world sometime this century.
    - beat 8y ago
      The Frankfurt School, which coined the term "cultural Marxism", were German Marxists who survived WWI, saw the revolution fail in Germany and turn to Leninist/Stalinist horror in Russia, and tried to understand what went wrong. They were seeking a route to revolution that was not wracked with violence and dictatorship. Fascinating stuff, actually.
      - jahaja 8y ago
claudiawerner 8y ago
Fortunately, though, it seems as though the movement-that-shall-not-be-named is gaining some traction through groups like DSA and Momentum, even if it is reformist. I think there's still some hope - he-who-shall-not-be-named is only as such in public discourse, and in the academic discourse (in particular political economy, sociology, critical theory, philosophy, literature and with a good dose in psychoanalysis) he is named by his true name. I think we ignore him and his work (in favor of sound bites from supporters and detractors) at our peril. There is enough to be critical of in what he said, we don't need to rub out his name over what Badiou called the 20th c. experiments.
dragonwriter 8y ago
At least on HN, you can actually say “Karl Marx” in a non-negative context without automatic dismissal.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
0181109 8y ago
Probably because the implementations tried have failed so badly. If people distanced themselves from the hammer and sickle, communism could possibly be given another chance but in the meantime it looks like people showing that icon either don't know about history or they have explained it away quite callously.
- danharaj 8y ago
  I mean, Marx specifically thought that communism could not be achieved by jumping from a pre-industrialized economy and skipping capitalism.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Probably because the implementations tried have failed so badly Implementations of Leninism did, sure, but (deliberate mislabeling aside), I'm not sure what that has to do with Marc, since Leninism rejected the preconditions Marx laid out and altered the approach to address the changed preconditions. Leninism is farther from Marxism than the near-universal abandonment of the system Marx named “capitalism” for modern mixed economies (which, to be sure, is still pretty far from Marxism), so if you are going to blame Marx at all for the failure of the former, you have to credit him at least as much for the success of the latter.
  - 0181109 8y ago
    Well could people who do understand Marx (by your interpretation, at least) do more in distancing themselves from Leninism and the hammer and sickle?
fixermark 8y ago
In fairness, attempts have been made to translate the revolution part of his ideas into functional policy at least twice now and both events have included massive violence (and one has followed up that massive violence with a general mismanagement of public resources to the detriment of the "unconnected," not unlike the pain inflicted upon them by the previous ruling class). At this point, the burden of proof is on the theory to show merit. It's a bit like Extreme Programming in that regard---looks great on paper, but how many times does it get to fall short of its promises before people stop blaming the implementers for "holding it wrong" and start talking seriously about the flaws in the originating theory? Perhaps also like XP, however, pieces of it do seem worthwhile and are bearing fruit in the nations that have adopted them.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Those familiar with contemporary ideas of communism, socialism, communalism, left-anarchism, etc. will know there's been a lot of work done since the 50s (and a little earlier) on criticism of Marx, of the Soviet system and of the Chinese system. Modern Marxology actually takes up these issues with regard to their historical context, the USSR in particular. Unfortunately very few people actually get round to reading this wealth of work, especially after the year 1970 or so, in which most departments Marxism was declared dead and refuted. The question of Marx's meaning and intentions, what does or does not flow from his critique, the idea of revolution, the issue of Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin and Mao are all very much actively discussed today. At the same time, there is a distinct, perhaps irreconcilable, difference of opinion between the liberals who treat property as part of an individual, or an extension of him, and the tradition since Marx which does not take this for granted at all.
- beat 8y ago
  I've done XP. It was awesome. As for the two attempts to implement Marxism (assuming you're speaking of Russia and China here)... in Russia, you can't separate it from Leninism and Stalinism. Is Marxism the problem, or the authoritarian government? China is more interesting. China is still ostensibly a Marxist nation, right? Per World Bank data I just looked up, China's per capita GDP (in constant US dollars) was lowest in 1962, at $71.91. That's per year. In 2017, it's $8826.99. Constant dollars, mind you. That's 123 times more. I have a hard time calling that a failure of any sort. There hasn't been large-scale political violence in China since the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. That ten-year period killed 5-10 million on the high end. Which is, of course, quite bad, but in comparison to the 50-80M that died in ostensibly capitalist Europe during WWII, it doesn't seem that outsized. So for burden of proof, I think you need to argue that an alternative model would have resulted in less political violence and more economic prosperity than that for China. Good luck.
Aunche 8y ago
The problem with Marxism is that there's always a way to game a system. The people who are opportunistic CEOs right now would find a way to be opportunistic as an official in a socialist government, except now they wouldn't be producing as much economic surplus. Marxists tend to hand wave this problem by claiming that a strong democracy would keep this in check. However, the world is too complicated, and people have neither the intelligence nor patience to make sure everyone is a good actor.

danharaj 8y ago

A spectre is haunting Hacker News...

csallen 8y ago

Who are you talking about?

java_script 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Brothers e: Oh shit I just realized who I'm replying to. Serious answer time. Socialism will be a disruptive new paradigm for start-ups and other businesses where (following the idea of a meritocracy) workers, and not stuffy old capitalists, each own an equal number of shares at their place of work. And even more innovative in structure than Zappos and Valve, it allows for capital investment decisions to be voted on by individual contributors, throwing away traditional management structures you see at crufty old firms. Pretty cool stuff! According to some dusty old theories it's the "Exit Strategy" for our largest firms.
- csa 8y ago
  I liked your original answer. It got the point across while being absolutely fucking hilarious.
  - java_script 8y ago
    Thanks. People keep getting mad at my jokes though (I'm on thin ice with dang) so I wanted to contribute a little bit more.
- fixermark 8y ago
  Fast Company was reporting on a bill that would implement part of this idea for companies with over $1 billion in revenue. https://www.fastcompany.com/90223130/how-elizabeth-warrens-accountable-capitalism-act-works https://www.fastcompany.com/90223130/how-elizabeth-warrens-a...
- virmundi 8y ago
  Who's dang and why are you self-censoring? Are you afraid of getting banned from HN? I don't think the site can remove your comments. If you are banned, I'd take it as a badge of honor.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Who's dang and why are you self-censoring? dang is the HN admin, lead moderator, or whatever the official title is. > If you are banned, I'd take it as a badge of honor. Some people would rather continue to participate then accumulate honor badges.
    - virmundi 8y ago
      It's a waste of time contributing. Everyone has their little bubbles. I do this while my RL agent learns. Once I'm out of ML, probably out of HN. #OrangeManBad
simias 8y ago
Karl Marx. And I see the point the parent is making, although that's probably more of an issue in the USA than in Europe for instance. And I do agree that it's a shame because the writings of Marx are extremely interesting and deserve to be studied and discussed even if you don't believe in socialism and communism, it's really about economy in general first and foremost. Dismissing this important ground-breaking work because of what people did in its name decades after Marx's death is pretty strange. You could argue that he was wrong in his "praxis" but the diagnostic is very thorough, methodical and unfortunately a lot of it is very much relevant. And let's not even talk about whatever rebranding of Marx is used as a strawman these days, like this "cultural marxism" dog whistle I hear 10 times a day and I can't be bothered to figure out what that's even supposed to mean anymore. Actually I just tried to search the term and the first result was an entry on "urban dictionary" which goes like: >An umbrella term for identity politics, affirmative action, feminism, radical LGBT activism, Islam apologetics, white privilege, political correctness... Basically the SJW ideology. I think I missed that part in Das Kapital...
- thanatropism 8y ago
  In a past life I went to film school at a very very left-leaning university and distinctly remember learning about Lukács, Gramsci and Althusser as a "Cultural Marxist" wave that was all about correcting the excessive emphasis on economics of previous orthodox marxism. So there -- not only the phrase makes perfect sense if you do read Gramsci like I have, it's been uttered by Marxist professors somewhere in the world sometime this century.
  - beat 8y ago
    The Frankfurt School, which coined the term "cultural Marxism", were German Marxists who survived WWI, saw the revolution fail in Germany and turn to Leninist/Stalinist horror in Russia, and tried to understand what went wrong. They were seeking a route to revolution that was not wracked with violence and dictatorship. Fascinating stuff, actually.
    - jahaja 8y ago

claudiawerner 8y ago

Fortunately, though, it seems as though the movement-that-shall-not-be-named is gaining some traction through groups like DSA and Momentum, even if it is reformist. I think there's still some hope - he-who-shall-not-be-named is only as such in public discourse, and in the academic discourse (in particular political economy, sociology, critical theory, philosophy, literature and with a good dose in psychoanalysis) he is named by his true name. I think we ignore him and his work (in favor of sound bites from supporters and detractors) at our peril. There is enough to be critical of in what he said, we don't need to rub out his name over what Badiou called the 20th c. experiments.

dragonwriter 8y ago

At least on HN, you can actually say “Karl Marx” in a non-negative context without automatic dismissal.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

0181109 8y ago

Probably because the implementations tried have failed so badly. If people distanced themselves from the hammer and sickle, communism could possibly be given another chance but in the meantime it looks like people showing that icon either don't know about history or they have explained it away quite callously.

danharaj 8y ago
I mean, Marx specifically thought that communism could not be achieved by jumping from a pre-industrialized economy and skipping capitalism.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Probably because the implementations tried have failed so badly Implementations of Leninism did, sure, but (deliberate mislabeling aside), I'm not sure what that has to do with Marc, since Leninism rejected the preconditions Marx laid out and altered the approach to address the changed preconditions. Leninism is farther from Marxism than the near-universal abandonment of the system Marx named “capitalism” for modern mixed economies (which, to be sure, is still pretty far from Marxism), so if you are going to blame Marx at all for the failure of the former, you have to credit him at least as much for the success of the latter.
- 0181109 8y ago
  Well could people who do understand Marx (by your interpretation, at least) do more in distancing themselves from Leninism and the hammer and sickle?

fixermark 8y ago

In fairness, attempts have been made to translate the revolution part of his ideas into functional policy at least twice now and both events have included massive violence (and one has followed up that massive violence with a general mismanagement of public resources to the detriment of the "unconnected," not unlike the pain inflicted upon them by the previous ruling class). At this point, the burden of proof is on the theory to show merit. It's a bit like Extreme Programming in that regard---looks great on paper, but how many times does it get to fall short of its promises before people stop blaming the implementers for "holding it wrong" and start talking seriously about the flaws in the originating theory? Perhaps also like XP, however, pieces of it do seem worthwhile and are bearing fruit in the nations that have adopted them.

claudiawerner 8y ago
Those familiar with contemporary ideas of communism, socialism, communalism, left-anarchism, etc. will know there's been a lot of work done since the 50s (and a little earlier) on criticism of Marx, of the Soviet system and of the Chinese system. Modern Marxology actually takes up these issues with regard to their historical context, the USSR in particular. Unfortunately very few people actually get round to reading this wealth of work, especially after the year 1970 or so, in which most departments Marxism was declared dead and refuted. The question of Marx's meaning and intentions, what does or does not flow from his critique, the idea of revolution, the issue of Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin and Mao are all very much actively discussed today. At the same time, there is a distinct, perhaps irreconcilable, difference of opinion between the liberals who treat property as part of an individual, or an extension of him, and the tradition since Marx which does not take this for granted at all.
beat 8y ago
I've done XP. It was awesome. As for the two attempts to implement Marxism (assuming you're speaking of Russia and China here)... in Russia, you can't separate it from Leninism and Stalinism. Is Marxism the problem, or the authoritarian government? China is more interesting. China is still ostensibly a Marxist nation, right? Per World Bank data I just looked up, China's per capita GDP (in constant US dollars) was lowest in 1962, at $71.91. That's per year. In 2017, it's $8826.99. Constant dollars, mind you. That's 123 times more. I have a hard time calling that a failure of any sort. There hasn't been large-scale political violence in China since the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. That ten-year period killed 5-10 million on the high end. Which is, of course, quite bad, but in comparison to the 50-80M that died in ostensibly capitalist Europe during WWII, it doesn't seem that outsized. So for burden of proof, I think you need to argue that an alternative model would have resulted in less political violence and more economic prosperity than that for China. Good luck.

Aunche 8y ago

The problem with Marxism is that there's always a way to game a system. The people who are opportunistic CEOs right now would find a way to be opportunistic as an official in a socialist government, except now they wouldn't be producing as much economic surplus. Marxists tend to hand wave this problem by claiming that a strong democracy would keep this in check. However, the world is too complicated, and people have neither the intelligence nor patience to make sure everyone is a good actor.