4 ms·

> It ignores the end result of every government based on Marx's theories that has ever existed in the history of man. Marx wrote a brilliant critique of capita

> It ignores the end result of every government based on Marx's theories that has ever existed in the history of man. Marx wrote a brilliant critique of capitalism, but failed miserably when it came to designing what the replacement would be. He believed that an almost supernatural rationality would evolve out of the inherent contradictions of capitalism and the worker/ owner conflict; organizing society rationally from the top down is really the only thing of his that made it into supposedly marxist regimes. Don't judge Marx by Russia -- read Marx. Or, well, don't pretend to know what Marx said... He also believed very strongly that "communism" could only appear in a society after it had gone through its capitalist stage thoroughly -- he was hoping for Great Britain to become communist, and the idea of an agrarian society like China or Russia becoming communist was just goofy. Marx also never foresaw the compromises that would happen in an increasingly wealthy and unionized society, and which have forestalled any revolutionary drive (as the builder of the first tract home developments said: people with mortgages and a postage stamp worth of land don't join the CP.) Also "liberal" here refers to liberal as in "neo-liberal": those who support the freeing up of regulation and tradition in the support of capitalism. You may be using "liberal" in the current usage of "leftwing and sort of socialist" which it never meant originally. This liberalism very much is tied up with "utilitarianism", which basically thinks that everything can be reckoned in terms of consumer utility; the idea that we are driven by consumption and pleasure (as in "the pleasure principle") pervades our society, but is not necessarily the basic scientific principle that economists and Freudians pretend it is; meaningful work or prestige might be contenders...

lionhearted 16y ago
> Marx wrote a brilliant critique of capitalism Not really, because he makes a fundamental mistake. He thinks those that hold capital use violence and oppression against the masses. But he's got the cause and effect wrong - the people who use violence and oppression wind up seizing capital. What's the difference? Well, look at history. It's not the merchants and traders and inventors and builders that oppress people - it's the people with swords and guns. Marx's prescription to that is that the oppressed people grab swords and guns and raise some hell, and take over, and then... whoops. The accumulation of resources (private property) and voluntary exchange (capitalism) aren't problems. Violence, coercion, oppression is the problem. Unfortunately, Marx gets the cause and effect backwards. He sees violent people holding capital, and blames the capital instead of the violence. He then says the people without capital should use violence to seize it... with predictably bad results. Marx didn't understand capitalism - he never did productive work in his life. The cause of oppression stems from violence and coercion, not accumulation of resources and voluntary exchange.
- z0r 16y ago
  Marx had quite a bit to say about 'voluntary' exchange, hahaha.
- forkandwait 16y ago
  > Not really, because he makes a fundamental mistake. He thinks those that hold capital use violence and oppression against the masses. You will disagree, I would imagine, but Marx would argue that one of the most important features of capitalism is that it appears to be an abstract relationship of buying and selling sans violence, even as it is very much a system of oppression of one class over another. He doesn't forget that the swords are put away (though they come out when necessary to sustain the market relationships), he just disagrees with you that forcing a whole lot of people to trade their labor on the market (at a low-ish price, since they don't control the market environment) is any less oppressive than telling a peasant explicitly to till the soil or get killed. No offense, but he understood capitalism a lot better than you -- he just didn't believe capitalists when they said "it's not the merchants and traders ... that oppress people"

lionhearted 16y ago

> Marx wrote a brilliant critique of capitalism Not really, because he makes a fundamental mistake. He thinks those that hold capital use violence and oppression against the masses. But he's got the cause and effect wrong - the people who use violence and oppression wind up seizing capital. What's the difference? Well, look at history. It's not the merchants and traders and inventors and builders that oppress people - it's the people with swords and guns. Marx's prescription to that is that the oppressed people grab swords and guns and raise some hell, and take over, and then... whoops. The accumulation of resources (private property) and voluntary exchange (capitalism) aren't problems. Violence, coercion, oppression is the problem. Unfortunately, Marx gets the cause and effect backwards. He sees violent people holding capital, and blames the capital instead of the violence. He then says the people without capital should use violence to seize it... with predictably bad results. Marx didn't understand capitalism - he never did productive work in his life. The cause of oppression stems from violence and coercion, not accumulation of resources and voluntary exchange.

z0r 16y ago
Marx had quite a bit to say about 'voluntary' exchange, hahaha.
forkandwait 16y ago
> Not really, because he makes a fundamental mistake. He thinks those that hold capital use violence and oppression against the masses. You will disagree, I would imagine, but Marx would argue that one of the most important features of capitalism is that it appears to be an abstract relationship of buying and selling sans violence, even as it is very much a system of oppression of one class over another. He doesn't forget that the swords are put away (though they come out when necessary to sustain the market relationships), he just disagrees with you that forcing a whole lot of people to trade their labor on the market (at a low-ish price, since they don't control the market environment) is any less oppressive than telling a peasant explicitly to till the soil or get killed. No offense, but he understood capitalism a lot better than you -- he just didn't believe capitalists when they said "it's not the merchants and traders ... that oppress people"