3 ms·

Marx was specifically drawing from proletariat uprisings that were happening around him. To name one particularly famous one, The Paris Commune. Marx was trying

Marx was specifically drawing from proletariat uprisings that were happening around him. To name one particularly famous one, The Paris Commune. Marx was trying to explain the tumultuous political situation of 1800's Europe. You also have to keep in mind that he wrote from a context that still had a living memory of pre-industrial, pre-capitalist social and economic relations. > And 150 years later... well, the two most spontaneous communist revolutions occurred in the most backward They don't commonly teach about the leftwing revolt in Germany in 1918 which was crushed when the ruling government instructed the Freikorps to smash it and murder its leaders. It's also hardly mentioned that FDR's policies in America were an urgent response to multiple general strikes that spontaneously erupted all over the country. It is certainly not the history of proletarian unrest in the West that discredits Marx's historical materialism, we just have a common understanding of a very sanitized and biased version of labor history. The internal forces of capitalism that Marx identified as the source of these class conflicts have certainly evolved over generations of spectacular technological and social change, but they're still there and still very relevant. Our capitalist present, in the broader context of history, is still very young in comparison to other socioeconomic orders.

jcranmer 6y ago
Perhaps I should have added the qualifier "successful." What actually happened was that laissez-faire capitalism (which was the dominant form of capitalism in the 19th century) ended up yielding to essentially social democracy, whereby the state becomes a check on capitalist control of the working classes and provides guarantees and surety to the working classes. I'd argue that the modern social democratic variant of capitalism would be foreign enough from the laissez-faire capitalism of Marx's era that he wouldn't consider it capitalism.
- danharaj 6y ago
  What are these differences between social democratic capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism that are so fundamental that Marx would not recognize the former as capitalism? We still have class relations defined by how we participate in economic relations. If anything, the extensive financialization of modern capitalism really exaggerates just how subordinate _all_ of us are, proletariat and bourgeoisie alike, to the logic of concentrated capital which seeks to increase in its concentration. And is it really fair to call the capitalism of Marx's time "laissez-faire" when the government coordinated very closely and heavy-handedly with the bourgeoisie to develop capitalism further (for example, land reform, imperialism)? I will take the position that laissez-faire is an ideological definition of capitalism that never described actually existing capitalism and could never for long. After all, all those prole revolts of Marx's time that were squashed were squashed by the state on behalf of the bourgeoisie. If they did not have a state to rely on, they would invent one. And if a state emerged that would oppose them, they would seek to destroy and replace it. So it goes. But it would be impossible for me to defend such a position in the confines of a thread because I would have to scour the entire history of capitalism and show how involved the state was in creating and preserving a world suited for bourgeois hegemony. It would easily be thousands of pages and I would just be recapitulating dozens of scholarly works.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > What actually happened was that laissez-faire capitalism (which was the dominant form of capitalism in the 19th century) ended up yielding to essentially social democracy and subsequently started decaying into neoliberalism.
- Rury 6y ago
  I don't see your point. Marx had many ideas, but I think you're dismissing them just because a revolution hasn't happened. In which case, I don't think you understand Marx. Much of his critiques on capitalism hold true today (eg growing inequality between classes, alienation of labor). Anyhow for your argument above, Marx might see it confirm his theory, as what you call a movement towards social democracy capitalism, Marx might see it a step away from free market capitalism and one step closer to socialism. But the idea might not even be true, as the state is arguably controlled by the capitalist classes, so he very might well still see it as capitalism....

jcranmer 6y ago

Perhaps I should have added the qualifier "successful." What actually happened was that laissez-faire capitalism (which was the dominant form of capitalism in the 19th century) ended up yielding to essentially social democracy, whereby the state becomes a check on capitalist control of the working classes and provides guarantees and surety to the working classes. I'd argue that the modern social democratic variant of capitalism would be foreign enough from the laissez-faire capitalism of Marx's era that he wouldn't consider it capitalism.

danharaj 6y ago
What are these differences between social democratic capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism that are so fundamental that Marx would not recognize the former as capitalism? We still have class relations defined by how we participate in economic relations. If anything, the extensive financialization of modern capitalism really exaggerates just how subordinate _all_ of us are, proletariat and bourgeoisie alike, to the logic of concentrated capital which seeks to increase in its concentration. And is it really fair to call the capitalism of Marx's time "laissez-faire" when the government coordinated very closely and heavy-handedly with the bourgeoisie to develop capitalism further (for example, land reform, imperialism)? I will take the position that laissez-faire is an ideological definition of capitalism that never described actually existing capitalism and could never for long. After all, all those prole revolts of Marx's time that were squashed were squashed by the state on behalf of the bourgeoisie. If they did not have a state to rely on, they would invent one. And if a state emerged that would oppose them, they would seek to destroy and replace it. So it goes. But it would be impossible for me to defend such a position in the confines of a thread because I would have to scour the entire history of capitalism and show how involved the state was in creating and preserving a world suited for bourgeois hegemony. It would easily be thousands of pages and I would just be recapitulating dozens of scholarly works.
guerrilla 6y ago
> What actually happened was that laissez-faire capitalism (which was the dominant form of capitalism in the 19th century) ended up yielding to essentially social democracy and subsequently started decaying into neoliberalism.
Rury 6y ago
I don't see your point. Marx had many ideas, but I think you're dismissing them just because a revolution hasn't happened. In which case, I don't think you understand Marx. Much of his critiques on capitalism hold true today (eg growing inequality between classes, alienation of labor). Anyhow for your argument above, Marx might see it confirm his theory, as what you call a movement towards social democracy capitalism, Marx might see it a step away from free market capitalism and one step closer to socialism. But the idea might not even be true, as the state is arguably controlled by the capitalist classes, so he very might well still see it as capitalism....