4 ms·

You don't need the word socialism to make me skeptical, I'm skeptical that democracy would produce better results in a business context. Also, I have a hard tim

You don't need the word socialism to make me skeptical, I'm skeptical that democracy would produce better results in a business context. Also, I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice. I don't even trust democracy in politics all that much, my state (California) is a complete and utter failure as an exercise in democracy.

rdtsc 14y ago
> I don't even trust democracy in politics all that much Alright, but what do you trust then? A dictatorship is much better as long as the dictator happens to share the values and vision as you personally.
- codewright 14y ago
  >Alright, but what do you trust then? Federalized constitutional republics seem to work well. True meritocracy in governance would interest me.
  - barry-cotter 14y ago
    * Federalized constitutional republics seem to work well.* Pfft, you can't generalise that much from just Switzerland.
    - codewright 14y ago
      Switzerland is not the only nation with this model.
gruseom 14y ago
Also, I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice. I call foul. That's personal, and it's unsubstantiated, which makes it unfair not only to the GP but to the rest of us reading the thread. If you're going to make a comment like this, instead of being mean why don't you share with us some of what you've learned about (in this case) Marx? I for one would be interested to hear it.
- codewright 14y ago
  >And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?. - Engels >As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist - Engels Democracy is a threat to the midwife State and the final state of what Marxism aims to achieve.
  - infinite8s 14y ago
    So what was Marx's end goal? Some sort of utopian paradox in the vein of John's Galt, where each person is free to realize his own potential? The last quote from Engel seems to suggest that Marx was actually pushing for something much closer to Anarcho-Libertarianism.
    - codewright 14y ago
      Marx was pushing for a utopia somewhat opposite of Galt. Namely, communism. Voluntary communist utopias are referred to as anarcho-communism. Anarcho-libertarianism assumes a free market is involved. Communism assumes all resources are pooled.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  Thank you. As for Marx and democracy, while trolling, your parent does make a point: What I'm talking about in this thread is not very Marxist/Leninist. What they misunderstood is that I was not trying to be Marxist/Leninist. ;) In Marxism/Leninism, the current situation is referred to as "the dictatorship of the bourgeoise." Revolution would lead to the institution of "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Contrary to its name, the DotP would be a democratically run organization: however, since 'all history is the history of class struggle,' it _would_ have a dictatorship role in the sense of the two classes: whereas today, the bourgeoise call all the shots, in the DotP, the proletariat would. This is what my sibling comment refers to. However, they misunderstand about half the things that are said in both of those quotes by Engels.
steveklabnik 14y ago
> I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice. First of all, socialism is bigger than Marx. You are absolutely correct in that Marx/Lennin would not think that business operating as socialist within a capitalist context would lead to revolution or communism. Luckily, I wasn't talking about that. Secondarily, Marx never actually used the world 'socialism,' he did make a few passing references to 'lower communism' and 'lesser communism.' He _did_ critique the utopian socialists of his day for not being realistic enough.
- codewright 14y ago
  Lower communism is formally known as socialism among Marxist scholars. To say that Marx never spoke of socialism when the academic understanding has been that the terminology maps over is very misleading. Marx & Engels criticized utopian socialism that was utopian for simply lacking a vision of bringing itself about. That's what made it utopian. Marx and Engels critiqued utopianism, market socialism, and liberal democracy, not socialism itself. To say that their critiques of dreamy, ungrounded utopianism were somehow a critique of one of the utopian hobby-horses (socialism) is...a severe misunderstanding of Marx. They themselves saw the revolutionary state that would midwife the ushering in of Communism as being socialist by necessity. The Paris Commune would later serve to change Marx's attitude about the midwife state a bit though. You're just compounding your misunderstandings and further propagating misinformation about Marx. Please stop. This isn't even about the original conversation for me anymore, I just want you to stop spreading untruths.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    > To say that Marx never spoke of socialism when the academic understanding has been that the terminology maps over is very misleading. What I was trying to communicate is that Marxism involves socialism, but socialism does not involve Marxism. > Marx & Engels criticized utopian socialism that was utopian for simply lacking a vision of bringing itself about. This is what I said. "not being realistic enough." > They themselves saw the revolutionary state that would midwife the ushering in of Communism as being socialist by necessity. The Paris Commune would later serve to change Marx's attitude about the midwife state a bit though. I agree 100%. I really think we have a failure to communicate here, not an actual disagreement in understanding, now. Both me misunderstanding you and you misunderstanding me. You can understand why I'm naturally skeptical of anyone invoking Marx in this place. My apologies.

rdtsc 14y ago

> I don't even trust democracy in politics all that much Alright, but what do you trust then? A dictatorship is much better as long as the dictator happens to share the values and vision as you personally.

codewright 14y ago
>Alright, but what do you trust then? Federalized constitutional republics seem to work well. True meritocracy in governance would interest me.
- barry-cotter 14y ago
  * Federalized constitutional republics seem to work well.* Pfft, you can't generalise that much from just Switzerland.
  - codewright 14y ago
    Switzerland is not the only nation with this model.

gruseom 14y ago

Also, I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice. I call foul. That's personal, and it's unsubstantiated, which makes it unfair not only to the GP but to the rest of us reading the thread. If you're going to make a comment like this, instead of being mean why don't you share with us some of what you've learned about (in this case) Marx? I for one would be interested to hear it.

codewright 14y ago
>And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?. - Engels >As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist - Engels Democracy is a threat to the midwife State and the final state of what Marxism aims to achieve.
- infinite8s 14y ago
  So what was Marx's end goal? Some sort of utopian paradox in the vein of John's Galt, where each person is free to realize his own potential? The last quote from Engel seems to suggest that Marx was actually pushing for something much closer to Anarcho-Libertarianism.
  - codewright 14y ago
    Marx was pushing for a utopia somewhat opposite of Galt. Namely, communism. Voluntary communist utopias are referred to as anarcho-communism. Anarcho-libertarianism assumes a free market is involved. Communism assumes all resources are pooled.
steveklabnik 14y ago
Thank you. As for Marx and democracy, while trolling, your parent does make a point: What I'm talking about in this thread is not very Marxist/Leninist. What they misunderstood is that I was not trying to be Marxist/Leninist. ;) In Marxism/Leninism, the current situation is referred to as "the dictatorship of the bourgeoise." Revolution would lead to the institution of "the dictatorship of the proletariat." Contrary to its name, the DotP would be a democratically run organization: however, since 'all history is the history of class struggle,' it _would_ have a dictatorship role in the sense of the two classes: whereas today, the bourgeoise call all the shots, in the DotP, the proletariat would. This is what my sibling comment refers to. However, they misunderstand about half the things that are said in both of those quotes by Engels.

steveklabnik 14y ago

> I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice. First of all, socialism is bigger than Marx. You are absolutely correct in that Marx/Lennin would not think that business operating as socialist within a capitalist context would lead to revolution or communism. Luckily, I wasn't talking about that. Secondarily, Marx never actually used the world 'socialism,' he did make a few passing references to 'lower communism' and 'lesser communism.' He _did_ critique the utopian socialists of his day for not being realistic enough.

codewright 14y ago
Lower communism is formally known as socialism among Marxist scholars. To say that Marx never spoke of socialism when the academic understanding has been that the terminology maps over is very misleading. Marx & Engels criticized utopian socialism that was utopian for simply lacking a vision of bringing itself about. That's what made it utopian. Marx and Engels critiqued utopianism, market socialism, and liberal democracy, not socialism itself. To say that their critiques of dreamy, ungrounded utopianism were somehow a critique of one of the utopian hobby-horses (socialism) is...a severe misunderstanding of Marx. They themselves saw the revolutionary state that would midwife the ushering in of Communism as being socialist by necessity. The Paris Commune would later serve to change Marx's attitude about the midwife state a bit though. You're just compounding your misunderstandings and further propagating misinformation about Marx. Please stop. This isn't even about the original conversation for me anymore, I just want you to stop spreading untruths.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  > To say that Marx never spoke of socialism when the academic understanding has been that the terminology maps over is very misleading. What I was trying to communicate is that Marxism involves socialism, but socialism does not involve Marxism. > Marx & Engels criticized utopian socialism that was utopian for simply lacking a vision of bringing itself about. This is what I said. "not being realistic enough." > They themselves saw the revolutionary state that would midwife the ushering in of Communism as being socialist by necessity. The Paris Commune would later serve to change Marx's attitude about the midwife state a bit though. I agree 100%. I really think we have a failure to communicate here, not an actual disagreement in understanding, now. Both me misunderstanding you and you misunderstanding me. You can understand why I'm naturally skeptical of anyone invoking Marx in this place. My apologies.