4 ms·
People like to say that Lenin and Mao were bad clinicians, if only there was a messiah smart enough to implement communism. In spite of the fact that plenty of
by patrickaljord 13y ago
People like to say that Lenin and Mao were bad clinicians, if only there was a messiah smart enough to implement communism. In spite of the fact that plenty of other governments gave it a try too. Truth is, Lenin and even Stalin were pretty smart guys and they implemented communism the way it was meant to be . Actually, a guy predicted the Lenin/Stalin way would be the end-result for any communism implementation. The guy who predicted was an anarchist so not particularly right wing:
"First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice. Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly. Such is the economic programme of State Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx."
Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherin They Differ (1888)
Sounds familiar?
Second point, the labor theories of value described in the Capital you enjoyed so much has been proven wrong. The argument that the value of a commodity is only related to the labor needed to produce or obtain that commodity and not to other factors is now well known to be wrong. Running out of time here so here's a quick explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Criticism...
- steveklabnik 13y agoIt does sound familiar, I'm (often) an anarchist. You do realize individualist anarchists (like Tucker) are still socialists, yes? And Tucker still subscribes to the labor theory of value? > so much has been proven wrong. Sigh. > The argument that the value of a commodity is only related to the labor needed to produce or obtain that commodity and not to other factors is now well known to be wrong. You're absolutely right, and that's not what Marx says. You're criticizing Smith or Ricardo here, just like Marx is.
- patrickaljord 13y ago> It does sound familiar, I'm (often) an anarchist. You do realize individualist anarchists (like Tucker) are still socialists, yes? And Tucker still subscribes to the labor theory of value? Not really, he was an individualist anarchist that supported private property and a free market economy. He wanted some limitations on land property but all considered he was more of a libertarian than anything else. > You're criticizing Smith or Ricardo here, just like Marx is. Nope, Smith says that the theory is only true in a primitive society, not in advanced ones where the value includes the cost of means of productions to the owner and the risks taken by the owner. Marx omits the fact that not paying entrepreneurs extra for the risk they take will take away the incentive to take those risks in the first place and turn a country where no one has an incentive to work and creates scarcity as productivity decreases. This has happened in every communist society that has tried these Marxists policies. You're young and marxist, I was there too once :) Try to read a bit more of Locke, Leoni, de Jouvenel, Spencer, JB Say, Bastiat, von Mises, Hayek etc. I'm sure you'll get there too, it's a long and hard road to get out of Marxism way of viewing things, I know, I'm French, good luck to you.
- steveklabnik 13y agoYou are flat out wrong about Tucker. That essay you cite is about how the only thing shared between anarchists and socialists is the labor theory if value... I have read many (but not all) of the people you cited. I'm also not a Marxist, though I play one often. Since you're French, I'll name drop Deleuze here...