4 ms·

I don't see that working out significantly differently in a Marxist system. Or at least a Marxist-Leninist system. There'd be a change in the boss's motivatio

I don't see that working out significantly differently in a Marxist system. Or at least a Marxist-Leninist system. There'd be a change in the boss's motivations, but it'd only be cosmetic. Instead of "Great, that means we can double production, which will earn me rewards because we can sell more stuff!" it would be "Great, that means we can double production, which will earn me rewards because it will impress my superiors!"

coldtea 12y ago
>"Great, that means we can double production, which will earn me rewards because it will impress my superiors!" That would be a Marxist-Leninist system (or rather a Marxist-Stalinist one). Marxism doesn't say anything other than the society en masse and through democratic means has a say on what the level of production is for each sector. They could have just said "that's enough" if they prioritized leisure. Of course USSR had two problems: it was underdeveloped, and it faced huge dangers from outside ("capitalistic") powers, so it had to ramp-up its production pronto (else, it would have been squashed by Germany in WWII, for example, something which the industrialization prevented). A single country (or even a small alliance) cannot adapt that well to doing what it wants (e.g. emphasize leisure) without falling prey to other powers around it. That was the whole hoopla with the notion of "socialism in one country" btw ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country ).
- bunderbunder 12y ago
  For me the issue is that if you're going to pick a model, you're kind of stuck with something like Marxism-Leninism or Maoism if you want to be able to do any serious hypothesizing. Vanilla Marxism is the abstract base class of political ideologies. You can't actually instantiate it, because Marx left too much unsaid when it came to the nuts and bolts of how he thought a society should function on a day-to-day basis.
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    that's an interesting analogy, i don't really think of Marxism as an ideology, but a critique of capitalism. people who berate it as an ideology are correct because they are berating Marxist–Leninism, but Marxism as a critique of capitalism is sound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism > For the political ideology commonly associated with states governed by Communist parties, see Marxism–Leninism.
    - bunderbunder 12y ago
      As long as we're devolving into argument by dictionary, we might as well cut straight to the root. A Google search for the term gives us: ideology (n) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy Which I'd say is a pretty darn decent definition, and corresponds very well with vernacular usage.
      - throwawayaway 12y ago
        i suppose you could call a critique or analysis a system of ideas and ideals, but it wouldn't be an "ideal" definition. vernacular refers to marxist-leninism.
    - disputin 12y ago
      Could the people who voted down the above comment please explain why. I too understand Marxism as described above. I might amend it slightly from "people who berate it as an ideology are correct" to "people who berate it as an ideology would be correct if it were one", but otherwise what's the issue?
      - steveklabnik 12y ago
        Don't expect the majority of Hacker News posters to understand anything regarding Marxism.
      - bunderbunder 12y ago
- nickik 12y ago
  This is just looking all the other problems of the USSR and only focusing on those that can easly be reasoned away by tweaking socialist theory. However there are many other very real problems that are pushed under the table and with clames like "they were underdevloped". While its true, the problem of the USSR was not that they could not get the technology to do things, they did not have a resource problem, nor was it a laber problem. They had a problem of ORGANISATION and INSENTIVES and for those you do not need a head start. Most of these arguments where developed by people who were disappointed in the soviet union (because it took exactly the course critices had said it would) and made up arguments. The USSR could have traded with others, there is nothing that says a country can not be internally socialistic and externally trade with capitalists. Thats exactly how some market anarchist schemes work.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >The USSR could have traded with others, there is nothing that says a country can not be internally socialistic and externally trade with capitalists. Thats exactly how some market anarchist schemes work. In some ideal world yes. In the real world, other countries (well, they ruling classes) wanted to see its demise, not trade with it, for it gave their people the wrong ideas...
    - nickik 12y ago
      I think threw most of its history the USSR did export some stuff. Also Im pretty sure that it was the USSR that did not want to trade, not the capitalist nations. Also the USSR influnced almost half of the world, the extend of the market is easly big enougth. Its not like the USSR was Hong Kong or Cuba.

coldtea 12y ago

>"Great, that means we can double production, which will earn me rewards because it will impress my superiors!" That would be a Marxist-Leninist system (or rather a Marxist-Stalinist one). Marxism doesn't say anything other than the society en masse and through democratic means has a say on what the level of production is for each sector. They could have just said "that's enough" if they prioritized leisure. Of course USSR had two problems: it was underdeveloped, and it faced huge dangers from outside ("capitalistic") powers, so it had to ramp-up its production pronto (else, it would have been squashed by Germany in WWII, for example, something which the industrialization prevented). A single country (or even a small alliance) cannot adapt that well to doing what it wants (e.g. emphasize leisure) without falling prey to other powers around it. That was the whole hoopla with the notion of "socialism in one country" btw ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country ).

bunderbunder 12y ago
For me the issue is that if you're going to pick a model, you're kind of stuck with something like Marxism-Leninism or Maoism if you want to be able to do any serious hypothesizing. Vanilla Marxism is the abstract base class of political ideologies. You can't actually instantiate it, because Marx left too much unsaid when it came to the nuts and bolts of how he thought a society should function on a day-to-day basis.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  that's an interesting analogy, i don't really think of Marxism as an ideology, but a critique of capitalism. people who berate it as an ideology are correct because they are berating Marxist–Leninism, but Marxism as a critique of capitalism is sound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism > For the political ideology commonly associated with states governed by Communist parties, see Marxism–Leninism.
  - bunderbunder 12y ago
    As long as we're devolving into argument by dictionary, we might as well cut straight to the root. A Google search for the term gives us: ideology (n) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy Which I'd say is a pretty darn decent definition, and corresponds very well with vernacular usage.
    - throwawayaway 12y ago
      i suppose you could call a critique or analysis a system of ideas and ideals, but it wouldn't be an "ideal" definition. vernacular refers to marxist-leninism.
  - disputin 12y ago
    Could the people who voted down the above comment please explain why. I too understand Marxism as described above. I might amend it slightly from "people who berate it as an ideology are correct" to "people who berate it as an ideology would be correct if it were one", but otherwise what's the issue?
    - steveklabnik 12y ago
      Don't expect the majority of Hacker News posters to understand anything regarding Marxism.
    - bunderbunder 12y ago
nickik 12y ago
This is just looking all the other problems of the USSR and only focusing on those that can easly be reasoned away by tweaking socialist theory. However there are many other very real problems that are pushed under the table and with clames like "they were underdevloped". While its true, the problem of the USSR was not that they could not get the technology to do things, they did not have a resource problem, nor was it a laber problem. They had a problem of ORGANISATION and INSENTIVES and for those you do not need a head start. Most of these arguments where developed by people who were disappointed in the soviet union (because it took exactly the course critices had said it would) and made up arguments. The USSR could have traded with others, there is nothing that says a country can not be internally socialistic and externally trade with capitalists. Thats exactly how some market anarchist schemes work.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >The USSR could have traded with others, there is nothing that says a country can not be internally socialistic and externally trade with capitalists. Thats exactly how some market anarchist schemes work. In some ideal world yes. In the real world, other countries (well, they ruling classes) wanted to see its demise, not trade with it, for it gave their people the wrong ideas...
  - nickik 12y ago
    I think threw most of its history the USSR did export some stuff. Also Im pretty sure that it was the USSR that did not want to trade, not the capitalist nations. Also the USSR influnced almost half of the world, the extend of the market is easly big enougth. Its not like the USSR was Hong Kong or Cuba.