Marxism

[Eiuol]

No problem Repairman, wasn’t trying to harass you about it, I apologize. My intent was to get at what it is a good argument would look like. Of course, criticism only goes so far (pointing out errors is helpful), so you’re right to push me away from my criticism of other people’s examples.

The gist though is value is from the mind, so it is not inherently exploitative to profit from a worker’s labor, and a worker’s value is from his own mind. A theory like Marxism which does not attempt to leave room for discussing how it is people come to judge value (except as a phenomena caused by the machinery of capitalism) in their own mind, will be plain incorrect. So the USSR isn’t ugly because it failed to work per se, but because Marxism predicts capitalism would erode on its own and that erosion would lead to somewhere equitable despite the temporary struggle. Except, the inevitable progress never happened.

Let me know if you’d like me to expand on any part, but I’d say it’s fine as is. Expanding on points depends on your target audience, e.g. it’d be a lot more detailed if it was for a book on economics. Still, the form would be identical, even if I were arguing against myself as a devil’s advocate.

[Laika]

As ironic as it may sound, perhaps the best approach with the “ordinary” Marxist (usually found on a University Campus) is a libertarian one. Think of a discussion as a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas in which you say one thing and they say the other. There will be differences of opinion, but that is not necessarily threatening and being open to exploring those differences can be rewarding. The thing to remember is that you cannot “pressure” Marxists or “coerce” them into giving up their beliefs by hysterics or appeals to ethical absolutes. that wouldn’t work with anyone, and trying it with a marxist serves as evidence of how little respect you have for them as people trying to reason there way through the world. the truth is not enough- they desperately want people’s respect because being “dedicated” to the cause is an attempt to have self-worth. 

The crucial thing is to  NOT  make a big deal out of it because Marxism, as a totalitarian ideology, is identical with the self. So an attack on Marxism is received as an attack on the Marxist’s sense of self worth. If the goal is to “convert” a marxist over, be prepared to be flexible and do what works- not what we may instintively feel is “right” like telling them to go and live in North Korea (or whatever). you have to slowly encourage a separation between Marxism as an idea, and that “marxists” sense of self by showing they are in conflict. That’s more to do with the person  and what they want and thinking that Marxism is a means of achieving what they want.

the trouble is the degree to which the “selfish” reasons to be a Marxist are rationalised and covered up by “altruistic” ideology. getting a Marxist to be specific about what they want, to try to become informed on specific subjects rather than sticking to  vague “general principles” can plant the seeds of clear thinking. rather than saying “that can’t work” go for “how would that work?” and you’ll quickly see how much they actually know (often its very little). Only a handful of Marxists will have developed a really complete understanding of what they’d actually do if they got power- the rest of them are being used by empty promises of a “better world”.

Marxism is primarily (but by no means exclusively) an emotional response to people’s suffering and the longing that human beings may enjoy a “humane” condition. It is built around a sense of grievance, victim hood and identification with “victims”. It is only when you grasp that behind the mask of militancy lies a deep sense of vulnerability, of feeling at the mercy of market forces out of control, of being afraid of losing in the “anarchy” of competition, of not having “individuality” without property, or “oppressed” by a exploiting ruling class, that the humanity of marxists becomes clear. something had to go badly wrong for them to end up this way and they are often grappling with legitimate personal problems that they themselves feel they cannot change or control. So they look for a magic bullet to “change the world” and solve it for them.  at its core- its selfish in wanting to not be overwhelmed or over-powered. 

Sadly, Marxists have chosen to respond to this vulnerability with a semi-conscious efforts to control their environment and surroundings through “planning” and ultimately, this means controlling people themselves (and being controlled). Often it can be more subtle in terms of adhering to a philosophical system that claim to explain, predict (and therefore control) everything as a “science”. If you make a Marxist feel threatened- they will lose it and that will be the end of the discussion. all that vulnerability is a recipe for hatred, greed, lust and every other temptation known to man and its once you start to get the dissonance between the “ideal” and the “personal” that things really start to change. just like anyone else, they have things that set them off and limits to what they will discuss. you have to make them realise that if _they _had power- they would abuse it for their own selfish ends. it has to become personal and not just an abstract happening somewhere else to someone else in the world. That takes something “special” because the healthy part of the personality has to care about what would actually happen. its is a real turning point in a person’s life and it can’t be forced. From the outside, you can’t help them- but you can help them help themselves. 

The trick is to respect them as people, recognise the vulnerability but suggest that they are being used and that the desire for control will not make them free or even safe from the things they are afraid of. This doesn’t have to be big or dramatic but a steady “dripping tap” of doubts and insights that shows that- as emotionally invested as they are, as much as they want it to work and be true- they have let other use their vulnerability to become victims of a totalitarian ideology and system, and would readily betray their own ideals if they were even given the power because of how vulnerable they are. they have to create and find their own sense of value by becoming individuals.

[Repairman]

On 6/29/2017 at 11:47 AM, Laika said:

 From the outside, you can’t help them- but you can help them help themselves.

Laika, this is an extraordinary explanation of the nuances involved in the art of persuasion, and it may almost be as easily applied to radical ideologies of either race or religion. Emotions run much deeper among the religiously and racially conflicted. Solid factual arguments rarely if ever have any effect on the true-believers. However, I will say that opening an individual up to such honest discussion would require quite a long time, patience, and in the end, that true-believer will need to draw his/her own conclusions, as you have mentioned. If someone is capable of thinking through the case _ for _ Marxism, I believe it is just as possible for them to reason the case _ against _ it.

[Laika]

2 hours ago, Repairman said:

Laika, this is an extraordinary explanation of the nuances involved in the art of persuasion, and it may almost be as easily applied to radical ideologies of either race or religion. Emotions run much deeper among the religiously and racially conflicted. Solid factual arguments rarely if ever have any effect on the true-believers. However, I will say that opening an individual up to such honest discussion would require quite a long time, patience, and in the end, that true-believer will need to draw his/her own conclusions, as you have mentioned. If someone is capable of thinking through the case _ for _ Marxism, I believe it is just as possible for them to reason the case _ against _ it.

I agree with you on that. The emotional openness to opposing arguments is crucial to marxism’s development but also uncharacteristic of Marxists both historically and in the present day. In my experience, I simply haven’t met anyone of the Marxist-Communist persuasion who was really willing to be that open and honest. Not once have I met a Communist who could actually say “we killed innocent people and we were wrong to do so”, nor really be open about whether that was what they would want. it was always disguised by political language of “class struggle”, “dictatorship” and never really comprehended on a “human” level of experience, with all the personal turmoil and conflict that comes from caring about people- friends and so-called “enemies”. That was a pretty strong indicator against the communist ideal of the “new man” as a noble and heroic standard bearer of “social justice” because it meant that the source of communist ideology couldn’t be as simple as commitment to truth as a legitimate and moral source of political power.

To give an example, here’s a quote from Felix Dzerzhinsky’s prison diary:

…Where lies the way out of the hell of present-day life, in which the wolfish law of exploitation, oppression and violence holds sway? The way out lies in the idea of a life which is based on harmony, a full life enjoyed by the whole of society, by all mankind; the way out is in the idea of socialism, the idea of solidarity of the working people. This idea is already approaching realisation, the people are ready to receive it with open arms. The time for it has already arrived. The ranks of the advocates of this idea must be united and the banner carried aloft so that the people see it and follow it. And today this is the most urgent of the tasks of Social-Democracy, of the tasks of the small handful that survives.

Socialism should cease to be only the scientific prevision of the future. It should become the torch that kindles indomitable faith and energy in the hearts of people…

its a humane, bold and a courageous statement of socialist principle. And it makes absolutely no sense given that Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the soviet secret police that would torture and kill the regimes opponents:

“We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal’s own confession?” 

There is virtually no statement regarding Marxist ethics systematic enough to explain how its possible to say the first quote and then say the second quote. The truth is, the Communists never even tried to develop a Marxist system of ethics (beyond a single statement by Lenin saying ethics are subordinate to class struggle), nor is it obvious how logic, reason, ideology or even emotion can make the leap. the closest approximation is Trotsky’s “Communism and Terrorism”. As damning as it is for its defence of terror, censorship and forced labour, its also very superficial in that the “enemies of the people” are never treated as more than a mere abstraction. there’s no real discussion of the moral meaning of the state having the power to decide who lives and who dies based on an introspective emotional or existential awareness of human frailty or fallibility. the same “lack of an argument” is common through out Marxist literature so it cannot be said to be rational even by Marxist standards. there is only an eerie silence. its hard to tell what could be more chilling; killing 100 million people because you believe it was right, or because they didn’t need a reason to do it at all. 

The problem with Communism isn’t so much a question of facts, though Communists have become extremely good at ignoring facts. Facts do not exist in isolation from reasoning and means we attribute cause and effect to different facts, and give them significance. i.e. Was the collapse of the USSR the result of causes _within _socialism itself or somehow the result of forces outside of and alien or hostile to Socialism? Were the Purges the result of Stalinist ideology and its propensity to paranoia or was the paranoia a justifiable attempt to maintain ideological purity and orthodoxy in the face of counter-revolutionary forces? You can go on like this and personally its not clear why one interpretation is better than the other and emotions played a pretty powerful role in my originally favouring Marxist interpretation over alternatives. the inner struggle wears you out and you want something “more”. So I can only conclude that my preference for Marxism was at least in part deeply irrational. its still been a valuable experience into the human condition though.

[gio]

Using marxist theory of exploitation :

Let V be the “variable capital” corresponding to wages and C the constant capital corresponding to machines, tools, buildings, land, etc. Let’s suppose that pl is the capital gain derived by the employer from the labor of the employees. We define E , the exploitation rate by the equation E = pl / V , and P , the rate of profit by the equation P = pl / (C + V). The “organic” composition of the company’s capital is defined by the equation K = (C + V) / V.

Using these equations, the profit rate ( P ) can be expressed as a function of the organic composition of capital ( K ) and of the exploitation rate ( E ). Indeed, pl = V.E; P = V.E / (C + V); Therefore P = E / K.

However, under the conditions of perfect competition which is the frame of reference of Marx, the exploitation rate ( E ) and the rate of profit ( P ) are the same in all branches of production regardless of the organic composition of capital . The last equation shows that if the organic composition of capital ( K ) varies from branch to branch or from enterprise to enterprise, the rate of exploitation being given and everywhere the same, the rate of profit ( P ) varies from branch to branch or from enterprise to enterprise. That is impossible.

[Repairman]

Laika,

I have the impression that we share an understanding of the historical importance of applied Marxism.

5 hours ago, Laika said:

… Was the collapse of the USSR the result of causes _within _socialism itself or somehow the result of forces outside of and alien or hostile to Socialism? Were the Purges the result of Stalinist ideology and its propensity to paranoia or was the paranoia a justifiable attempt to maintain ideological purity and orthodoxy in the face of counter-revolutionary forces? You can go on like this and personally its not clear why one interpretation is better than the other and emotions played a pretty powerful role in my originally favouring Marxist interpretation over alternatives. the inner struggle wears you out and you want something “more”. …

In regard to exploitation theory and the Marxian Labor Theory of Value, (as proposed in the opening post), I can’t offer much. gio, in the preceding post may have nailed it, but I wouldn’t be the one to make that call. I am self-educated. My academic background is limited. I met only one self-identifying Marxist in my long life, and he didn’t impress me as very well-equipped to defend his beliefs. Perhaps in the arena of higher learning, the breadth of knowledge you and some of the other OO contributors display could be hugely advantageous in a formal debate. Given your acknowledgement that persuasion requires for than facts, perhaps we could say that the formal debate is a somewhat ineffective means to the end result of confronting the popularity of socialism. Socialism is very popular in America, as long as you don’t openly call it socialism. Without getting too deep into American politics, the people I work with are mostly displeased with the idea that the worst elements in society receive welfare benefits, while they have to work, but if you raise the subject of “the rich,” you see the proverbial blood in their eyes. Americans workers have little in common with the proletariat of a century ago, but the sentiment is still very much alive: class-warfare, class-struggle, and all of the devises used by the International Workers of the World, long since forgotten along with the Cold War. These are the forces that shape the changes in our world, and when practical, I seek the unpopular course of resistance by reasoning with the few who question whether or not their notions of capitalism are correct.

[gio]

16 minutes ago, Repairman said:

I met only one self-identifying Marxist in my long life, and he didn’t impress me as very well-equipped to defend his beliefs.

Come in my country if you want to meet much marxists! 

[New_Buddha]

6 hours ago, Laika said:

it was always disguised by political language of “class struggle”, “dictatorship” and never really comprehended on a “human” level of experience, with all the personal turmoil and conflict that comes from caring about people- friends and so-called “enemies”. That was a pretty strong indicator against the communist ideal of the " new man" as a noble and heroic standard bearer of “social justice” because it meant that the source of communist ideology couldn’t be as simple as commitment to truth as a legitimate and moral source of political power.

2

Marx/Engles were very upfront with regards to what they considered the “plastic” nature of an individuals mind and how his ideas are determined  only by a positive dialectic (as opposed to Hegel’s idealism)  with the current age’s material means of production (meaning roughly, ideas don’t create “tools”, tools create “ideas”).   It’s also no coincidence that the Behaviorist ideas of Pavlov, Watson, Skinner, etc. were “Left” and largely ideologically driven.  The “new man” was to be “conditioned”.  This ideology of conditioning even went so far as to affect Soviet Biology (known as Lysenkoism) for decades.  Stalin rejected Mendelian genetics because it didn’t support the idea that living organisms are “conditioned”.  From wiki:

The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism assumed the heritability of acquired characteristics.[2] Lysenko’s theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the “gene”; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[3] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection”.[3] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.

Joseph Stalin supported the campaign. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison, fired,[4] or executed as part of a campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was sent to prison and died there, while scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[3] Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned.[5]

Rand repeatedly states that a man’s mind has a specific identity and that it’s not infinitely malleable.  This is central to understanding her epistemology and ethical individualism.  No man or class or tool can “cause” another man to think.

The horrors of collectivism stem from treating men as cogs in Society.

Edit:  In 1907, William James reflected on the growth of Behaviorism in psychology.

Many persons nowadays seem to think that any conclusion must be very scientific if the arguments in favor of it are derived from twitching of frogs’ legs—especially if the frogs are decapitated—and that—on the other hand—any doctrine chiefly vouched for by the feelings of human beings—with heads on their shoulders—must be benighted and superstitious. 

[Plasmatic]

1 hour ago, Repairman said:

Given your acknowledgement that persuasion requires for than facts, perhaps we could say that the formal debate is a somewhat ineffective means to the end result of confronting the popularity of socialism.

Why would an Oist grant this ridiculous premise? Almost nothing Laika said is remotely true. 

Has anyone else observing this and other recent threads been at least struggling to countenance how some have been responding to Laika? (Qualitativley, the nature of the responses)

 

[Grames]

4 hours ago, Plasmatic said:

Why would an Oist grant this ridiculous premise? Almost nothing Laika said is remotely true. 

What is ridiculous about it?  If non-rational motivation causes someone to persist in socialist or Marxist thought then how would rational argumentation address that motivation?  Plainly it can’t and doesn’t unless and until a person comes to value rational argumentation over the emotional payoffs of being righteous or conformist or rebellious etc…  Some people (most people?) never get there.

[New_Buddha]

5 hours ago, Plasmatic said:

Almost nothing Laika said is remotely true. 

What does this have to do with anything?  Give me a Marxist who has taken the time to actually read Marx over an Objectivist sycophant any day.

[Repairman]

5 hours ago, Plasmatic said:

Why would an Oist grant this ridiculous premise? Almost nothing Laika said is remotely true. 

Has anyone else observing this and other recent threads been at least struggling to countenance how some have been responding to Laika? (Qualitativley, the nature of the responses)

 

At no point am I suggesting that Laika said anything to the effect that formal debate is ineffective in all cases. I am not suggesting that formal debate is ineffective in all cases. If a person chooses to discuss the pros and cons of Marxism with emotional detachment, then of course one would argue on merit of fact. Taking into consideration the fact that the average Left-leaning person doesn’t even know who Karl Marx was, it wouldn’t be very effective to analyze Marxist theory. The impression I take from Laika’s approach to the argument is that most Marxist take their beliefs as personally as any person of faith. Whether this is exactly true or not is a subjective matter; as far as being remotely true, I would say it has a better than fair chance of being true.

Plasmatic, not that I wish to change the topic, but what specifically is it that Laika said that isn’t true?

[New_Buddha]

10 minutes ago, Repairman said:

Plasmatic, not that I wish to change the topic, but what specifically is it that Laika said that isn’t true?

As someone who has actually taken the time to read Marx, Engles, Lenin and several Soviet philosophers, I can say that Laika has been very consistent in presenting their case.  Within that context, everything he has posted is “true”.  He’s also demonstrated a far greater depth of intellectual curiosity and honesty than many others who routinely participate on this forum.

[Plasmatic]

2 hours ago, Grames said:

What is ridiculous about it?  If non-rational motivation causes someone to persist in socialist or Marxist thought then how would rational argumentation address that motivation?  Plainly it can’t and doesn’t unless and until a person comes to value rational argumentation over the emotional payoffs of being righteous or conformist or rebellious etc…  Some people (most people?) never get there.

Yet, Laika argued nothing like the above. 

[Plasmatic]

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

What does this have to do with anything?  Give me a Marxist who has taken the time to actually read Marx over an Objectivist sycophant any day.

First, I don’t expect you to appreciate the Oist position on dealing with people who hold evil beliefs, or even be aware of what my reasons for asking my initial question even is.

Second, I have a strong interest in Marxist doctrine and study it quite a bit. Particularly the Frankfurt school and the neo-marxism within postmodernism. I think anyone who doesn’t  understand Marx cant possibly grasp what is happening all around us with much detail.

See my playlist on the topic here: 

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmJ5QMr7eqvScV0kCa7UwgMz-d0F_x6vD

Read the description…

 

Maybe its true that you have equal value to gain by exchanging your “opinions” with a marxist on their terms but that is an affront to anyone with a moral compass. 

[New_Buddha]

10 minutes ago, Plasmatic said:

Maybe its true that you have equal value to gain by exchanging your “opinions” with a marxist on their terms but that is an affront to anyone with a moral compass. 

Oh, no! Plasmatic is throwing Thunderbolts at me!

Laika has clearly come here because he is questioning Marxism.  He’s been very open about it.  If you don’t have the temperament to engage someone like Laika, then why don’t you return to Mount Olympus?

 

[Plasmatic]

 

6 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

Oh, no! Plasmatic is throwing Thunderbolts at me!

Laika has clearly come here because he is questioning Marxism.  He’s been very open about it.  If you don’t have the temperament to engage someone like Laika, then why don’t you return to Mount Olympus?

 

 You have any non-strawmen comments, sweetheart? 

[New_Buddha]

1 hour ago, Plasmatic said:

You have any non-strawmen comments, sweetheart? 

Such witty repartee!

Look Plasmatic, the only purpose of a philosophical forum is to engage those with whom one disagrees.  Forums don’t just exist to mirror one’s own unanalyzed ignorance, prejudices, and opinions.

Laika has clearly come here because he is questioning Marxism.  He is precisely the type of person that Objectivists should hope to come to this site.

A significant part of my professional career has been spent teaching interns.  I enjoy trying to communicate knowledge.  If someone doesn’t agree with me I don’t just castigate them as “people who hold evil beliefs.”

If Objectivism is to have any influence in the wider reaches of society, then it will need to engage that society.

Not everyone has the temperament to do that.

[Plasmatic]

2 hours ago, Repairman said:

At no point am I suggesting that Laika said anything to the effect that formal debate is ineffective in all cases. I am not suggesting that formal debate is ineffective in all cases. If a person chooses to discuss the pros and cons of Marxism with emotional detachment, then of course one would argue on merit of fact. Taking into consideration the fact that the average Left-leaning person doesn’t even know who Karl Marx was, it wouldn’t be very effective to analyze Marxist theory. The impression I take from Laika’s approach to the argument is that most Marxist take their beliefs as personally as any person of faith. Whether this is exactly true or not is a subjective matter; as far as being remotely true, I would say it has a better than fair chance of being true.

Plasmatic, not that I wish to change the topic, but what specifically is it that Laika said that isn’t true?

Regarding my response to your comment I excerpted previously; there is no such thing as non-rational persuasion. To persuade is to make rational arguments such that another accepts your premises as true. This should not be a controversial claim.

As to the erroneous comments of Laika’s I was referring to, lets see:

Is it the case that "** appealing to ethical absolutes" “wouldn’t work with anyone”**?

and is it true that

" trying it with a marxist serves as evidence of how little respect you have for them as people trying to reason there way through the world."

If one is “trying to reason their way through the world” , then why is it the case that "truth will not persuade them"?? (your “merit of fact”) 

If self esteem can only be gained by virtuous action then how is pretending that a marxists " dedication" to the immoral cause of marxism is a source of true self worth and worthy of " respect"?

Is it the case that one should treat the belief in marxism as " not a big deal" because a marxist is suffering from the psychological and emotional weight of the fact that their beliefs DO reflect on them morally and there " self" is in a state of moral debasement?

Is it the case that “Marxism is primarily (but by no means exclusively) an emotional response to people’s suffering”?

Is the marxist view of social justice an instance of a " humane" condition"?

Is it the case that the marxist myths of " out of control market forces", “anarchy of competition”, "exploitation of the ruling clas s" and a " lack of property" are " oppressing" the Marxist into " militancy" and robbing them of individuality?

Is it really " selfish" " at its core" to choose marxism because one is " grappling with legitimate personal problems" that Marx claims " they cannot change or control."?

Do I need to go on?

[New_Buddha]

1 minute ago, Plasmatic said:

Do I need to go on?

Your all bold response is borderline psychotic.