Marxism's Error?

[polyfrag]

Are there any Marxists here? I'm not a Marxist myself, but my parents were born and lived in Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine. After my father passed away from heart problems in 1996, my family moved to Canada.

 

Unlike a lot of the people I talk to about politics, I have had the chance to reflect on modern attitudes and learn from my mom's first-hand experience. I've learned (both from research and my mom) that there's a lot of stupid and completely false myths about "commie Russia": that everyone gets paid the same income, that government picks your job, that everyone is athiest, that all the people are brainwashed, that technology is primitive.

 

My mom's not a Marxist and not particularly patriotic. She tells me I should work hard at school and start a business, says that USSR was corrupted, and that politics is a waste of time. She doesn't know much about Marxism, so she isn't the best person to be debating over the finer points of theoretical Marxism (which probably debunks the myth that all Soviet people were indoctrinated into Marxist ideas). But I can also see that Marxism meant a lot to some Russian people, and capitalism allowed criminals to rob the nation. So I'm part sympathetic to Marxists.

 

But then again I see the the 9-year old *idealists* on politics forum advocating *equality*, *fighting* against the evil forces of the *bourgeois* exploiters... and I don't want to be associated with them.

 

I tried to understand Marxism by reading the books (so complicated) and discussing it online. I've learned much about attitudes and opinions (more than most people learn in their lifetime), but there's still so much technical aspects about Marxism I don't understand.

 

So anyways, I was wondering what is the error of Marxism? Yeah, you could write essays on this subject, but a lot of the stuff I read is garbage. They mostly hinge on the argument "there's no incentive to work or innovate"... Which is based on an uneducated myth. But I'm not here to debunk myths or argue that USSR was better than today.

 

Now that Russia, Ukraine, and most of the other ex-Soviet states have abandoned the Marxist model, what conclusions have they reached about the flaw of Marxism? Can this giant piece of theoretical work be redeemed and saved by making corrections? Or otherwise, is the revolution, all that effort, all those lives in complete vain and waste? And I'd like an educated answer (since too many people enjoy being "armchair philosophers" but not enough understand what they're talking about).

[Pangloss]

The original poster has been banned for unrelated reasons, but I think there's an interesting question here and you guys are welcome to tackle it if you wish. I think he poses some interesting caveats and this strikes me as one of those things we should ponder even if only to avoid repeating the lessons of history.

[Lance]

They mostly hinge on the argument "there's no incentive to work or innovate"... Which is based on an uneducated myth.

 

I know he's not here anymore, but can somebody please explain to me how this is a myth?

[cosine]

I know he's not here anymore, but can somebody please explain to me how this is a myth?

It is tough that this discussion is limited to Marxist communism. I have learned a bit about Marx's Theory of Value, but I don't know what his explicit incentive system was.

 

However there are two socialists' ideas that show a good incentive for innovation/improvement. Its actually the same idea, just two different groups. The first being the Inca empire, and the second being Lenin's N.E.P. (though I'm sure other peoples have also implemeted this idea). Basically that people produce to a quota for the state, and then everything above that amount is theirs to do what they will. That allows for the safety net of socialism with the incentive of capitalism. To be honest, I really can't see why this isn't implemented more often.

[Pangloss]

Sometimes it's just a matter of "what's in a name". "Producing a quota for the state", after all, is not substantially different from "all my income going to taxes until turnaround day".

 

That having been said, however, there is one key, critical difference: Choice. And while that may not matter much in terms of realistic goals for one's life (e.g. you can't expect to get far in this society if you're not productive), it does matter. It's not just a matter of whether I'll be able to buy a BMW instead of a Ford. It's also a matter of incentive. Am I working for myself, or "the state"?

 

And of course there's always the issue of slackers who won't produce regardless of whether society "states norms" or "requires quotas". The very people in society who are most productive are the same ones who are least interested in paying for people who have constructed a cultural environment that fosters and supports victimization instead of proactive achievement and success.

[bascule]

As for me, my ideal government would be post-Singularity anarchosyndicalism using a Markov process to guide collective decision making, and thus the "smart" people would get more of a "vote" than the "stupid" people. There'd be no hierarchical power structure in control; everything would be dynamic and self-organizing, like the "power structure" of the human brain. Everyone would have the option of "voting" on everything if they so desired.

 

For now no system will be perfect but it seems like in the interim it seems there's something of a happy medium between unbridled Laissez Faire Capitalism and Socialism where most countries have ended up (leaning towards one end or another of the spectrum perhaps)

[Skye]

The problem is that the original post assumes that Marxism failed, where you could easily say it never eventuated. The states that emerged from 'Marxist' revolutions were influenced by the local conditions and by the people that implemented them, and were different enough to be considered different systems.

[bascule]

The problem is that the original post assumes that Marxism failed, where you could easily say it never eventuated. The states that emerged from 'Marxist' revolutions were influenced by the local conditions and by the people that implemented them, and were different enough to be considered different systems.

 

I think the Paris Commune is as close to Marxism as you're going to get, but unfortunately it was crushed by the Versailles Army before it really had any chance to flourish or wither.

[padren]

It is tough that this discussion is limited to Marxist communism. I have learned a bit about Marx's Theory of Value' date=' but I don't know what his explicit incentive system was.

 

However there are two socialists' ideas that show a good incentive for innovation/improvement. Its actually the same idea, just two different groups. The first being the Inca empire, and the second being Lenin's N.E.P. (though I'm sure other peoples have also implemeted this idea). Basically that people produce to a quota for the state, and then everything above that amount is theirs to do what they will. That allows for the safety net of socialism with the incentive of capitalism. To be honest, I really can't see why this isn't implemented more often.[/quote']

 

There is the issue of corruption. Also, the more you produce over quota, the more those in power may deem their quotas are too low. What reasons could excuse an individual from not meeting their quota? I really think socialism of that nature requires a large degree of trying to "engineer" an entire economy and society, making the emergent properties of change due to mass populations liabilities to control and supress, instead of a driving force of innovation.

If your planners are steeped in a strong industrial economic model, then they'd be fighting its errosion during the emergence of the "information age" and hamper new innovations.

 

I don't know the word for it, terms like entropy or attrition come to mind, but don't fit. Basically, if you tell a million people what to do, you'll gain some level of compliance but you will be fighting a large statistical mass where innovation is going to lead to disruptions in the system. However, if you can get a million people to think they want to do what you want them to do - maybe by having them to compete for the most desirable jobs - the same statistical mass will lead to innovations that exceed the system's aims more than it will lead to disruption.

 

As for me, my ideal government would be post-Singularity anarchosyndicalism using a Markov process to guide collective decision making, and thus the "smart" people would get more of a "vote" than the "stupid" people.

 

I've always held the contention that those that support such a model would inevitably be powerless within it.

 

But joking aside, could you go into more detail?

[bascule]

I've always held the contention that those that support such a model would inevitably be powerless within it.

 

But joking aside' date=' could you go into more detail?[/quote']

 

The way you gain power inside of such a system is to create a meme which influences the collective decision making process.

 

You may wish to see/comment on the thread I started on a paper I found detailing this process:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16718

[ecoli]

It is tough that this discussion is limited to Marxist communism. I have learned a bit about Marx's Theory of Value' date=' but I don't know what his explicit incentive system was.

 

However there are two socialists' ideas that show a good incentive for innovation/improvement. Its actually the same idea, just two different groups. The first being the Inca empire, and the second being Lenin's N.E.P. (though I'm sure other peoples have also implemeted this idea). Basically that people produce to a quota for the state, and then everything above that amount is theirs to do what they will. That allows for the safety net of socialism with the incentive of capitalism. To be honest, I really can't see why this isn't implemented more often.[/quote']

 

This doesn't sound too different then icome tax to me. Except, instead of trying to exceed a quota, a percentage is taken out, no matter how much you work. Thus, eliminating a lot of the potential corruption.

[Pangloss]

For now no system will be perfect but it seems like in the interim it seems there's something of a happy medium between unbridled Laissez Faire Capitalism and Socialism where most countries have ended up (leaning towards one end or another of the spectrum perhaps)

 

 

I agree. We're haggling over details but general progress since WW2 is forward not backward. A good indicator that we're on the right general track.

[cosine]

Sometimes it's just a matter of "what's in a name". "Producing a quota for the state"' date=' after all, is not substantially different from "all my income going to taxes until turnaround day".

 

That having been said, however, there is one key, critical difference: Choice. And while that may not matter much in terms of realistic goals for one's life (e.g. you can't expect to get far in this society if you're not productive), it does matter. It's not just a matter of whether I'll be able to buy a BMW instead of a Ford. It's also a matter of incentive. Am I working for myself, or "the state"?

 

And of course there's always the issue of slackers who won't produce regardless of whether society "states norms" or "requires quotas". The very people in society who are most productive are the same ones who are least interested in paying for people who have constructed a cultural environment that fosters and supports victimization instead of proactive achievement and success.[/quote']

 

Okay I don't think I explained myself correctly, as quota is a term that seems to come with a lot of baggage.

 

There is incentive is such a system because it is saying that you must give the state x stuff, everything you produce after that is your own. Not to be mean, but I don't know how this can be interpreted as "everything goes to the state." Its a system that makes sure the state gets what it needs, and then allows for personal persuit of personal wealth.

[cosine]

There is the issue of corruption. Also' date=' the more you produce over quota, the more those in power may deem their quotas are too low. What reasons could excuse an individual from not meeting their quota? I really think socialism of that nature requires a large degree of trying to "engineer" an entire economy and society, making the emergent properties of change due to mass populations liabilities to control and supress, instead of a driving force of innovation.

If your planners are steeped in a strong industrial economic model, then they'd be fighting its errosion during the emergence of the "information age" and hamper new innovations.

 

I don't know the word for it, terms like entropy or attrition come to mind, but don't fit. Basically, if you tell a million people what to do, you'll gain some level of compliance but you will be fighting a large statistical mass where innovation is going to lead to disruptions in the system. However, if you can get a million people to think they want to do what you want them to do - maybe by having them to compete for the most desirable jobs - the same statistical mass will lead to innovations that exceed the system's aims more than it will lead to disruption.

<snip comments directed at bascule>

[/quote']

 

There is always the issue of corruption. Name a system and one could find easily how it could be corrupted. But you made the point that when people produce over quota than how do we keep corrupt politicians from raising the quota? And what happens when someone doesn't produce up to quota? Well the political body is the institution vested with the power to make sure those quotas are met within the bounds adopted by the people (these bounds include what the government may and may not do), so if the politicians start self defeating an industry, they are also the ones to be held responsible, and will be ousted by impeachment or the election cycle. You'll notice in this idea there is an institution to be held accountable for the economy, instead of "natural market forces".

[cosine]

This doesn't sound too different then icome tax to me. Except, instead of trying to exceed a quota, a percentage is taken out, no matter how much you work. Thus, eliminating a lot of the potential corruption.

You're somewhat right about the tax thing. It is sort of like an income tax thing, except, the worker has some control over what percentage of his wages are taken out, because he can keep everything over the quota. So if he decides not to work a day after he meets his quota, so be it. If he has the drive to keep working and be a millionaire (even though now many important services can be provided by the state!), why should we suppress his drive?

[padren]

There is always the issue of corruption. Name a system and one could find easily how it could be corrupted.

 

Is it not far more easily corrupted though? In such a case, I'd argue that the ease with which other systems are corruptable means that by comparison only a greater reason to avoid such a system as this.

 

But you made the point that when people produce over quota than how do we keep corrupt politicians from raising the quota? And what happens when someone doesn't produce up to quota? Well the political body is the institution vested with the power to make sure those quotas are met within the bounds adopted by the people (these bounds include what the government may and may not do), so if the politicians start self defeating an industry, they are also the ones to be held responsible, and will be ousted by impeachment or the election cycle. You'll notice in this idea there is an institution to be held accountable for the economy, instead of "natural market forces".

 

As it stands in this country, the economy is a big factor in politics and approval. Here, its a giant mess of a blame game, and if it were not for the natural market forces we'd really be screwed. There will always be politics, and I think economics will only be treated as a science by those who are in it for money, and as a popularity contest by those who seek a public position.

 

You'll just hear lots of "stay the course" rhetoric, and the placing of blame with predecessors and opponents. Its so easy its sad. You only have to be overruled once, and you can use your idea that did not get approved as the scape goat for all the ideas and concepts you have that subsequently fail - blame it on the lacking keypin motion that was not approved...only if your ideaology was fully embraced things would be on track. By the time your career goes south, it will be time for someone else just as bad to step up, and blame their failures on the aftereffects of your own actions.

 

In short, why would you have faith in an "accountable" institution when our current insitutions are supposed to be both accountable and transparent, yet fail so badly much of the time?

 

 

Just a bit about my perspective:

 

After graduating highschool, I never went on to further education. I am now a self taught web designer and software programmer, and make a decent living at it. I've spent more than my fair share of time suriving on a "very sub quota" standard of living for years (never a penny of social assistance however), to get where I am today.

 

If I was in a system where others got to tell me what to do, and how I should make my choices, I'd be working towards the erosion of that system constantly. I would hate it and be fighting it on a daily basis. Such a system would have to deal with millions of people like me, and it would take a police state to do so effeciently enough to maintain the system.

Secondarily, I don't think its very healthy for the human mind to be treated like a domesticated beast of burden.

 

The next question is the purpose of the state in general. My general take on it, is that the state exists to try to protect the individuals' ability to live life the ways they want. We know some people, living the way they want to, will want to interfere with the way others live their lives (armed robbery, slavery, exploitation, etc) and as such try to maintain a consensus on the rule of law to protect individual liberties to the extent that they are not at the expense of other people's liberties. Likewise an armed forces exist to ensure other nations don't try to either. To a lesser degree, some taxes help provide a general safety net for the society with welfare and (in all 1st world nations except one - can you guess which one?) healthcare, but these are all far far less intrusive than living under a marxist system. The state provides a few additional programs that are desired by the public that could not be achieved effectively in free enterprise, such as NASA and such but again it doesn't interfere with how people live their lives to any real extent.

 

 

I really don't think a well engineered state where the mass population is a cog in the system serves any great purpose at all, other than to satisfy leaders that lust after large state projects or hyper effecient production lines - which I still contend would be less effecient.

 

The things I enjoy in life the most are abberations when evaluated with common sense. I like hiking, large quantities of booze, kayaking and tinkering on far fetched projects in programming that are liable to never pay out.

 

The other argument is that survival of the fittest systems are unfair to the poor, but I am not against high taxes or effective welfare. I think though that whether a heavily capitalist society, or a marxist socialist society, the problem is not the system but how much the people within the system actually care about those who are less fortunate, and sadly most societies are very apethetic. Those that are not though, I think have to do more with the people and less with the system.

 

 

Sorry for rambling, my main points are I'd be fitting the system if I lived in one that required such confirmity, as would enough people to heavily erode the effectiveness of such a system. I also don't see why an institution would be assumed to be able to be held accountable more easily, or be less corruptable. Lastly, if you could pull off such a system effeciently, what would the cost to the society in terms of what it means to enjoy being human?

[Pangloss]

Okay I don't think I explained myself correctly' date=' as quota is a term that seems to come with a lot of baggage.

 

There is incentive is such a system because it is saying that you must give the state x stuff, everything you produce after that is your own. Not to be mean, but I don't know how this can be interpreted as "everything goes to the state." Its a system that makes sure the state gets what it needs, and then allows for personal persuit of personal wealth.[/quote']

 

 

Oh "quota" is a perfectly representative word. There's no choice involved, so it fits the bill. And everything (up to that point) goes to the state. Not sure where your confusion lies. This is your definition, not mine.

 

But what does the state need that produce for? You still have the fundamental problem of producers paying for non-producers.

[ecoli]

After graduating highschool, I never went on to further education. I am now a self taught web designer and software programmer, and make a decent living at it. I've spent more than my fair share of time suriving on a "very sub quota" standard of living for years (never a penny of social assistance however), to get where I am today.

 

You seem to have taught yourself well outside computer science too. Great posts padren and welcome to SFN.

 

Your comments about society's treatment of the poor seem to be right on target, to me.

 

But what does the state need that produce for? You still have the fundamental problem of producers paying for non-producers.

 

I'm assuming the gov't can sell whatever goods it doesn't need directly. then you bring in the issue of competitive markets... should the gov't be priority in the market place?

[john5746]

You're somewhat right about the tax thing. It is sort of like an income tax thing, except, the worker has some control over what percentage of his wages are taken out, because he can keep everything over the quota. So if he decides not to work a day after he meets his quota, so be it. If he has the drive to keep working and be a millionaire (even though now many important services can be provided by the state!), why should we suppress his drive?

 

The income tax system is better, percentage increases as your pay increases, so you pay more % to the "state"(i.e. community) as your pay increases. It is much easier to manage, no need to forecast quotas, etc. Also, you would find quality of those "extra" units to be much better than the quota units. This provides fair taxation without suppressing drive.

[ecoli]

in addition to what john5746 said, in such a system, if a person if not able to work as much, say only has the physical ability to meet the quota, he is screwed in the sense that he doesn't have the option to gain extra money for himself. But, in a graduated system, you get less money taken out if you earn less, leaving you with more money for leisure, etc.

[padren]

You seem to have taught yourself well outside computer science too. Great posts padren and welcome to SFN.

 

Your comments about society's treatment of the poor seem to be right on target' date=' to me.[/quote']

 

Thanks for the welcoming, I have to say I am quite happy with this board so far, seems to be a good batch of people.

 

in addition to what john5746 said, in such a system, if a person if not able to work as much, say only has the physical ability to meet the quota, he is screwed in the sense that he doesn't have the option to gain extra money for himself. But, in a graduated system, you get less money taken out if you earn less, leaving you with more money for leisure, etc.

 

We are still on the basis that the state provides for the needs of the workers, and the workers provide the state with the means to produce the goods to satisfy the needs?

 

It just seems like a lot of work for a state to try and figure out what people need, when if the people just keep that part of the quota for themselves they can just go buy exactly what they need, and more importantly, want.

 

I respect my parents, but they live thousands of miles away, and while I value their older wisdom and input on what I should do to meet my needs with my income, they just don't know enough about myself any my life to be very effecient in making choices for me.

 

I guess I just can't quite understand how a state can play a role of a parent, better than an individual can play the role of...themself.

 

Maybe the arguement is protecting people from themselves, but I feel the same way about smart decision making as I do about how people address poverty. If people in a society need protection from themselves, they are not in the position to intelligently choose those who will do the protecting. If they can make mistakes about planning and marshalling their own futures, those same incapabilities will manifest in the planning and marshalling of the institutions designed to protect them from themselves.

 

The only way I know of for a population to make more intelligent decisions, is by challanging that population with decisions on a regular basis that impact their lives and let them grow from the experience.

Since they won't have the bulk of the information of what goes on inside the state apparatus - since the worker and the statesmen have very different lives - it is less effective skill training than making decisions about their own live's needs.

 

 

Alternatively, you could have an income tax system within a state run economy instead of a quota. Your tax would be exceptionally high, maybe 80%, but you get all the housing and food stamps and clothing stamps out of that you need to live.

 

This would be like the stepped quota system but with infinitely small steps...and if you produce nothing you are still feed, just as with the quota, and you'd still undoubtly be looked down on.

 

Still, to me, its almost an issue of fighting the wind, or using it like a windsock. Why struggle to adapt and anticipate a society's changing needs across a wide and diverse nation, when the most accurate survey you could take would be "hey keep most of your money and buy what you think you need" and have cost zero in administration?

[cosine]

in addition to what john5746 said, in such a system, if a person if not able to work as much, say only has the physical ability to meet the quota, he is screwed in the sense that he doesn't have the option to gain extra money for himself. But, in a graduated system, you get less money taken out if you earn less, leaving you with more money for leisure, etc.

 

However the point thats being missed is that for people in more harsh circumstances, the production harnessed by the quotas should be able to support them.

 

Basically this is how I see my idea as compared to what I see as the current situation:

 

In the current system, people make as much money as they possibly can, and then after the fact they try to decide what they'd like to give up for the benefit of society.

 

However what I'd like to see is a system where the needs of society are met before people begin to make as much money as they possibly can. In this scenario, since people have already fulfilled their obligation to society, they are able to earn all the money they can knowing that their contribution to society is already fulfilled.

[padren]

However the point thats being missed is that for people in more harsh circumstances' date=' the production harnessed by the quotas should be able to support them.

 

Basically this is how I see my idea as compared to what I see as the current situation:

 

In the current system, people make as much money as they possibly can, and then after the fact they try to decide what they'd like to give up for the benefit of society.

 

However what I'd like to see is a system where the needs of society are met before people begin to make as much money as they possibly can. In this scenario, since people have already fulfilled their obligation to society, they are able to earn all the money they can knowing that their contribution to society is already fulfilled.[/quote']

 

What you are saying is, model current capitalist society, accept that you have a flat quota tax of X dollars, and if you only make a dollar to live on over that thats all you get....or are you using the "state provides everyone's personal needs" model?

 

I just want to be clear on which you mean. If you mean our current system but replacing income tax with a quota, I think its fair to argue out of a nation of people working 40 hrs a week say, those who simply get lower pay should not be burdened more than those who get higher pay.

Thats why I like the income tax model: If you really make stink, the state just says "hey keep it if you were doing any worse WE'D be helping YOU" and if you make more, you help support the system that made your prosperity possible to a larger degree.

[john5746]

However the point thats being missed is that for people in more harsh circumstances' date=' the production harnessed by the quotas should be able to support them.

 

Basically this is how I see my idea as compared to what I see as the current situation:

 

In the current system, people make as much money as they possibly can, and then after the fact they try to decide what they'd like to give up for the benefit of society.

 

However what I'd like to see is a system where the needs of society are met before people begin to make as much money as they possibly can. In this scenario, since people have already fulfilled their obligation to society, they are able to earn all the money they can knowing that their contribution to society is already fulfilled.[/quote']

 

I know what you mean, you see ultra-rich people and then others poor as dirt. One problem is what are the needs? Who provides the needs? How much do the providers of the needs get paid? etc.

 

Housing for example: If you give everyone a house, they will not take care of them as well as if they must work hard to earn it.

 

The best things a government can provide are security, education and employment IMO. The more they can concentrate on these things, the better. An educated, employed person with little money is far better than an uneducated, non-employed person with all his needs met.

[cosine]

I know what you mean' date=' you see ultra-rich people and then others poor as dirt. One problem is what are the needs? Who provides the needs? How much do the providers of the needs get paid? etc.

 

Housing for example: If you give everyone a house, they will not take care of them as well as if they must work hard to earn it.

 

The best things a government can provide are security, education and employment IMO. The more they can concentrate on these things, the better. An educated, employed person with little money is far better than an uneducated, non-employed person with all his needs met.[/quote']

 

Good points, but there are more things I think the government should also provide. Things that people can have financial trouble with. Security, education, and employment are good examples. But there are also things like healthcare and transportation. And retirement. And childcare. These are huge projects that would need to be completed before we could have a true meritocracy. Without these things, just being able to get educated is near impossible. Well, perhaps retirement could be considered a luxery, maybe, but the other things are needed before education.