A question about objectivity in politics

[alexandra]

I won't even bother going into a full scale argument on this one but let's just say this. Our tax system is a progressive system. Our tax system has capital gains taxes. .

Let's look at the taxation issue, Pengwuino. I did a google search and found this link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Taxes#New_Tax_Legislation . On this website, I found a brief article about pending tax reform legislation: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Pending_Tax_Reform_Legislation . A brief extract:

"As of November 19, 2004, the bare outlines of the plan were as follows:

A reform of the existing income tax, not a national sales tax.
Retain mortgage interest and charitable deductions.
Retain at least somewhat progressive tax rates.
Revenue neutral.
Likely to eliminate the state and local tax deduction.
Likely to scrap the employer deduction for health insurance for employees.
Likely to favor income from interest, dividends and capitals gains, and to expand tax breaks for business investment.
Likely to eliminate the alternate minimum tax.
Supposed to be simpler.

The gist of the progressive criticism of proposed tax reform is that it is not appropriate to favor income from property over income from work, that such a regime favors the rich over the poor, that the state and local tax deduction is a principal enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and unduly penalizes those in blue states with higher income taxes, and that we don't need to reduce the incentive to provide health insurance in the midst of a health insurance crisis.

Progressives don't necessarily disagree that the tax system is too complex, but believe that most of the complexities arises out of undeserved tax breaks for monied interests. Progressives also disagree that the current level of tax revenue is appropriate. Unwise Republican tax cuts have led directly to a large budget deficit which amounts to a "birth tax" because it will be paid for by future generations, even though the benefits have gone to the current generation. This revenue shortfall, in the eyes of progressives, should be made up for by those whose tax cuts have created it, corporations and wealthy individuals."

It seems the pending 'reforms' favour the rich and disadvantage the poor? I again have to suggest that you do further reading on this - I don't think I should be copying entire articles onto this website.

No one who has ever claimed politicians are owend by "big business" has ever been able to explain those 2 concepts of our tax laws. They are in 100% direct contradiction towards your idea (I also want to know what your sources are for facts for the concept that big business owns politicians).

Here is a BBC article about big business and politicians: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2117719.stm . If you are really interested in seeing how I can make this link, you could read it. It gives examples of these links. The BBC is, I hope, an acceptable source of information? It has to verify its sources and its information before printing it; otherwise it could be sued - especially about something like this.

Secondly, capitalism has existed for hundreds of years. Most people who bring up this argument usually are unable to setup a timetable for what "success" would be (and most likely, the timetable starts ending at a theoretical failure of capitalism in their minds). And remember, those "un-published" problems occur in every nation, socialist or capitalist or communist or traditional.

I do not want to discuss any timetables for revolutionary changes - I think such a discussion would be futile at this stage, and in any case I have nothing intelligent (based on evidence) to say about this matter because it is the stuff of astrologers. I simply want to demonstrate that it is possible to have a rational, relatively unemotional (perhaps) and relatively objective (perhaps) political discussion from which people learn to look at the evidence. I am interested in whether or not scientists are capable of using their tools of analysis in wider aspects of their lives. So let's call this an experiment...

 

[loseyourname]

I was hoping you'd respond, loseyourname - I wanted to compliment you on your choice of signature message; it's great!

Always great to find another fan of Joyce.

Ok, back on task... It is true that one cannot get beyond the capitalist system of private ownership of property by asking the rich to 'be nice' and 'share' (this is the sort of naive, utopian plan that the early French socialists had, and Marx completely dissociated himself from them as he wanted to develop a scientific theory to explain social change).

It isn't just getting rich people to give up their private property. It's getting anybody to give up their private property.

So, Marx predicted that when the material conditions are right (ie. when the vast bulk of humanity is so impoverished that the ordinary people have nothing to lose), people will unite and do whatever is necessary to try and secure their physical survival.

Yes, that would have to be the case. I would imagine that the average wealth of individuals in a given society would have to be extremely low for it to be advantageous for very many of them to give up their private property and opt for a voluntarily Marxist society (which, strictly speaking, is impossible, as there is no way that everyone will give up their private property). However, as Russ has pointed out, there are no capitalistic societies that are nearing that point. Private wealth has increased across the board; even the poorest among us are generally wealthier than the poorest among us 100 years ago.

It's been a while since I've read Marx (a good six years at least), but I'm pretty sure he thought that the revolution of the proletariat would occur fairly soon, and that living conditions and the average wealth of individuals in capitalistic societies would decrease over the coming century. None of the testable predictions he made thus far have been born out.

When you say that I should use 'capitalist theory' to understand capitalism, I don't really know which theory you are referring to. Please point me to some readings.

I'm not terribly well-read on political science, but keep in mind that capitalism is an economic theory. The theory I refer to is simply capitalism itself, as originally proposed by Adam Smith - market dynamics, productions possibility curves, the 'invisible hand,' all that good stuff. One book that I can direct you to that explains the rise of nationalism over dynasticism over the last three hundred years, and cites capitalism as one of the factors, is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson. It's not a book of capitalist theory, but it does show one way in which capitalism can help us to understand modern history.

 

[Pengwuino]

@Alexandra

You seem to be desperately missing my point on nature vs social science. The "philosophy" of nature is F =ma, gravity is a function of mass (for all intensive purposes), blackbody radiation is a certain formula, a certain # of universal constants, etc. etc. I am not talking about man's effect on nature. And as far as observing something actually changing something about the experiment, that's quantum physics and is a very small theory within it which doesn't apply. When we figure formulas and put them into real world situations, we can pretty much ignore all other factors while the same is horribly untrue for social science.

As for the capitalism thing, you seem to care little about the upper classes of capitalism which really leads to your downfall. You immediately dismiss any notion that the 'upper class' has worked hard, didnt know what "9-5" meant and only knew that his job was done whenever it was done, never sacrificed, never put his physical health in danger, etc. etc. You also do not acknowledge those who have failed and are now 'in the gutter' per say.

as for the politicians, its getting annoying that you comment on another nation's government when you obviously do not understand what you are saying. I believe even during the time that article was published, many CEO's and businessmen that did business under the Clinton administration were being thrown in jail under the Bush administration. Also, that expodedia (closed link, sorry) link obviously is inaccurate. Many economists, some nobel prize nominated/winners agreed that the tax cuts pulled the US economy out of what would have been a depression thanks to the 'burst bubble' of the tech sector. The "scandal" about Bush though is also rather laughable as there's been very little evidence to indicate any wrong doings. Even the parties fighting for control of our nation gave up on that a long time ago.

And you do realize the great problem with Marx's theory is that its impossible. We thought resources were unlimitd at that time. We now realize there not. You also state everyone gets to do what they are good at or like to do yet immediately contradict yourself by saying some people will have ot be forced into doing crappy work for the same rewards as a doctor or afast food worker or a police officer. You also of course, must have someone dictating what you are going to do and what you deserve to live with whereas in a capitalist society, if you want more then hte next guy, you can work your way into that position of getting more then the next guy.

You also bring up CEO's and such getting huge sums of money (by the way, after that article you posted about teh 11 ml average, salaries did drop a very large amount). Well you don't seem to acknowledge that no factory worker ever left a trail of homeless factory workers in his rise to where he is. CEO's on the other hand do, for every 1 CEO, who knows how many people failed at the prospect of being a CEO and some lost all that they owned in the process.

also... The gist of the progressive criticism of proposed tax reform is that it is not appropriate to favor income from property over income from work, that such a regime favors the rich over the poor, that the state and local tax deduction is a principal enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and unduly penalizes those in blue states with higher income taxes, and that we don't need to reduce the incentive to provide health insurance in the midst of a health insurance crisis.

Ok after re-reading that post and coming across this, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this website. The term "blue state" was only recently coined and was meant to be used for a very short time and shows obvious political bias to this site. The implications are absolutely preposterous. Please find some far more credible sitse then this.

 

[Pengwuino]

You also failed to explain the concept of capital gains; an incredibly high tax targeted directly at the "capitalist" class (your words, even though that invariably is everyone in America using its correct definition).

And do wonder why our definition of 'poverty' is actually considered middle or even upper-middle class in many socialist countries if our nation holds down the poor so much.

 

[alexandra]

alexandra, this isn't about credibility. Marx was a genius and a visionary. But that doesn't automatically make his theory right. Even Einstein made mistakes.

Ok, thanks for this reassurance russ_watters. I just couldn't believe that anyone would compare Marx to Hitler, and this is why I was so adament that people should first investigate what sort of thinker Marx was before accepting such a comparison. I also objected to being told that I have put so much intellectual effort into studying something that is worthless, a view that anyone who has actually made a study of his work could not possibly hold.

It annoys me that people judge any intellectual's work (not only Marx's) without first having read it. I once made that mistake regarding Nietzsche, and felt totally ridiculous once I started reading it and realized that I had just taken on the 'popular' misconceptions about him without giving myself a chance to think for myself. I was so 'against' him (based on no credible evidence) that I had even refused to read any of his work! How ridiculous is that?

 

[alexandra]

You do not live in our country (as you implied in a post) and know nothing about our laws or system yet you present an argument and then complain when we don't agree with you and say your "vehemently attacked for my beliefs".

My apologies about the 'vehement attack' thing; you're quite right, that was definitely an overstatement of the case. I think it's just that I've read some of the other thread and the way people react to what they disagree with there and I was worried the same would happen here. It hasn't so far.

But I do have two questions for you before we continue our discussion, Pengwuino, and they relate to something you have said twice now (refer to first line quoted above and to statement quoted below).

@Alexandra

...as for the politicians, its getting annoying that you comment on another nation's government when you obviously do not understand what you are saying.

My questions are:
1. Do you believe that as a non-American my view is necessarily uninformed and worthless?
2. Do you want me to stop participating in this discussion?

I will desist until you have responded either way. If you want me to just stop, say so and I will. If you don't respond, I will assume you want me to desist.

 

[GENIERE]

Although not solicited -

yes
yes
yes

 

[Pengwuino]

Geniere, there were only 2 questions you intellectually deprived american :D lol

@ alexandra

1. Of course not but you have so far brought about outside opinions about my country using incorrect data and said that people, such as me and others, are too...i forget what word you use, but we're too "stuck" on our ideology to ever think against it? I don't know what term you used, but you say we are stuck on our ideology and won't listen to you. Well we don't listen to you not because we love our ideology or something, we arent listening because you have presented incorrect data on our country in an argument against our country. It seems only fair to present data if its correct and as Americans, our knowledge takes precident over yours in matters where incorrect data might be used seeing as how we are the ones who live in this country and we are the ones in-tune with American politics. Wherever you live, you are far more in-tuned to whichever country it is's politics then we are. Hopefully, we would never attempt to argue against your country using data from a New York or Washington newspaper or American website that you know, as a resident of your country, is incorrect.

2. No but please bring up some facts based on what we have requested. I personally ahve requested actual cited cases inside the Patriot Act where US citizens rights are somehow utterly destroyed as most people seem to say they are and you have not done so. Someone also asked as to what your evidence is for the "capitalist" class being lazy was.

So, in conclusion, we would love for you to stay as long as some real arguments are being presented and not here-say and "rhetoric".

 

[russ_watters]

It annoys me that people judge any intellectual's work (not only Marx's) without first having read it.

That's a big assumption that you're making there. And not just about Marx's work itself - but about the history of communism and capitalism that followed it.

I just couldn't believe that anyone would compare Marx to Hitler...

Well, the comparison to Hitler would be indirect, but I would directly compare Marx and Stalin. Marxism was the enabling idea that led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russians under Stalin. Stalin murdered (through starvation) most of the farmers in Russia for the purpose of collectivization. No, I'm certain Marx would not have approved of his methods, but Stalin's actions were a real effort to implement an aspect of Marx's theory. And as I and others pointed out, Stalin's methods were the only way many such ideas of Marx could actually be implimented. That's the flaw in Marxism and its a biggie.

I do not want to discuss any timetables for revolutionary changes...

That is a key flaw in the Marxist ideology (the ideology of his followers). Its unscientific. A good example in science is the discovery of neutrinos (I think it was neutrinos...). Neutrinos are discovered by their interactions with other molecules - ie, an energetic collision. By making a huge tank of water and shielding it from other forms of radiation, you can detect neutrino collisions. Theory predicted the number of such collisions that should be detected - for the first few detectors, on the order of one or two a year. The point is, that if the theory had merit, neutrinos would have been detected. Probability allows for the chance that you might go more than a year without seeing one, but the longer you go without seeing one, the greater the probability that the theory is wrong. So too with Marxism. Marxism has failed to happen for so long, while the counter-theory has had unbridled/unprecidented success, that the likelyhood of Marxism proving itself viable is asymptotically approaching zero. Had a neutrino detector gone 5 years without seeing a neutrino, the theory would have been dropped - well, Marx has had 100 years of similar failure.

Also, there is one fact that people made (correct and incorrect) implications about that I need to make sure is clear: everyone benefits from capitalism in a capitalistic society. Yes, you read that right. I said everyone. And the evidence of that is direct: the income of every segment of the US society increases with time. Yes, even the bottom 20% - the poorest of the poor - are getting richer.

But what of the homeless, jobless man on the street, you say? Hasn't capitalism failed to help him? No, not even him. It is likely he, his family, his health, etc. failed him, but not capitalism. Capitalism has still helped him. How? He hasn't starved to death. If he gets hit by a car, an ambulance paid for by capitalism will come to his aid. In most other societies, if you fail completely, you often die. And sometimes, even, attempted Marxism itself kills people (see Stalin and Kim Jong Il). In the US, capitalism at the very least allows/enables everyone to live and gives them the opportunity to try again.

Regarding Bush: Even if he were wholly owned and operated by a corporation, it would not be relevant to this thread. Bush has 3 years to go and then he's not going to be President anymore. Our last President was a democrat - our next may be too. While it is true that despite his supposed political beliefs, Clinton's entanglements and corruptions regarding business were far worse than Bush's, that isn't relevant either.

A discussion of why "it" is getting worse is only relevant if "it" is getting worse, and the fact is that "it" is not getting worse, "it" is getting better.

edit: Furthermore, recent history alone cannot be used to establish trends. That applies in all fields of science. Establishing trends requires long-term data. How long term? Well, for a start, it must be long enough to account for periodic and random fluctuations. Presidential terms are such a periodic function in politics. The economic cycle (which typically goes for about 4-8 years) is one in economics. Random fluctuations include things like natural disasters.

 

[russ_watters]

The more I read of this thread, the more incredulous I get - the OP was about applying science to politics. For the love of money ( ), apply some scientific reasoning to this:

So, Marx predicted that when the material conditions are right (ie. when the vast bulk of humanity is so impoverished that the ordinary people have nothing to lose), people will unite and do whatever is necessary to try and secure their physical survival.

That's great: its a testable hypothesis in Marxism, and one of the more fundamental ones. And its perfectly scientific and straightforward to prove with real data. Put into a more concise hypothesis form, it is:

--Capitalism causes the severe decline in wealth of everyone except for the richest few in a capitalistic society.

So you tell me: what does the data show about this prediction?

 

[russ_watters]

I believe that a marxist analysis is a very powerful theoretical tool that is still very much valid because it enables social scientists to understand capitalist societies since:...

My main point is this: if ever there were a theoretical perspective/tool of analysis in the social sciences that was scientific, marxism is the one.

Marx's idea of applying science to politics is separate from the form of government he proposed. Essentially, its like Newton inventing calculus as a tool to help him derive the physics of gravity. But the thing that is so ironic (and mystifying) to me is that Marxists don't follow it.

I think that if Marx were alive today, if he truly accepted his own philosophy and didn't just believe in his political theory religiously, he'd call it (as Einstein once said), "...my greatest blunder..."

 

[SOS2008]

I have only briefly reviewed posts to date, some going in different directions, so I will try to return to some of the original posts of this thread. It has been some time since I studied this topic as well, and it was not my area of specialty, so I provide a summary to comment to:

http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/marxism.html

Marxism is a set of theories, or a system of thought and analysis of: philosophy, history, and economics.

Materialist philosophy is based on empiricism, on the direct observation of measurable or observable phenomena; studying how the human mind, via the senses, perceives external reality, and particularly with the idea of how we know things "objectively," without the interference of emotions or preconceived ideas about things.

As a historian, Marx identifies five basic historical developments or changes in the mode of production: the primitive community, the slave state, the feudal state, capitalism, and socialism. He focuses on capitalism as an unequal mode of production, one that exploits workers. From these economic relations comes a crucially important concept in Marxist thought: the idea of alienation.

The economic base (the relations and forces of production) in any society generates other social formations called superstructures, and ideologies, which will articulate what, and how people can think. The ideologies present in a capitalist society will explain, justify, and support the capitalist mode of production. Again, the example of slavery in nineteenth-century US culture is useful: all of the superstructures, such as organized religion, local and national politics, and art (especially literature), worked to uphold slavery as a good economic system.

An initial concept, as put forth in this thread, is the use of Marxist theory for empiricism. However, it would seem that studying the human mind, senses, perceptions, etc. are subjective, so it would still be difficult to measure observable phenomena in relation to these things.

Of course, there is no pure form of capitalism any more than Marxism. A completely free market would be like a jungle in which the strongest predators would rise to the top and eat everyone else (Enron is an example). We must have anti-trust laws to retain competition, and regulation to maintain safety, environmental protection, etc., and must protect some aspects of our economy for national security interests. So really, it is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. In this sense, Marx is correct.

I feel we are socialized to believe our capitalistic system is superior and just. However I feel it is more than that, which brings up the point of alienation, and for me always the question of human nature.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html

Marx claimed we are alienated not only because many of us toil in tedious, perhaps even degrading, jobs or because by competing in the marketplace, we tend to place profitability above human need.

Some people may be accepting of being a “wage slave” because they may like the security or may not know any alternative. Like gambling, people like the idea that they may make it big (become part of the 1% capitalists), even if the odds are slim. Still, I believe attitudes and behaviors evolve.

Martha Gimenez notes more recent and interesting trends in her review of Sean Sayers, Marxism and Human Nature (London: Routledge, 1998), 203pp., paperback

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1299gimen.htm

The creative use of non-work time is a modern development which, paradoxically, reflects the need to work; people whose work lives are less than satisfactory seek fulfillment during their leisure time. Another manifestation of the need to work is the extent to which people today (particularly the younger generations) are reluctant to accept meaningless work just because it is necessary for survival or because one has a duty to work. The greater the education and skills of the workforce, the more demanding they are likely to become. But one wonders how far those demands can go under the conditions imposed by world capitalism, which allows capital unprecedented freedom and mobility.

We see several things. With companies no longer as loyal to labor as use to be the case in the US, people change industries an average of five times in their life. More people are trying to find ways to work for themselves (though I’m not sure if/how new bankruptcy laws may impact upon the risks people will be willing to take in the future). The average age that children leave home is now 28. Illegal immigrants are now doing the jobs that use to be filled in part by young people while acquiring education/skills. In the meantime, US companies have taken work to other countries, moving from one country to another country as the work force becomes more sophisticated and demanding. The long-term effects such trends may have on the standard of living Americans enjoy has yet to be seen.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course, there is no pure form of capitalism any more than Marxism. A completely free market would be like a jungle in which the strongest predators would rise to the top and eat everyone else (Enron is an example). We must have anti-trust laws to retain competition, and regulation to maintain safety, environmental protection, etc., and must protect some aspects of our economy for national security interests. So really, it is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. In this sense, Marx is correct.

I must then point out the other side of the coin (you allude to it, but I don't want others to miss it): Marxist political/economic theory, too, would never be "pure", but that can't be used as an excuse to say it has never been tried any more than it can be said that capitalism has never been tried. It has been tried in many forms in many places, and has failed catastrophically in virtually every application.

We see several things. With companies no longer as loyal to labor as use to be the case in the US, people change industries an average of five times in their life. More people are trying to find ways to work for themselves (though I’m not sure if/how new bankruptcy laws may impact upon the risks people will be willing to take in the future). The average age that children leave home is now 28. Illegal immigrants are now doing the jobs that use to be filled in part by young people while acquiring education/skills. In the meantime, US companies have taken work to other countries, moving from one country to another country as the work force becomes more sophisticated and demanding. The long-term effects such trends may have on the standard of living Americans enjoy has yet to be seen.

After what I just said about long-term trends, all I can say about that is this: long-term trends do not appear to indicate a detriment to the standard of living is occurring. Many of the individual issues you describe would have manifested themselves by now if they were problems. Overseas outsourcing, for example, has been going on for decades, though arguably it is speeding up. The loss of millions of jobs to outsourcing (some even go as short term as 2001 - 2.7 million jobs). Such numbers should manifest themselves even in the short term. So have they? There is a reason Democrats didn't bring up unemployment in the last election...

 

[SOS2008]

I must then point out the other side of the coin (you allude to it, but I don't want others to miss it): Marxist political/economic theory, too, would never be "pure", but that can't be used as an excuse to say it has never been tried any more than it can be said that capitalism has never been tried. It has been tried in many forms in many places, and has failed catastrophically in virtually every application...

Agreed that Marxism has not been practised in the pure sense, and the forms that have been tried I feel have not been successful because human nature is difficult to predict with scientific methods, and IMO this is where the theory miscalculates.

After what I just said about long-term trends, all I can say about that is this: long-term trends do not appear to indicate a detriment to the standard of living is occurring. Many of the individual issues you describe would have manifested themselves by now if they were problems. Overseas outsourcing, for example, has been going on for decades, though arguably it is speeding up. The loss of millions of jobs to outsourcing (some even go as short term as 2001 - 2.7 million jobs). Such numbers should manifest themselves even in the short term. So have they? There is a reason Democrats didn't bring up unemployment in the last election...

The original outsourcing of US jobs was manufacturing in nature. Our economy changed to a service industry in part due to this fact, and cheap imports in general. Now the jobs that are outsourced are largely technical, and the effect of this has been manifested in the technical sector with loss of jobs (beginning with the recession just prior to 9-11). These are higher-paying jobs than the old "sweat shop" jobs that were outsourced before, and as you mention, the practice is on a larger scale now.

 

[GENIERE]

Geniere, there were only 2 questions you stupid american :D lol…

Please edit your post. Replace stupid with “intellectually deprived”.

...

 

[Pengwuino]

Please edit your post. Replace stupid with “intellectually deprived”.

How dare you censor me! See! Your so brainwashed by your anti-stupid propoganda that you... uhm... do .. whatever... george w bush = hitler! *runs off naked*

Wait a second, penguins don't have clothes!

 

[GENIERE]

Wait a second, penguins don't have clothes!

Neither do Marxists, just olive grey uniforms. A display of color would distinguish the individual. That is not permitted. I suggest you dye your feathers red, white, and blue.


...

 

[Pengwuino]

No way, my furw ould sell for a pretty capitalist penny

 

[alexandra]

Always great to find another fan of Joyce.

Ah, yes, Joyce - I'd forgotten that's where it came from:-)

Private wealth has increased across the board; even the poorest among us are generally wealthier than the poorest among us 100 years ago.

I was wondering whether or not anyone has any evidence to back up this statement? This claim has been made in a few posts in this thread. I found a US source of information on this question at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3146724 . This article claims that poverty is actually increasing

It's been a while since I've read Marx (a good six years at least), but I'm pretty sure he thought that the revolution of the proletariat would occur fairly soon, and that living conditions and the average wealth of individuals in capitalistic societies would decrease over the coming century. None of the testable predictions he made thus far have been born out.

I can't remember reading anywhere in Marx's work a definite prediction regarding the timing of the collapse of capitalist societies. If anyone else has a reference of where he made such a prediction, please let me know.

The theory I refer to is simply capitalism itself, as originally proposed by Adam Smith - market dynamics, productions possibility curves, the 'invisible hand,' all that good stuff. One book that I can direct you to that explains the rise of nationalism over dynasticism over the last three hundred years, and cites capitalism as one of the factors, is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson. It's not a book of capitalist theory, but it does show one way in which capitalism can help us to understand modern history.

I have read work on the 'invisible hand' of the market and the 'trickle down' economic theories; I just did not find them convincing:-) I will locate the text you suggest by Anderson (I recall reading an extract from it a while ago) and read it when I get a chance (but this won't be for a while as things are pretty busy at work at the moment).

 

[russ_watters]

I was wondering whether or not anyone has any evidence to back up this statement? This claim has been made in a few posts in this thread. I found a US source of information on this question at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3146724 . This article claims that poverty is actually increasing

Only over the last 4 years - read what I said about long term and short term trends. Over the long term, poverty has decreased radically in the US and around the world due to capitalism. Even if you think its starting to change, poverty needs to double in the world and in the United States just to get back where it was in 1950 (30% in the US).

And with unemployment finally down, poverty levels will follow.

Something else important to note: the definition of "poverty" has changed with time (moreso in the US than for the world) to make it stricter. What we consider "poverty" in the US would not qualify as poverty in communist countries. In the US, poverty means having to choose between eating out and cable tv. In communist countries, it means choosing which person in your family gets to eat that day.

I can't remember reading anywhere in Marx's work a definite prediction regarding the timing of the collapse of capitalist societies.

Regardless, we're 100 years into his prediction and we're further away from it happening than we were then. Sooner or later, you need to choose between the continuing unbridled success of capitalism and the Communist Revolution that gets further away with every passing year (and that's only if you choose not to look at communism's multiple, spectacular failures).

I have read work on the 'invisible hand' of the market and the 'trickle down' economic theories; I just did not find them convincing:-)

You don't need to worry about whether the argument is convincing, just look at the data. However it is happening, capitalism is working.

 

[alexandra]

That's a big assumption that you're making there. And not just about Marx's work itself - but about the history of communism and capitalism that followed it.

My assumption was based on the comparison of Marx to Hitler; anyone who has read Marx's theory would know that his writings were serious works while Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' was anything but.

And as I and others pointed out, Stalin's methods were the only way many such ideas of Marx could actually be implimented. That's the flaw in Marxism and its a biggie. That is a key flaw in the Marxist ideology (the ideology of his followers). Its unscientific. .

As SOS2008 points out, Marx’s theory involved historical changes in modes of production from ‘lower’ to ‘higher’ levels; quoting SOS2008:

“As a historian, Marx identifies five basic historical developments or changes in the mode of production: the primitive community, the slave state, the feudal state, capitalism, and socialism. He focuses on capitalism as an unequal mode of production, one that exploits workers.”

In 1917 Russia was still largely a feudal society; it had not yet achieved capitalism; whether or not Marx’s theory of the historical evolution of societies is correct has therefore not yet been tested. Going strictly according to Marx’s theory, one cannot ‘skip’ the vital stage of capitalist development. It can be argued that Stalinism (which was neither Marxism nor ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’) occurred not because of any flaws in Marx’s theory but because of Russia’s stage of economic development at the time (although there were a number of other significant reasons for the failure of the revolution in Russia, including the drain on Russia’s resources as a result of the world wars and the hostility of the major capitalist countries – Leon Trotsky’s “The History of the Russian Revolution” provides good background information about the prevailing conditions).

Marxism has failed to happen for so long, while the counter-theory has had unbridled/unprecidented success, that the likelyhood of Marxism proving itself viable is asymptotically approaching zero. Had a neutrino detector gone 5 years without seeing a neutrino, the theory would have been dropped - well, Marx has had 100 years of similar failure.

Well, you just never know… as everyone keeps saying, there is no predictability in social affairs. If you want to argue this, then it would only be fair to concede that it is impossible to predict the eternal dominance of the present (capitalist) mode and relations of production. It is also worth noting that the transformation from feudalism to capitalism happened over a much longer timespan than just 100 years. According to Wikipedia, feudalism’s decline commenced in the 13th century
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism#Decline_of_feudalism ), while capitalism started becoming the dominant mode of production with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.

Also, there is one fact that people made (correct and incorrect) implications about that I need to make sure is clear: everyone benefits from capitalism in a capitalistic society. Yes, you read that right. I said everyone. And the evidence of that is direct: the income of every segment of the US society increases with time. Yes, even the bottom 20% - the poorest of the poor - are getting richer.

I have provided a link regarding this in my previous post to loseyourname; I think you may consider The Economist a reputable source of information?

 

[Pengwuino]

@Alexandra

Our poverty rate has been increased a lot in the past few decades. We believe in a far higher standard of living then say, many European nations. Also, it doesn't mater if you are convinced by a theory or not. It only matters what theory works and what theory doesnt. I am not too keen on this Uncertainty Principle but eh, what can you say.

After glancing at that economist link, I am starting to wonder about that companys credibility as there was very recently like a $1000 jump in the poverty level (03'?).

 

[alexandra]

Only over the last 4 years - read what I said about long term and short term trends. Over the long term, poverty has decreased radically in the US and around the world due to capitalism. Even if you think its starting to change, poverty needs to double in the world and in the United States just to get back where it was in 1950 (30% in the US).

And with unemployment finally down, poverty levels will follow.

Something else important to note: the definition of "poverty" has changed with time (moreso in the US than for the world) to make it stricter. What we consider "poverty" in the US would not qualify as poverty in communist countries. In the US, poverty means having to choose between eating out and cable tv. In communist countries, it means choosing which person in your family gets to eat that day. Regardless, we're 100 years into his prediction and we're further away from it happening than we were then. Sooner or later, you need to choose between the continuing unbridled success of capitalism and the Communist Revolution that gets further away with every passing year (and that's only if you choose not to look at communism's multiple, spectacular failures). You don't need to worry about whether the argument is convincing, just look at the data. However it is happening, capitalism is working.

Oops - you're too quick in your responses! I was busy getting together the arguments for my last response while you posted this. russ_watters, perhaps we do have to agree to disagree on this one. I am happy with the way we aren't 'shouting' at each other and being juvenile about it, though. Given our ideological differences, I think we're managing nevertheless to have a rational conversation about this (so I think my experiment is meeting with at least some success). Are you interested in continuing the discussion (given that it seems very unlikely either of us will convince the other)? On my part, I am enjoying the discussion, and it is forcing me to think more deeply about my own views and how to back up my arguments (so I'm learning from it, which is always a plus).

 

[alexandra]

@Alexandra

Our poverty rate has been increased a lot in the past few decades. We believe in a far higher standard of living then say, many European nations. Also, it doesn't mater if you are convinced by a theory or not. It only matters what theory works and what theory doesnt. I am not too keen on this Uncertainty Principle but eh, what can you say.

After glancing at that economist link, I am starting to wonder about that companys credibility as there was very recently like a $1000 jump in the poverty level (03'?).

Hi Pengwuino

I'm glad you're still talking to me - I thought I'd gotten you so annoyed ( ) you wouldn't want to read any more of my posts. I've spent an hour or so responding to some of loseyourname's and russ_water's points tonight, so I won't be able to respond properly to yours - but I did want to say I'm glad we're still 'talking' I'll see if I can come up with something annoying tomorrow, though

 

[russ_watters]

Oops - you're too quick in your responses! I was busy getting together the arguments for my last response while you posted this. russ_watters, perhaps we do have to agree to disagree on this one.

Um, well - you don't have a response? The article you posted clearly shows only a very short term increase in poverty level and a drastic, long term decline. Again, hard data directly contradicts the predictions of Marx.

 

[Pengwuino]

@Alexandra

Hey, a capitalist debate taht doesn't degenerate into a flame-war after 2 pages, how can i leave?

 

[2CentsWorth]

So what if capitalism was practised in the true sense--a true dog-eat-dog free market? What do you think would happen? Why do people advocate fair trade over free trade? The up-and-comer is China right now. If the wealth is more dispersed, will it be at the expense of the American standard of living?

 

[Pengwuino]

If you could somehow keep the government out of it and the old corporate tricks that arent really existent in capitalism theory also don't happen, you'd probably get the lowest costs to consumers and high standards of living and all that good stuff until your efficieny reaches an almost perfect state of affairs (executives making practically making the average salary for all of the countrys people and costs unable to go any lower). China's emergence as a global leader would probably leave Europe in the dust more then the US. The US would see China as an economic threat and would attempt to 'fight back' and our economy would grow and then theirs owuld grow and it would go back and forth striving to beat the other. Europe wouldn't really have a huge stake in it and would be left behind .

 

[alexandra]

Marx's idea of applying science to politics is separate from the form of government he proposed. Essentially, its like Newton inventing calculus as a tool to help him derive the physics of gravity. But the thing that is so ironic (and mystifying) to me is that Marxists don't follow it.

I share your frustration about this: some <i>self-proclaimed</i> 'marxists' resort to throwing about slogans and arguing their positions without having properly studied the theory and without doing their research - but not all marxists are guilty of this (note, the second 'marxists' was not enclosed in inverted commas).

I think that if Marx were alive today, if he truly accepted his own philosophy and didn't just believe in his political theory religiously, he'd call it (as Einstein once said), "...my greatest blunder..."

I disagree that Marx would call his theory (I assume you meant the entire theory?) a great blunder, but I agree that he would get back to work and re-examine aspects of it and refine it to account for historical developments. There are (genuine) marxist analysts who are doing this work right now.

One thing has become clear since Marx developed his theory - as someone posted already in this thread, the notion of 'socialism in one country' (the interpretation adopted by Stalin and all the formal 'communist parties') has proved to be totally unfeasible - as socialist internationalists said from the very beginning. That is certainly something that history seems to have demonstrated quite forcefully. The globalisation of capitalism means that all social relations occur on a global level now, and the working class (as well as the capitalist class) can no longer be defined along nationalistic lines.

 

[alexandra]

@Alexandra

Hey, a capitalist debate taht doesn't degenerate into a flame-war after 2 pages, how can i leave?

Way to go, Pengwuino. Flame wars can be fun, but it depends what one is after. I read some of the sample flame war thread on the PF Lounge General Discussion forum, and a number of real flame war threads on other forums. They're funny to read, but they don't achieve much. I meant this one as a serious thread, so I've tried (not always successfully, I admit) to not provoke or 'do' any flaming.

 

[alexandra]

Um, well - you don't have a response? The article you posted clearly shows only a very short term increase in poverty level and a drastic, long term decline. Again, hard data directly contradicts the predictions of Marx.

I could ask you for the actual hard data - but the thing is, while Marxism provides excellent tools for analysing capitalism, as SOS2008 pointed out in a previous thread, central to the marxist theory (and something I am keenly aware of) is the notion of ideology. Again, quoting SOS2008's quote:

"The economic base (the relations and forces of production) in any society generates other social formations called superstructures, and ideologies, which will articulate what, and how people can think. The ideologies present in a capitalist society will explain, justify, and support the capitalist mode of production. Again, the example of slavery in nineteenth-century US culture is useful: all of the superstructures, such as organized religion, local and national politics, and art (especially literature), worked to uphold slavery as a good economic system."

So here's my assessment of what happens when people discuss politics: there is no such thing as starting off from an objective position, one already starts with a firmly-held belief system (or ideology, to use the term loosely). Then what happens is, even if opponents in an argument present evidence (in the form of statistics, for example), either the interpretation/validity of the evidence, or the credibility of the source of the evidence is denied. Here, I'll demonstrate with an example. Say to support my argument I quote:

“Income inequality for families, measured by the Gini coefficient,
increased between 1968 and 1998 (see Figure 1). The net effect over the entire 1947-1998 period is an increase in family income inequality./3/”

This is a very brief extract from a US government website (I have been criticised by someone before for using a source of information that is not American, so this time I ensure that my information is acceptable on that score). So the extract is from a U.S. Census Bureau report entitled ‘Income Inequality (1947-1998)’, and is available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60204/p60204txt.html . The report is obviously supported by statistical information involving an analysis of Gini Coefficients, etc – but the authenticity and details of the report can easily be checked by following the link.

In any case, here is my guess regarding possible responses to what I believe to be evidence of a growing gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (which I believe to be a sign that capitalism does not give us the best of all possible worlds) – people who disagree with my view about capitalism will argue that
1. the growing income gap is irrelevant, and will state that in absolute terms everyone is better off than they were before (so capitalism is good for everyone), and/or
2. the report’s findings are irrelevant because the Gini Coefficient is irrelevant, and/or
3. ?? fill in your own answer ('smiley' is meant to be a nervous grin, but I can't find one!)

So why did I ask the question about objectivity in the first place? Well, it is really frustrating to see people ignoring each other’s evidence as has been happening in some of the discussions, and I was hoping to draw people’s attention to their subjectivity so that they think about it and (hopefully) work on giving opposing arguments a fairer hearing… I admit that this is very difficult to do, but I think it is important to try. There is a lot at stake (eg. people’s lives) when considering some political issues. I’m not saying that this particular discussion is that important – it’s been largely about theoretical issues. But other discussions (eg. about the environment and specific conflicts) are very important.

 

[2CentsWorth]

In any case, here is my guess regarding possible responses to what I believe to be evidence of a growing gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (which I believe to be a sign that capitalism does not give us the best of all possible worlds) – people who disagree with my view about capitalism will argue that
1. the growing income gap is irrelevant, and will state that in absolute terms everyone is better off than they were before (so capitalism is good for everyone), and/or
2. the report’s findings are irrelevant because the Gini Coefficient is irrelevant, and/or
3. ?? fill in your own answer ('smiley' is meant to be a nervous grin, but I can't find one!)

So why did I ask the question about objectivity in the first place? Well, it is really frustrating to see people ignoring each other’s evidence as has been happening in some of the discussions, and I was hoping to draw people’s attention to their subjectivity so that they think about it and (hopefully) work on giving opposing arguments a fairer hearing… I admit that this is very difficult to do, but I think it is important to try. There is a lot at stake (eg. people’s lives) when considering some political issues. I’m not saying that this particular discussion is that important – it’s been largely about theoretical issues. But other discussions (eg. about the environment and specific conflicts) are very important.

I asked what people think would happen if capitalism were practiced in the true dog-eat-dog sense. I feel it would be a survival of the fittest scenario, which would be great for those at the top (capitalists), but terrible for everyone else (proletariat). We really aren't that far away from this in that the majority of wealth is held by only 1% of the population. IMO, if it weren't for the traditional professions (doctor, lawyer, banker) and merchants, or the third class--the middle class, called the bourgeoisie, the growing gap between rich and poor would be more noticeable.

Aside from the preconceptions people have due to socialization, focus always seems to be on economics when discussing capitalism versus socialism. People must decide what kind of world they want to live in. We have social programs because we don’t want to see poor people, old people, etc. dying in the streets, for example. We can be compassionate but still enjoy a high standard of living. I don’t think either model is desirable, and would prefer a balance between the two.

 

[alexandra]

I asked what people think would happen if capitalism were practiced in the true dog-eat-dog sense. I feel it would be a survival of the fittest scenario, which would be great for those at the top (capitalists), but terrible for everyone else (proletariat). We really aren't that far away from this in that the majority of wealth is held by only 1% of the population. IMO, if it weren't for the traditional professions (doctor, lawyer, banker) and merchants, or the third class--the middle class, called the bourgeoisie, the growing gap between rich and poor would be more noticeable.

Well put! This is my assessment as well - we seem to be at the dog-eat-dog stage of capitalist development now, where competition between corporations and the falling rate of profit (discussed by Marx) is such that all previous concessions to the working class (welfare and health systems, public education, public ownership of essential utilities like electricity and water) must be put into the hands of capital so that the members of the capitalist class can secure their share of the profit. When this happens, not only does the cost of living (basic necessities) go up (instead of down, as it is claimed privatisation will result in), but the supply of essentials like energy is destabilised (as happened, for example, in California a year or so ago?).

Aside from the preconceptions people have due to socialization, focus always seems to be on economics when discussing capitalism versus socialism. People must decide what kind of world they want to live in. We have social programs because we don’t want to see poor people, old people, etc. dying in the streets, for example. We can be compassionate but still enjoy a high standard of living.

Exactly! I can't honestly add anything to what you've said so very clearly here, 2CentsWorth - just beam my agreement

 

[russ_watters]

I could ask you for the actual hard data...

I guess I should have posted it, but the thing about this particular fact is that I'm pretty sure most people are already aware of it in the general sense, if not the specific numbers. Regardless, http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm they are. The last graph on that page shows poverty levels for different races in the US from 1959 to 2001. Also of value, is that they have times of recession highlighted. As you can see, increases in poverty correllate well with recessions (as in the current small rise). Overall, however, poverty levels in the US are about half what they were 50 years ago.

So, like I said before: that's a specific prediction made by Marx, where the actual data is going in the opposite direction from where he predicted. Marx predicted the decline and failure of capitalism: capitalism (and the world, as a result) is, in fact, flourishing.

One thing people mention a lot as a problem is the wealth gap between rich and poor. I don't see why it is a problem. In fact, the only problem I see in it is the envy that results from it. Assuming that its not just simple, base envy, my only way to explain it would be that people hold the (erroneous) belief that wealth is a zero-sum game: that in order for one person to become rich, another must become poor. But from discussions here, I know that most people are aware that that just isn't true. So, I'm left with simple envy as the only explanation. It happens with lottery winners all the time: winning the lottery rips families apart. But why? A person winning the lottery doesn't hurt the others in the family in any way, yet their greed and envy often rear their ugly head.

Frankly, its ironic - greed/envy may be what makes capitalism work, but greed/envy is also responsible for people still following communism. Yet in order for communism to work, people must be utterly free from greed/envy. Truly ironic.

 

[alexandra]

So, like I said before: that's a specific prediction made by Marx, where the actual data is going in the opposite direction from where he predicted. Marx predicted the decline and failure of capitalism: capitalism (and the world, as a result) is, in fact, flourishing.

Russ, I just responded to a post you made in another thread in the General Discussion area. I totally understand that you have a thing about marxism and that you want to argue with anyone who supports it, but I was wondering if I could ask you a favour: I'll argue about it with you, but I think it would be best if we confined our discussion to this section of the board (ie, the politics section). I don't like having to get so serious when posting in the 'fun' area, where people are taking time out from serious issues and making jokes and stuff. How about it (do you agree to my proposed 'terrain' on which we can argue our points?). If you don't agree, I'll 'do battle' wherever you take it, though:-)