« Genes & the left | Main | On capitalist hegemony »

January 17, 2018

Comments

Chuck

As a social democrat my political position would be invalidated by the establishment of a state on Marxist principles, anywhere in the world, that produced better outcomes than existing social democracies.

Luis Enrique

I want to suggest something that some of you might think paradoxical – that centrist technocrats are well-placed to do this

Al

As far as your statements that would weaken your Marxism;

1) There is nothing theoretically preventing capitalism from delivering full employment with well paid jobs and working conditions.

2) All economic systems are exploitative, or are you seriously arguing that friction would not exist in a Marxist economy?

3) Genuine neutrality of the state is impossible.

4) Using never as a standard for judging something is a little extreme, no?

Dan

The problem, Chris, is that you are a fantastic writer and thinker. But I've met many Marxists, and almost all (except you, who I haven't met) are idiots to some degree or other.

D

But, but, but..... if various forms of capitalism can't do the things you list, why should we think that there's something else that can do better?

Andy S

One of your best posts..

Anarcho

As a libertarian -- a genuine one, a libertarian socialist rather than a propertarian -- I would suggest:

1. A Marxist State actually was not like every other State (that is, the top-down rule of a few with associated bureaucracy)

2. That central planning would not be a bureaucratic State-capitalism.

3. That socialists utilising electioneering did not become reformist.

Those would be the tests libertarians would need to see passed in order to become Marxist socialists.

Ralph Musgrave

Can’t for the life of me see why open minded Marxists are any more open minded than open minded Keynsians, open minded MMTers, open minded you name it.

reason

I somehow think that this is all besides the point. The problem is that Marxism is based on an interpretation of the world based on class devisions that I find dehumanizing. It is not less dehumanizing than neo-classicisms is, but it is still dehumanizing.

I think this: "... or if capitalistic relations of production were never fetters upon growth." is a dead give away. Why do you think "growth" is absolute good? At some stage it will have to stop or slow down. There are far more important criticisms of a system than that it doesn't grow.

reason

P.S. I think the really deep problem with the modern economy (however it is organised) is also paradoxically its great strength, specialization. Specialization is intrinsically unsustainable and creates both alienation and insecurity. I think a basic income could ameliorate that, but it doesn't alone solve it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad