For your first point, I already addressed that. Marxists seek full public ownership and planning, think USPS but the entire economy. That doesn’t mean we don’t believe that public service workers aren’t necessary. Further, you have to understand that in a fully publicly owned and planned economy, any private ownership would immediately fail to compete with the large public trusts, there isn’t an incentive to take by violence ownership of a factory in the first place.
As for your second, this is the more interesting paragraph from a Marxian perspective. I’ll address it in parts, as each deserves its own emphasis.
Capitalism is progressive in comparison to feudalism. With the influx of Capitalism has come a dramatic increase in development of the Productive Forces, themselves the driving factor of material conditions. This has come with numerous benefits and many drawbacks, but overall has been positive with respect to feudalism. At least, until Capitalism grew to Imperialism around the turn of the 20th century.
Profits in Capitalism are at the discretion of the owners. This does not mean profits are correctly distributed to improve the economy, but to improve profitability. Marketing, Advertisements, the concept of “enshittification” all drives from this. Further, these owners are not necessarily the competent, but the lucky. Profits are rewarded to those with the Capital to invest, not the skill to manage. Money is used to purchase commodities (through production) which is sold for higher quantities of money, and this cycle repeats. Competition lowers rates of profit through incentivizing automation, which lowers cost of production and increases barrier to entry. This results in monopoly and centralization, Capitalism chokes itself.
Ultimately, markets are useful up until a certain point, at which point Public Ownership and Planning makes far more economic sense. We are well-beyond that point in most developed Capitalist economies that haven’t yet de-industrialized in favor of full Imperialism. Competition kills itself and becomes unaccountable monopoly, at which point the means of public ownership and planning become far more efficient as planning infrastructure is well-developed and rather than extracting monopoly profits, the benefits of automation can keep costs low and redirected towards further improvement.
Thank you for the detailed response. I will try to address your points.
Overall, however, the first paragraph hardly matters. I agree with you that the latter half of my original comment is more substantial. I will look at the last two paragraphs of your comment.
Regarding the competency of capitalists, I did not claim that the most competent people in society own capital, this is clearly not true. However, the capitalist system provides strong incentives for correct decisionmaking, and also, to an extent, rewards innovative and generally smart investments and decisions with capital. Also, in practice people who own the capital are not necessarily the same as people who manage it, and those are certainly competent.
You also made a point I do not agree with: while I do not deny that capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly and centralisation, I do not agree with the idea that it negates itself dialectically. I believe that in the 20th century many of the flaws of the previously existing capitalist system were suppressed by a change in policy. It seems to me that it is not necessarily the case that capitalism will destroy itself, as it is concievable that markets will be used in a way that will avoid these pitfalls. I see the argument you are making(at the end of your comment), and it is compelling, but I still am not convinced that markets should be abandoned.
I do not believe that markets are just automatically lead everyone to good outcomes and are just good by themselves. This is very naive. I do understand that what is profitable in a market system is not necessarily good for society. Overall, however, the positive aspects of markets, in my opinion, outweigh the negatives and those negative aspects can be accounted for since markets can be utilised in different ways.
Finally, I would like to ask you about your response to accusations of marxist dogmatism. While it seems like Marxists are indeed ready to concede that Marxism as it exists currently is not perfect, and are ready to criticise and change their theory, since said theory exists as a part of a dialectical process that is believed to asymptotically approach truth(if I understand dialectical materialism correctly), it would not be incorrect to say that Marxism, not as it exists now but as a dialectical process is, according to Marxists, approaching truth, and that is why, I suppose, Marxists do not doubt that Marxism as a whole is true, but rather only expect it to change.
Also, historical materialism is, in my opinion, not proven at all, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it can still be useful as a conceptual instrument, yet it is seemingly accepted as scientific fact by many Marxists.
No problem, I’ll address the points you raise here.
I think it’s important to identify what “correct” decisions are, to begin with. In a profit-driven market-based system, the “correct” solution is the profitable one. What’s profitable is not necessarily what’s good for society, see the oil and gas industry destroying the planet, and the car industry lobbying against efficient public transit. Further, innovation is, where possible, publicly funded for Private profits, the myth of Capitalist “risk taking” is just that, a myth. The risks are public, the profits are private. Why not make both public?
Your next paragraph, I believe you are referring to Social Safety Nets as they appeared. I think you would be making an error in analysis if you didn’t see why they arose: increased revolutionary pressure, and the Soviet Union providing massively expanded safety nets like free education and healthcare. The decline in Safety Nets after the dissolution of the USSR isn’t a coincidence. Further, the Global North has evolved into Imperialism, it offloads its industry to the Global South to super-exploit for domestic super-profits. For more on that, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
The thing with markets is that they are a tool. They don’t make sense in tribal societies, nor will they make sense in future, highly developed societies, but they serve a purpose in certain levels of development. The points and duration of their usefulness depends on the industry. You can see this in practice in the PRC, actually, who hold in public heavy industry like Steel, Energy, banking, as well as critical industries, etc and use markets more to develop light industry.
As for Marxist dogmatism, it’s a known process. Those dogmatists are referred to as"Ultraleft" or perhaps “Left-Communists.” These are more common in areas without successful revolution or organization, mainly Western countries. If you want to learn more, I recommend Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism. Marxism is an analytical tool more than anything, and in all AES states that have seen successful revolution, theory has been adjusted and modified based on their conditions and times. If an aspect of theory becomes useless or wrong, correct Marxist analysis is to re-evaluate it and toss it or adjust it. This is the concept of “Criticism and Self-Criticism.”
As for Historical Materialism, it has largely been proven as a useful analysis of class dynamics and the motion of history. I am not sure what you disagree with, so there isn’t much to address here or defend beyond saying “I think it’s good.”
(Side note: I upvoted you here, you’re engaging in good-faith, didn’t want you to see the downvote and think that was me)
Hmm, I feel like I did say that what is profitable is not necessarily what is good, I am not sure why you felt the need to restate thas as if I disagree with that. Also, I believe that markets make resource allocation and general management of the economy more efficient and also drive growth. I never claimed that they drive technological progress. I would say I am not convinced they will become obsolete in the future as you describe it(I do not expect them to be eternal, however).
I should say, regarding your second paragraph, that it does not matter why these policies were inplemented since they might as well be implemented again for a similar or a different reason, and if there is a mode of existence of capitalism which you admit is not self destructive that disputes your point regardless of why it can come to be.
I would say that Marxism is a great conceptual tool, but I do think that it should not pretend to be scientific. It relies on unfalsifiable claims(like historical materialism) and as I said, the dialectical process of Marxism is never dismissed by changes in theory, only affirmed.
I would also say that the most dogmatic Marxism is not in the west but in Marxist countries. At least here in the former USSR it is absurd how dogmatic everyone was in academia and everywhere else really.
Personally, while I understand that it can be a useful conceptual tool, I do not like historical materialism. You can make causal claims in retrospect, saying that this or that had, by necessity, to come after something else. But I would say this is only true now, and it might not have been true then.
History is a capricious lady. I wonder what Marxists think about why the communist revolution started here, in the most backwards country in Europe, and not in the developed western Europe, with later stage capitalism and a more conscious proletariat.
I stressed the purpose of markets being profit to stress that while initially they are good for industrialization, eventually they become less efficient at doing so. We are in agreement that initially they are helpful at developing, that’s actually why Marx believed Capitalism to pave the way for Socialism.
For your second, it absolutely matters why social safety nets appeared. Moreover, it matters why they are disappearing. Capitalism’s death clock, so to speak, is that it erodes competition as it reaches monopoly and the Rate of Profit falls. Absolute profits are raised through combination of industry and linking of the supply chain, but this has a limit. That’s why it extends outward, towards Imperialism. Capitalism will always head towards centralization, and will always head towards decreased rates of profit and increases in barriers to competition.
Marxism is scientific in that it is a working framework for analysis. I don’t know what you mean by Historical Materialism being impossible to falsify.
As for dogmatism, it isn’t impossible to find in AES states, but as a ratio of the overall population of Marxists, dogmatism is higher in the West, where Marxism is uncommon and has seen no revolution. It follows that those that haven’t tested theory to practice may have an idealistic and dogmatic interpretation of it.
As for why Marxists believe the revolution happened in Tsarist Russia first, the answer is Imperialism, as outlined by Lenin in the previous comment. Marx was not alive to see the existence of Monopoly Capitalism, and while he predicted aspects of Imperialism, it was Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as it materialized that expanded on Marx. Imperialized countries form the weakest link in the chain of Capitalism, while developed Imperialist countries go through a process of temporary (and it must be temporary as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to fall exists) creates a “labor aristocracy” thay is “bribed” by the fruits of this process that de-proletarianizes the populace. We will actually potentially see the US seeing a “re-proletarianization” due to an emphasis on restarting industry as a response to decaying Imperialism, as more nations turn away from the US Empire, and potentially a revolution (though not immediately).
Honestly, it all comes down to historical materialism. You see in everything historical necessity, it was never possible for safety nets to remain in place, capitalism has to negate itself, etc. You can just point to any event, see in that the unalterable course of history and use it as an argument, but why would I accept it?
Hegelian dialectics is a perfectly working framework for analysis(I like Hegel more than Marx), but it is not scientific, is it? It is philosophical.
The point about imperial Russia is interesting. I think you lost a part of the paragraph somewhere, but I think I got it. So if re-proletarisation is necessary for revolution why is imperialism the last stage of capitalism, do we not have a sort of backwards motion here?
I think that’s a misinterpretation of Historical Materialism. The course of development isn’t rigid, nor are stages divided by hard lines but blurred. Safety Nets could remain temporarily, but you can’t expand Imperialism beyond the limits of Earth and you can’t stop the mechanisms of competition from necessitating larger trusts, only slow that rate down. As industry advances, it is required to expand, and when said expansion suffocates competition by killing off its chance of opposition, there ceases to be any benefit to Capitalism.
As for Hegel vs Marx, I would say the Idealist nature of Hegelian Dialectics negates its practicality for analyzing the real world. It’s certainly an interesting framework, but Materialism will inherently be more grounded in scientific analysis and thus practicality.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting. For starters, we have not seen a revolution in an Imperialist country, only victims of Imperialism. The reason Marxists believe it to be the last is because it chokes itself, causing Imperialized countries to revolt or decouple and cripple the profits of the Imperialist countries, which takes away from the “bribes” for the labor aristocracy. The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists regardless (and if you want me to go over that I can, I think you’ve been glossing over this one but it’s actually critical for analysis of Capitalism as self-defeating as rates of profit approach zero).
This process of “re-proletarianization” is a hypothesis, not a real observation yet. We will have to watch the US working class and how it organizes (or doesn’t) in the face of tariffs and an attempt at restarting industrialization. By Imperialism’s weakening, monopoly Capitalism remains in place but without the super-profits for bribery, which means you have an increasingly socialized Proletariat in the Imperial Core and decaying Material Conditions.
Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.
I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.
As a rule of thumb, I mean with respect to practical analysis of the real world, rather than constrained to analysis of ideas.
Your second paragraph is spot-on. Unless you reach full automation of industry, service-based economies depend on industry of other economies.
As a concluding message, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism text. It very accurately describes the primary mechanisms of Capitalism as it develops, and is necessary analysis even if you reject the rest of Marxism.
For your first point, I already addressed that. Marxists seek full public ownership and planning, think USPS but the entire economy. That doesn’t mean we don’t believe that public service workers aren’t necessary. Further, you have to understand that in a fully publicly owned and planned economy, any private ownership would immediately fail to compete with the large public trusts, there isn’t an incentive to take by violence ownership of a factory in the first place.
As for your second, this is the more interesting paragraph from a Marxian perspective. I’ll address it in parts, as each deserves its own emphasis.
Capitalism is progressive in comparison to feudalism. With the influx of Capitalism has come a dramatic increase in development of the Productive Forces, themselves the driving factor of material conditions. This has come with numerous benefits and many drawbacks, but overall has been positive with respect to feudalism. At least, until Capitalism grew to Imperialism around the turn of the 20th century.
Profits in Capitalism are at the discretion of the owners. This does not mean profits are correctly distributed to improve the economy, but to improve profitability. Marketing, Advertisements, the concept of “enshittification” all drives from this. Further, these owners are not necessarily the competent, but the lucky. Profits are rewarded to those with the Capital to invest, not the skill to manage. Money is used to purchase commodities (through production) which is sold for higher quantities of money, and this cycle repeats. Competition lowers rates of profit through incentivizing automation, which lowers cost of production and increases barrier to entry. This results in monopoly and centralization, Capitalism chokes itself.
Ultimately, markets are useful up until a certain point, at which point Public Ownership and Planning makes far more economic sense. We are well-beyond that point in most developed Capitalist economies that haven’t yet de-industrialized in favor of full Imperialism. Competition kills itself and becomes unaccountable monopoly, at which point the means of public ownership and planning become far more efficient as planning infrastructure is well-developed and rather than extracting monopoly profits, the benefits of automation can keep costs low and redirected towards further improvement.
Thank you for the detailed response. I will try to address your points.
Overall, however, the first paragraph hardly matters. I agree with you that the latter half of my original comment is more substantial. I will look at the last two paragraphs of your comment.
Regarding the competency of capitalists, I did not claim that the most competent people in society own capital, this is clearly not true. However, the capitalist system provides strong incentives for correct decisionmaking, and also, to an extent, rewards innovative and generally smart investments and decisions with capital. Also, in practice people who own the capital are not necessarily the same as people who manage it, and those are certainly competent.
You also made a point I do not agree with: while I do not deny that capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly and centralisation, I do not agree with the idea that it negates itself dialectically. I believe that in the 20th century many of the flaws of the previously existing capitalist system were suppressed by a change in policy. It seems to me that it is not necessarily the case that capitalism will destroy itself, as it is concievable that markets will be used in a way that will avoid these pitfalls. I see the argument you are making(at the end of your comment), and it is compelling, but I still am not convinced that markets should be abandoned.
I do not believe that markets are just automatically lead everyone to good outcomes and are just good by themselves. This is very naive. I do understand that what is profitable in a market system is not necessarily good for society. Overall, however, the positive aspects of markets, in my opinion, outweigh the negatives and those negative aspects can be accounted for since markets can be utilised in different ways.
Finally, I would like to ask you about your response to accusations of marxist dogmatism. While it seems like Marxists are indeed ready to concede that Marxism as it exists currently is not perfect, and are ready to criticise and change their theory, since said theory exists as a part of a dialectical process that is believed to asymptotically approach truth(if I understand dialectical materialism correctly), it would not be incorrect to say that Marxism, not as it exists now but as a dialectical process is, according to Marxists, approaching truth, and that is why, I suppose, Marxists do not doubt that Marxism as a whole is true, but rather only expect it to change.
Also, historical materialism is, in my opinion, not proven at all, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it can still be useful as a conceptual instrument, yet it is seemingly accepted as scientific fact by many Marxists.
No problem, I’ll address the points you raise here.
I think it’s important to identify what “correct” decisions are, to begin with. In a profit-driven market-based system, the “correct” solution is the profitable one. What’s profitable is not necessarily what’s good for society, see the oil and gas industry destroying the planet, and the car industry lobbying against efficient public transit. Further, innovation is, where possible, publicly funded for Private profits, the myth of Capitalist “risk taking” is just that, a myth. The risks are public, the profits are private. Why not make both public?
Your next paragraph, I believe you are referring to Social Safety Nets as they appeared. I think you would be making an error in analysis if you didn’t see why they arose: increased revolutionary pressure, and the Soviet Union providing massively expanded safety nets like free education and healthcare. The decline in Safety Nets after the dissolution of the USSR isn’t a coincidence. Further, the Global North has evolved into Imperialism, it offloads its industry to the Global South to super-exploit for domestic super-profits. For more on that, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
The thing with markets is that they are a tool. They don’t make sense in tribal societies, nor will they make sense in future, highly developed societies, but they serve a purpose in certain levels of development. The points and duration of their usefulness depends on the industry. You can see this in practice in the PRC, actually, who hold in public heavy industry like Steel, Energy, banking, as well as critical industries, etc and use markets more to develop light industry.
As for Marxist dogmatism, it’s a known process. Those dogmatists are referred to as"Ultraleft" or perhaps “Left-Communists.” These are more common in areas without successful revolution or organization, mainly Western countries. If you want to learn more, I recommend Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism. Marxism is an analytical tool more than anything, and in all AES states that have seen successful revolution, theory has been adjusted and modified based on their conditions and times. If an aspect of theory becomes useless or wrong, correct Marxist analysis is to re-evaluate it and toss it or adjust it. This is the concept of “Criticism and Self-Criticism.”
As for Historical Materialism, it has largely been proven as a useful analysis of class dynamics and the motion of history. I am not sure what you disagree with, so there isn’t much to address here or defend beyond saying “I think it’s good.”
(Side note: I upvoted you here, you’re engaging in good-faith, didn’t want you to see the downvote and think that was me)
Hmm, I feel like I did say that what is profitable is not necessarily what is good, I am not sure why you felt the need to restate thas as if I disagree with that. Also, I believe that markets make resource allocation and general management of the economy more efficient and also drive growth. I never claimed that they drive technological progress. I would say I am not convinced they will become obsolete in the future as you describe it(I do not expect them to be eternal, however).
I should say, regarding your second paragraph, that it does not matter why these policies were inplemented since they might as well be implemented again for a similar or a different reason, and if there is a mode of existence of capitalism which you admit is not self destructive that disputes your point regardless of why it can come to be.
I would say that Marxism is a great conceptual tool, but I do think that it should not pretend to be scientific. It relies on unfalsifiable claims(like historical materialism) and as I said, the dialectical process of Marxism is never dismissed by changes in theory, only affirmed.
I would also say that the most dogmatic Marxism is not in the west but in Marxist countries. At least here in the former USSR it is absurd how dogmatic everyone was in academia and everywhere else really.
Personally, while I understand that it can be a useful conceptual tool, I do not like historical materialism. You can make causal claims in retrospect, saying that this or that had, by necessity, to come after something else. But I would say this is only true now, and it might not have been true then.
History is a capricious lady. I wonder what Marxists think about why the communist revolution started here, in the most backwards country in Europe, and not in the developed western Europe, with later stage capitalism and a more conscious proletariat.
I stressed the purpose of markets being profit to stress that while initially they are good for industrialization, eventually they become less efficient at doing so. We are in agreement that initially they are helpful at developing, that’s actually why Marx believed Capitalism to pave the way for Socialism.
For your second, it absolutely matters why social safety nets appeared. Moreover, it matters why they are disappearing. Capitalism’s death clock, so to speak, is that it erodes competition as it reaches monopoly and the Rate of Profit falls. Absolute profits are raised through combination of industry and linking of the supply chain, but this has a limit. That’s why it extends outward, towards Imperialism. Capitalism will always head towards centralization, and will always head towards decreased rates of profit and increases in barriers to competition.
Marxism is scientific in that it is a working framework for analysis. I don’t know what you mean by Historical Materialism being impossible to falsify.
As for dogmatism, it isn’t impossible to find in AES states, but as a ratio of the overall population of Marxists, dogmatism is higher in the West, where Marxism is uncommon and has seen no revolution. It follows that those that haven’t tested theory to practice may have an idealistic and dogmatic interpretation of it.
As for why Marxists believe the revolution happened in Tsarist Russia first, the answer is Imperialism, as outlined by Lenin in the previous comment. Marx was not alive to see the existence of Monopoly Capitalism, and while he predicted aspects of Imperialism, it was Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as it materialized that expanded on Marx. Imperialized countries form the weakest link in the chain of Capitalism, while developed Imperialist countries go through a process of temporary (and it must be temporary as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to fall exists) creates a “labor aristocracy” thay is “bribed” by the fruits of this process that de-proletarianizes the populace. We will actually potentially see the US seeing a “re-proletarianization” due to an emphasis on restarting industry as a response to decaying Imperialism, as more nations turn away from the US Empire, and potentially a revolution (though not immediately).
Honestly, it all comes down to historical materialism. You see in everything historical necessity, it was never possible for safety nets to remain in place, capitalism has to negate itself, etc. You can just point to any event, see in that the unalterable course of history and use it as an argument, but why would I accept it?
Hegelian dialectics is a perfectly working framework for analysis(I like Hegel more than Marx), but it is not scientific, is it? It is philosophical.
The point about imperial Russia is interesting. I think you lost a part of the paragraph somewhere, but I think I got it. So if re-proletarisation is necessary for revolution why is imperialism the last stage of capitalism, do we not have a sort of backwards motion here?
I think that’s a misinterpretation of Historical Materialism. The course of development isn’t rigid, nor are stages divided by hard lines but blurred. Safety Nets could remain temporarily, but you can’t expand Imperialism beyond the limits of Earth and you can’t stop the mechanisms of competition from necessitating larger trusts, only slow that rate down. As industry advances, it is required to expand, and when said expansion suffocates competition by killing off its chance of opposition, there ceases to be any benefit to Capitalism.
As for Hegel vs Marx, I would say the Idealist nature of Hegelian Dialectics negates its practicality for analyzing the real world. It’s certainly an interesting framework, but Materialism will inherently be more grounded in scientific analysis and thus practicality.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting. For starters, we have not seen a revolution in an Imperialist country, only victims of Imperialism. The reason Marxists believe it to be the last is because it chokes itself, causing Imperialized countries to revolt or decouple and cripple the profits of the Imperialist countries, which takes away from the “bribes” for the labor aristocracy. The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists regardless (and if you want me to go over that I can, I think you’ve been glossing over this one but it’s actually critical for analysis of Capitalism as self-defeating as rates of profit approach zero).
This process of “re-proletarianization” is a hypothesis, not a real observation yet. We will have to watch the US working class and how it organizes (or doesn’t) in the face of tariffs and an attempt at restarting industrialization. By Imperialism’s weakening, monopoly Capitalism remains in place but without the super-profits for bribery, which means you have an increasingly socialized Proletariat in the Imperial Core and decaying Material Conditions.
What do you mean when you say “scientific”?
Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.
I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.
As a rule of thumb, I mean with respect to practical analysis of the real world, rather than constrained to analysis of ideas.
Your second paragraph is spot-on. Unless you reach full automation of industry, service-based economies depend on industry of other economies.
As a concluding message, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism text. It very accurately describes the primary mechanisms of Capitalism as it develops, and is necessary analysis even if you reject the rest of Marxism.