Capitalism, Marxism and Related Matters

[droid]

World Revolution.

Two Stage Theory.

This proves absolutely nothing. Did marxism call for world revolution? sure. The question is, was that strategy ever really implemented? and the answer, (you guessed it) is no.

The mention of 'two stage theory' actually contradicts your view. If the soviets really believed that countries 'must first pass through a stage of bourgeois democracy before moving to a socialist stage', then surely this would have prevented them from attempting to revolutionise pre-industrial third world nations?

This is true, but I would argue that this is not indicative of JS's ultimative intentions, but because the rest of the world has made it very clear in various ways that it was not willing to tolerate Soviet expansion without serious fighting.

How do you know what Stalins 'ultimative' intentions were? What scholarly material and sources do you base this opinion on? and how exactly is this relevant to the cold war period (when the policy of 'containment' was implemented), during most of which Stalin was, in fact - dead.

And again you contradict yourself. You say the USSR was aggresively expansionist - your proof? That they did not expand because they feared conflict.

We're not discussing intent or desire here. Im sure every dictator (and many democratic leaders) who ever lived had dreams of global domination. By your logic one could argue that Cuba was aggressively expansionist.

 

[josef k.]

Problems of History

And no - its not an 'unsolvable question', there is a rich and complex documentary record of this period, and internal documents and archives from both sides which can give a pretty good indication of what actually happened.

Questions of history are definitely interesting, and there are surely good reasons for taking issue with more or less glib interpretations of it. One interesting aspect for me is how quickly empirical issues of the historical record become philosophical issue of political science. In a sense, the question: Who acted more justly, the USA or the USSR very quickly turns into the question of why either should have acted in such a way at such a time - which is really a question to do with the problem of why states behave as they do. Which is a pretty complicated question, when it comes down to it, and not one which can easily be answered empirically.

I recently finished reading War and Peace - which is a book much to do with these matters. Tolstoy asks the question: "What causes masses to move?" He disputes the idea that great men cause them to, and suggests there is some deeper, more fundamental reason, some inevitable reason. But he never really says what this is. But I digress.

 

[droid]

Questions of history are definitely interesting, and there are surely good reasons for taking issue with more or less glib interpretations of it. One interesting aspect for me is how quickly empirical issues of the historical record become philosophical issue of political science. In a sense, the question: Who acted more justly, the USA or the USSR very quickly turns into the question of why either should have acted in such a way at such a time - which is really a question to do with the problem of why states behave as they do. Which is a pretty complicated question, when it comes down to it, and not one which can easily be answered empirically.

It would seem to me that the first step in ascertaining why states act the way they do (and I agree, its a highly complex question), is to dig through the layers of seemingly all-pervasive propaganda to find out what they actually did. I'm not really interested in the abstract questions of which states act most justly - in this thread if nowhere else - especially since there is such a lack of knowledge as to what the states in question actually did, and a s a result these kind of threads often get bogged down in historical discussion of one sort or another.

Whilst there is still such seemingly widespread ignorance about the 'what', how can we even begin to ask about the 'why'?

If we are interested in the motives behind the action of states, there are places we can go that will give us some ideas, as mentioned above, internal records, testimony and documents such as the Pentagon papers and the Mitrokhin archives can provide such indications.

 

[comelately]

The Labour Theory of Value is a signpost to a level of consciousness that the world is still quite far from. I understand the theory in spiritual terms - in many ways wasn't Marx continuing Hegel's work of making the spiritual something much more mundane (from spirit to mind to material reality)? There may well be a future when enough abundance exists where we have enough compassion and drive that we don't actually need to indulge in usuary and the like. I don't really see that dictatorships of the proletariat are going to contribute much, but the theory itself is beautiful and will almost certainly one day be true for all intensive purposes.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I understand the theory in spiritual terms - in many ways wasn't Marx continuing Hegel's work of making the spiritual something much more mundane (from spirit to mind to material reality)?

That's funny, as schools of philosophy go I've always thought of Marxism as about as materialist as it gets. Though I'm not familiar with Hegel, so maybe it makes sense in that context.

 

[comelately]

It is a materialist philosophy, that is Marxism's strength but also its fundamental weakness. It's a great thing to try and has brought many people who wouldn't touch religion/spirituality to higher levels of consciousness.

I'm probably more familiar with Hegel than Marx, so I probably do emphasise the lineage in my thinking. I find it interesting that in the new age world, you have guys like David R. Hawkins and his 'levels of consciousness', where he attempts to measure consciousness through "applied kinesiology". Pseudo-science of course, but still cute.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I find it interesting that in the new age world, you have guys like David R. Hawkins and his 'levels of consciousness', where he attempts to measure consciousness through "applied kinesiology". Pseudo-science of course, but still cute.

Sounds a bit like Tim Leary's "eight circuit" model of consciousness: http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/8-circuit/more.html

As you say about Hawkins, it's nonsense, but really fucking cool nonsense.

 

[comelately]

Well there's the chakras as well of course

 

[3 Body No Problem]

The Labour Theory of Value is a signpost to a level of consciousness that the world is still quite far from. I understand the theory in spiritual terms

Would you mind rephrasing this so the majority of readers here who are not familiar with the language of the "Phenomenology of Spirit" and its successors can understand your position and join the discussion?

 

[3 Body No Problem]

This proves absolutely nothing. Did marxism call for world revolution? sure. The question is, was that strategy ever really implemented? and the answer, (you guessed it) is no.

Did marxism call for world revolution? sure. The question is, was that strategy ever really implemented? and the answer, (you guessed it) is yes.

The mention of 'two stage theory' actually contradicts your view.

It does not. I added the 'two stage theory' because the entry contains the following sentence: "The revolution cannot pause [...] but remains 'permanent', in the sense that it must seek worldwide revolution to avoid isolation and thus move towards international socialism.".

If the soviets really believed that countries 'must first pass through a stage of bourgeois democracy before moving to a socialist stage', then surely this would have prevented them from attempting to revolutionise pre-industrial third world nations?

Are you taking the p***? The Soviet Union itself was a pre-industrial nation, and despite Marx postulating that a bourgoise, industrial capitalist phase needs to precede a communist revolution, the Bolsheviks went ahead and did the October revolution anyway, ditto in China. The Bolsheviks didn't exactly adhere to that dogma either. Marxism requires flexibility with strategy. Same with world-revolution.

How do you know what Stalins 'ultimative' intentions were?

Inference to probable causes from observable behaviour, using heuristics like Occam's Razor, Bayesean reasoning, commonsense, speculation, imagining what I would have done in Stalin's position ... in short the same gamut of techniques that is applied to reason about somebody else's intentions. Roughing up a few citizens, commanding the economy to focus on military production, public adherence to an explicitly expansionist political outlook (Marxism) are pretty good indicators.

You say the USSR was aggresively expansionist - your proof? That they did not expand because they feared conflict.

Let me answer in two parts.

• First, let's ask the same question, but in a simpler and less emotionally charged context: do bicycle thieves exist in London? Following your line of reasoning, the answer must be NO for me because my rather expensive bicycles haven't been stolen for over 5 years now! And yet, obstinately I will hold to the belief that bicycle thieves do exist and that I have been containing them with my heavy lock and paranoid diligence. I'm happy to change my mind if you leave an expensive bike in central London unlocked and it does not get stolen. Go on, prove me wrong!
  
• Second, a nuclear conflict is not just any old conflict.
  

And how exactly is this relevant to the cold war period (when the policy of 'containment' was implemented), during most of which Stalin was, in fact - dead.

Containment in a general sense was implemented as soon as the October revolution succeeded. The cold war did not change the perception of a need of containment, what changed the strategic situation radically was nuclear weapons, which enabled MAD (mutually assured destruction). MAD required a new epoch of politico-military strategy that really changed a lot of things for humanity. The experience of Stalinism is the defining event in the perception of Marxism, and post-Stalin Marxist leaders have been -- perhaps sometimes unfairly -- tarred with the same brush. That Stalin's terror was later replicated in China and Cambodia was a gruesome reminder of the necessity of the cold war, and the essential correctness of the west's understanding of the communist states.

We're not discussing intent or desire here.

The question I am discussion cannot avoid discussing intent or desire.

Im sure every dictator (and many democratic leaders) who ever lived had dreams of global domination. By your logic one could argue that Cuba was aggressively expansionist.

The relevant difference is that Cuba is militarily powerless vis-a-vis the US, and has a much better record w.r.t. the treatment of its own citizens. If you don't see why that makes all the world's difference, I'd be baffeled.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

Mitrokhin archives

Some context.

 

[vimothy]

Yes, but if we lived in a "communist world economy, with some failed capitalists states smattered around" scenario, then I suspect that it would be institutions talking about the benefits of economic planning and "ordinary people" arguing against the status quo?

Didn't we try that in the '70s?

Also, y'know, if positions were swapped and we lived in a communist world economy, with some failed capitalists states smattered around, I'm pretty sure people who favored capitalism would have a really hard time providing a truly concrete counterexample.

Nevertheless, the fact that we don't live in that world is interesting and significant.

 

[vimothy]

To this day the US still dominates many countries on this planet without giving the citizens of these places adequate democratic representation. So it is on some level questionable if the US can be called a democracy in my sense (i.e. the real sense) of all subjects -- citizens or otherwise -- having electoral franchise.

I would widen the insitutional definition of democracy to include universal electoral franchise, independent vote counting, judicial indepence, as well as goods that enable the "strategic coordination" of political opposition (e.g. free press, freedom to contest elections, freedom of assembly, etc). I think that a misguided focus on democracy as merely voting has hampered the development of many poorer countries, especially in Africa.

 

[vimothy]

(soviet war crimes dring WWII weren;t confined to Poland - Stalin indulged in mindboggling population shifts. In fact, the little local difficulty Georgia's been having might be the consequence of one of them - I'm gonna check)

I think that, similar to British strategy in Northern Ireland, Georgian borders were drawn to include significant sepratist or autonomist regions.

 

[vimothy]

I never made that argument, I claimed that they were not aggressively expansionist.

What then (in your opinion) is the institutional arrangement that explains this phenomenon (of Soviet/totalitarian non-aggression vs democratic aggression)?

 

[3 Body No Problem]

I would widen the insitutional definition of democracy to include universal electoral franchise, independent vote counting, judicial indepence, as well as goods that enable the "strategic coordination" of political opposition (e.g. free press, freedom to contest elections, freedom of assembly, etc). I think that a misguided focus on democracy as merely voting has hampered the development of many poorer countries, especially in Africa.

That's a good point. One reason for the emphasis on voting is that that's easy to do and easy to monitor.

 

[vimothy]

That's a good point. One reason for the emphasis on voting is that that's easy to do and easy to monitor.

I think that the phenomenon of rigged elections is also interesting. Why, if the outcome is rigged, would you bother holding elections?

Paul Collier has made the point that absent a solid institutional basis (free press, independent vote counting, etc), democracy in many post-colonial African nations has resulted ina rather unfortunate "race to the bottom", rather than the hoped for race to the top.

I see institutions as prime -- the creators of an incentive structure that provide the range choices that political entities choose from. Which would explain josef's question about why states act as they do.

On a related (but perhaps controversial) note: the Cold War was pretty good, no? If you take (and I presume that everyone does) stability to be more important than justice, the Cold War balance of power and strategy of nuclear deterrence / MAD was nothing if not successful. Thoughts?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think that the phenomenon of rigged elections is also interesting. Why, if the outcome is rigged, would you bother holding elections?

Um, in order to maintain an illusion of democracy to supporters of opposition parties and external agencies? Excuse me if I'm being thick here...

 

[vimothy]

Selectorate size (v. large relative to 'winning coalition'), I mean.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Selectorate size (v. large relative to 'winning coalition'), I mean.

I don't understand. What's a selectorate when it's at home?