Skip to main content

View Diary: On the 'Vindication' of Marx *updated (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Grundrisse, CPE, GI (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, duhban

    you can find it in all three & lurking within many others.

    •  I don't think so (4+ / 0-)

      AFAIK Marx never used the term "democratic capitalism."  The two are, for Marx, mutually exclusive.

      •  Not a Marxist term (0+ / 0-)

        Simply a descriptive term of the era that Marx thought of as the penultimate era of human history. Just as Hegel believed that 19th century Prussian republicanism was the final shape of history, Marx thought western industrial capitalism was the shape of history that would bring about it's end - namely technological development that conquered scarcity and the withering away of the particular (ie the institutional obstacles to human freedom and universalism). In this the Paradigm of production would end, as would 'history'.

        •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JosephK74

          Democracy means rule of the "demos," which for Marx were the workers.  Capitalism is not rule by the workers, but rule by capitalists.  Ergo, it is impossible to have democratic capitalism.

          Understanding this is crucial for unwinding the liberal rhetoric on democracy, freedom, and capitalism.

          •  Ah, the old Social Democrats vs. Communists (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RennieMac, duhban, prishannah, JosephK74

            argument.  How Second Internationale. :)

            (Not to be confused with the First Internationale's collapse due to the split from the anarchists. :))

            •  ? (0+ / 0-)

              Rather than use historical trivia to trivialize the point, why not engage in it?

              How can we have political democracy if there is no economic democracy?  This is not an idea owned by sectarian battles within the left, it's the same argument made by Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia.

              •  See, the New Deal and remeber its a process not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban

                an end-state.

                IOW, as I've said eslewhere just today, the New Deal is not social security or 'alphabet' regulations, though those necessarily arise from it.  FDR saw it as a fundementally reformed social compact: were all accepted the right and duty of individuals to act collectively through democratic institutions to manage capitalism so that it served both common and individual (capitalist's) needs.  Most immediately the Great Depression, but also in later years of his life the "four Freedoms'.

                IOW, socialism with an American face.

                (This is why FDR was not weddied to any particular program or policy but was willing to try anything as long as it fit that general model.  No NRA?  Fine, try the alphabet soup of smaller policies/programs than generally accomplished the same things.)

                Jefferson would have ended up in the same place as FDR if he could have envisioned the modern industrial economy without a frontier.

                Having said that tho, 1) from their comments, I expected both commentators to understand the reference, 2) those that didn't, I hoped would go educate themselves on the references, and thus

                3) both would realize the points had been debated for over 150 years and spare us a wast of bandwidth in recapitualation of that debate. :)

                •  Ugh (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ZhenRen, JosephK74

                  No offense, but you clearly don't understand the issues here.  FDR did not establish economic democracy, he attempted to contain the contradictions within the capitalist system so that the system itself would not break down again (e.g. another Depression).

                  Economic democracy is a state in which each person has the equal ability to participate in the economy as equals.  Just as political democracy means that each person has the equal ability to participate in politics as equals.  This is impossible within a capitalist system, for it is at its root a system of inequality.  Capitalism doesn't simply produce inequality, its very basis is inequality.  Some own capital while most only own their own body.  The concentration of economic wealth into the hands of the some and the precarity produced for the many makes the declaration of political democracy a sham.  Hence, no political democracy within economic democracy.  No democracy within capital.  Hence the idea proposed by the original poster that Marx opined about "democratic capitalism" is blatantly false.

                  This is not a "tired debate" (who the hell still discusses sectarianism within the International??  More importantly, who cares and why bring it up?  I smell a concern troll). Rather, it speaks to issues that are absolutely central to the American experience.  Worse, these types of discussions are only happening on the fringes, and rarely get beyond proposals for reviving some form of roll-back to the 1940s.  Discussing the reasons why the New Deal had a short shelf life (the tendencies I present in the prior paragraph) is of such great importance that it angers me that one would attempt to squash such discussion.

                  •  Where did I say 'economic democracy'? That's (0+ / 0-)

                    your hobby-horse, not mine.

                    I said: "FDR saw it as a fundementally reformed social compact: were all accepted the right and duty of individuals to act collectively through democratic institutions to manage capitalism so that it served both common and individual (capitalist's) needs."

                    I find 'economic democracy' is an oxymoron, since economics requires scarcity and scarcity means every individual's economic power by definition can not be equal.  IMO the only way to have 'economic democracy' is to abolish scarcity and thus destroy the 'economy', ala ST: The Next Gen.  IOW, capitalism's "very basis" is not 'inequality', but scarcity.  The former is an artifical construct, the later natural.

                    I prefer to fight for something actually attainable at the present time: economic fairness.  IMO, you're hobby-horse ('economic democracy') is an unrealistic waste of time, that not only will never be realized while economy (i.e., significant scarcity) exists, it can only destract from truly constructive efforts.

                    And this whole 'social democracy betrays the Revolution', 'New Deal destroyed true change for workers'- or your 'no justice without economic democracy/destroy all capitalist!' is precisely the old debate b/t the social democrats and communists.  IMO your reaction to my saying so says more about you than the merits of the arguments.  Btw, only a moron dismisses history (which is why you 'should care'), since trite as it is it is equally true that how you got here defines where you're going and how to actually change it if so inclined.  As I don't think you're a moron, I can only conclude your coments here were actually nothing more than an ad hominen.  

                    But hey, you're entitled to your opinions and I to mine and  that's what makes the world go round. :)

                    •  So... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vespertine, JosephK74

                      There is only one way for a society to respond to scarcity, and that is through unequal distribution of property, thus pitting the propertarians against those employed by them? If one is born without property in a world in which all property is already owned, how does one get some? Does such a person simply suffer her fate because of the notion of scarcity? Or find a way to deprive another of property so that she can have some at the other's expense?

                      Or does everyone have an equal right to live, even if his or her talents are not equal?

                      There is no real democracy or true liberty as along as there is property.

                      Why isn't collective sharing an appropriate response? Does anyone really accomplish anything alone? Everything we do is built upon the work by people before us. How does one calculate what portion is produced by an individual's sole efforts, as if completely separate from aggregate efforts of the whole of society?

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 06:42:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The 1st paragraph is an odd one in a diary discuss (0+ / 0-)

                        ing Marxism.  

                        The right to life is not the same as the right to property or even wealth.  Democrats have been trying to guarantee the former and an opportunity to acquire the later for 80 plus years, while Thugs have been saying that not only should we not try to give opportunity, we shouldn't even care about their lives.  But, since you're at a blog that supports the Democratic party, I figure you know that.

                        Tho the third one is certainly appropo: 'Property is theft!', eh?

                        As for the last the last paragraph, philosophers as varied as Hobbs, Marx and Jesus (yes, that Jesus) have offered various answers.  Myself, I like Shakespeare: "The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves"

    •  No, you can't. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JosephK74, burlydee

      At any rate, YOU are the author of this diary, and so it's YOUR task to find quotes to support YOUR arguments.

      Otherwise we would continue to regard your diary as nonsense.

      "There are some bad people on the rise/ They're saving their own skins by/ Ruining people's lives" -- Morrissey

      by Cassiodorus on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 11:37:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not currently at home (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lotlizard

        So no access to my library currently. But the idea is clearly present in those three works. Now, I will admit that as a student of Agnes Heller, I'm somewhat influenced by her reading of Marx - which owes considerably allegiance to Hegel. That said, you cannot take the teleology out of Marx. It is essential to his understanding of history & the point of this diary was to give a simple sketch of how that history works for people who may not grasp what the dialectic is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site