Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

...those ideas Marx had are so great...

Which of his ideas was "great"?

Gee...given all that "greatness," you would think Prom would, in reply, unleash a tide of venerable wisdom from the sainted mouth of Marx. But he's strangely quiet, it seems...

[Belinda]

Which of his ideas was "great"?

Immanuel, do you or do you not believe class struggle exists? Please provide evidence and argument if you will.

"Class struggle," which was supposed to be Marx's total explanation for history, has turned out to be a complete bust. Look at your own country: why did the "class struggles" (like the Luddites and Peterloo) last such a short time, with such small results? And how did the "working class" disappear into the middle class? Marx foresaw none of that. His simplistic good-class-bad-class thinking had no way of accounting for it.

Or look at Russia. Marx said any polity would have to pass through industrialization before revolution would happen...but Russia essentially went from feudalism and aristocracy to full-on Communism, and then started to industrialize afterward...so he was wrong about that country, too. Likewise China: from agrarian peasantry to more miserable agrarian peasantry, to totalitarian misery and industrial irrelevance, and then to Red Capitalism and sudden world relevance...Marx never imagined any such thing.

When it comes to his view of history, Marx had everything wrong. Class is not the key to anything. And now, the Neo-Marxists have hugely muted or even avoided "class" a category of analysis, and opted to stir up things like racism and other cultural issues to fill their place. This wild attempt to save Marxism from utter irrelevance is certainly also an abandonment of classical Marxist analysis.

Peterloo, and the Luddites, are evidence of class struggle and not the only evidence, of course.
The working class "disappeared into the middle class " after advances in technology and especially automation; and improved education, housing, recreation, transport, health care, and communications for the working class allowed social mobility.

There is no longer the working class of the newly urbanised and exploited workers in their millions like during the 19th century. However class struggle continues between the have classes and and the have-not classes.

There are no "Neo-Marxists": there is a Marxist view of history, which is not "simplistic" but a reasonable theory and heuristic.

There is no need to "stir up " racism. Racism is a fact .Ageism is a fact. Sexism is a fact. The Marxist view of history is that class struggle is the driver for social progress.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, do you or do you not believe class struggle exists? Please provide evidence and argument if you will.

"Class struggle," which was supposed to be Marx's total explanation for history, has turned out to be a complete bust. Look at your own country: why did the "class struggles" (like the Luddites and Peterloo) last such a short time, with such small results? And how did the "working class" disappear into the middle class? Marx foresaw none of that. His simplistic good-class-bad-class thinking had no way of accounting for it.

Or look at Russia. Marx said any polity would have to pass through industrialization before revolution would happen...but Russia essentially went from feudalism and aristocracy to full-on Communism, and then started to industrialize afterward...so he was wrong about that country, too. Likewise China: from agrarian peasantry to more miserable agrarian peasantry, to totalitarian misery and industrial irrelevance, and then to Red Capitalism and sudden world relevance...Marx never imagined any such thing.

When it comes to his view of history, Marx had everything wrong. Class is not the key to anything. And now, the Neo-Marxists have hugely muted or even avoided "class" a category of analysis, and opted to stir up things like racism and other cultural issues to fill their place. This wild attempt to save Marxism from utter irrelevance is certainly also an abandonment of classical Marxist analysis.

Peterloo, and the Luddites, are evidence of class struggle and not the only evidence, of course.

Nobody says there's no such thing as skirmishes that cross class lines. The question is whether, as Marx insisted, "class struggle" is the comprehensive way to analyze all, or even much of history. What we have come to see is that far from being, as Marx hoped, a kind of universal tool for decoding the meaning of history, "class struggle" is a very poor tool of analysis...and addiction to Marx's narrowness is precisely why so much classical Marxist writing is so trite, silly and predictable. Nowadays, of course, not even the Neo-Marxists, who are Marx's most desperate apologists, are willing to stand behind "class struggle" as an explication of historical conflict.

The working class "disappeared into the middle class " after advances in technology and especially automation; and improved education, housing, recreation, transport, health care, and communications for the working class allowed social mobility.

This is true: but it's not at all what Marx predicted. It's just further evidence that there was a whole lot that Marx simply did not foresee. He wasn't nearly as clever as he thought he was.

However class struggle continues between the have classes and and the have-not classes.

Another thing Marx missed is that "class" is a flexible category. People rise and fall in and out of "classes" all the time. That's true of the poor and of the very rich alike. So "class" is not a stable category. But what we can say is that rich people can be greedy, but some are not; and poor people can be envious and spiteful, but some are not. None of that warrants belief in stable categories called "class," nor does it suggest inevitable "class" warfare or revolution. Again, Marx was wrong.

There are no "Neo-Marxists"

They will be very surprised to hear they don't exist. There's a lot of them.

There is no need to "stir up " racism.

I thought you said they don't exist, these Neo-Marxists who stir up racism? But now you say they do?

They definitely do. (Consider, for example, Friere, or the whole "Liberation Theology" movement, or "Black Lives Matter": all Neo-Marxist to the core) They try to find it in anything they can, and when it's not involved, they'll try to put it there. "Oppression" is their only explanatory strategy for inequality of any kind. It's like they don't believe in achievement or merit of any kind. They actually have a very spiteful and dim view of human potential...nobody's allowed to rise above anybody else, everybody's just subject to power dynamics by way of class, sex, race, etc., and nobody actually deserves any advantage they ever get: all are "privileges," not earned benefits.

The Marxist view of history is that class struggle is the driver for social progress.

Yeah, that's wrong. "Struggle" produces only destruction. "Progress" is a whole lot harder than just breaking things. You actually have to have positive plans to build things and make them go forward. They don't.

This goes back to his stupid legacy from Hegel, the "dialectical" part of "dialectical materialism." As hard as it is to imagine, these idiots think that progress can come from mere destruction. That's why they call themselves "Critical Theorists," rather than something more positive, like "Constructive Builders." They actually have no plan for being constructive or building any kind of future. They think they're doing their part for "History" (their God substitute) by being merely destructive.

They're spiteful, arrogant, lazy and incompetent. That's pretty much the whole story of "Critical Theory."

[Will Bouwman]

Not "social." "Socialist." There's a world of difference. You need to start with the right terminology.

I don't accept your characterisation of socialism.

Well it's from Marx. So take issue with him. It was he who said it means "state ownership of the means of production."

The part of your characterisation of socialism that I don't accept is that it isn't really socialism unless it is fronted by

...wicked opportunists who found sponsoring Socialism serviceable to their desires for power...

Whatever you may think of Clement Attlee, he was no Stalin, Hitler or Mao.

Nor was he able to make Socialism the dominant form of governance in England, nor to take over all the means of production in the way Hitler, Stalin and Mao did. So we can say that, if he ever intended to do so, then he was an impotent Socialist. Otherwise, a democrat, not a Socialist.

Well, first show that he intended to take over all the means of production, then call him impotent. What you are engaging in is rhetoric, not philosophy. It is entirely possible to believe in a mixed economy, I know that, because I do.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't accept your characterisation of socialism.

Well it's from Marx. So take issue with him. It was he who said it means "state ownership of the means of production."

The part of your characterisation of socialism that I don't accept is that it isn't really socialism unless it is fronted by

...wicked opportunists who found sponsoring Socialism serviceable to their desires for power...

I didn't say that. You made it up, by twisting some of my words out of context. What I said was that Socialism is always taken over by those types. And it is. In 100% of cases where Socialism is made the economic paradigm.

Socialist dogma doesn't say it wants that. But the very presence of Socialism invites it. Socialism holds the door for it. And the way it does it is by collectivizing people and consolidating lone power in the hands of its Big Government, or soviet or elite. It's only a short time until a "strongman" arises from that elite, takes over, and starts to do what always happens...economic milking of the people, mismanagement of the economy, removal of personal freedoms and rights, and then death.

Socialism is the manure-pile in which the weeds of totalitarianism can so quickly grow.

Whatever you may think of Clement Attlee, he was no Stalin, Hitler or Mao.

Nor was he able to make Socialism the dominant form of governance in England, nor to take over all the means of production in the way Hitler, Stalin and Mao did. So we can say that, if he ever intended to do so, then he was an impotent Socialist. Otherwise, a democrat, not a Socialist.

Well, first show that he intended to take over all the means of production,

I don't say whether or not he did. I'm not trying to read his mind. I say IF he did, he was obviously impotent. And IF he didn't, he was obviously much more democrat than Socialist.

If you have any intention of being honest, then you obviously need to stop trying to misrepresent me as having said things I have not. You can't put your own words in my mouth and then criticize me for them. They're your fault, not mine.

[Immanuel Can]

Other interesting facts:

Donald Trump won the election by eliciting the mass of votes of those who make under $100k/year. The Democrats, who are more Socialist in their policies, had the majority of those who make more than that. Biden had two billionaires to every one Trump had. 75% of hedge funders donated to Kamala Harris. 9/10 of the richest counties are rep'd by Dems.

So who is representing "the working class," and which is the party of Big Business? And why are all the rich folks backing the party with the more Socialist policies? Don't they realize that they're allegedy "slitting their own throats," if what Socialism claims to represent is what Socialism really does?

Or do they know something about Socialism that today's lower-class Socialists don't seem to realize?

[promethean75]

Excuse me, but why must there be 'parties' that 'represent' the working class? Why cain't them n*ggas represent themselves and run the gubbnint?

[Immanuel Can]

Excuse me, but why must there be 'parties' that 'represent' the working class? Why cain't them n*ggas represent themselves and run the gubbnint?

Prom? You're back. Great!

Where's that list of Marx's "great" ideas? I'm just dying to see it.

[promethean75]

A message to IC from The American-Canadian Democratic Worker's Association and Committee For The Study Of Socialism

[Belinda]

"Class struggle," which was supposed to be Marx's total explanation for history, has turned out to be a complete bust. Look at your own country: why did the "class struggles" (like the Luddites and Peterloo) last such a short time, with such small results? And how did the "working class" disappear into the middle class? Marx foresaw none of that. His simplistic good-class-bad-class thinking had no way of accounting for it.

Or look at Russia. Marx said any polity would have to pass through industrialization before revolution would happen...but Russia essentially went from feudalism and aristocracy to full-on Communism, and then started to industrialize afterward...so he was wrong about that country, too. Likewise China: from agrarian peasantry to more miserable agrarian peasantry, to totalitarian misery and industrial irrelevance, and then to Red Capitalism and sudden world relevance...Marx never imagined any such thing.

When it comes to his view of history, Marx had everything wrong. Class is not the key to anything. And now, the Neo-Marxists have hugely muted or even avoided "class" a category of analysis, and opted to stir up things like racism and other cultural issues to fill their place. This wild attempt to save Marxism from utter irrelevance is certainly also an abandonment of classical Marxist analysis.

Peterloo, and the Luddites, are evidence of class struggle and not the only evidence, of course.

Nobody says there's no such thing as skirmishes that cross class lines. The question is whether, as Marx insisted, "class struggle" is the comprehensive way to analyze all, or even much of history. What we have come to see is that far from being, as Marx hoped, a kind of universal tool for decoding the meaning of history, "class struggle" is a very poor tool of analysis...and addiction to Marx's narrowness is precisely why so much classical Marxist writing is so trite, silly and predictable. Nowadays, of course, not even the Neo-Marxists, who are Marx's most desperate apologists, are willing to stand behind "class struggle" as an explication of historical conflict.

The working class "disappeared into the middle class " after advances in technology and especially automation; and improved education, housing, recreation, transport, health care, and communications for the working class allowed social mobility.

This is true: but it's not at all what Marx predicted. It's just further evidence that there was a whole lot that Marx simply did not foresee. He wasn't nearly as clever as he thought he was.

However class struggle continues between the have classes and and the have-not classes.

Another thing Marx missed is that "class" is a flexible category. People rise and fall in and out of "classes" all the time. That's true of the poor and of the very rich alike. So "class" is not a stable category. But what we can say is that rich people can be greedy, but some are not; and poor people can be envious and spiteful, but some are not. None of that warrants belief in stable categories called "class," nor does it suggest inevitable "class" warfare or revolution. Again, Marx was wrong.

There are no "Neo-Marxists"

They will be very surprised to hear they don't exist. There's a lot of them.

There is no need to "stir up " racism.

I thought you said they don't exist, these Neo-Marxists who stir up racism? But now you say they do?

They definitely do. (Consider, for example, Friere, or the whole "Liberation Theology" movement, or "Black Lives Matter": all Neo-Marxist to the core) They try to find it in anything they can, and when it's not involved, they'll try to put it there. "Oppression" is their only explanatory strategy for inequality of any kind. It's like they don't believe in achievement or merit of any kind. They actually have a very spiteful and dim view of human potential...nobody's allowed to rise above anybody else, everybody's just subject to power dynamics by way of class, sex, race, etc., and nobody actually deserves any advantage they ever get: all are "privileges," not earned benefits.

The Marxist view of history is that class struggle is the driver for social progress.

Yeah, that's wrong. "Struggle" produces only destruction. "Progress" is a whole lot harder than just breaking things. You actually have to have positive plans to build things and make them go forward. They don't.

This goes back to his stupid legacy from Hegel, the "dialectical" part of "dialectical materialism." As hard as it is to imagine, these idiots think that progress can come from mere destruction. That's why they call themselves "Critical Theorists," rather than something more positive, like "Constructive Builders." They actually have no plan for being constructive or building any kind of future. They think they're doing their part for "History" (their God substitute) by being merely destructive.

They're spiteful, arrogant, lazy and incompetent. That's pretty much the whole story of "Critical Theory."

But class is indeed a stable category! The poor, the despised. the neglected, and the stranger in our midst have been with us for centuries. and probably always will be with us. What else can possibly drive social change other than the struggle for existence.

[Immanuel Can]

A message to IC from The American-Canadian Democratic Worker's Association and Committee For The Study Of Socialism

So, you say Marx is full of such "great" ideas that you couldn't even find one of them. I guess that kills your excuse.

Not surprising, though. Marx only had his history wrong, his historiography, his economics, his politics, his anthropology his theology and his sociology. Oh yeah...and his personal life. So you can't expect to have much in the way of "great" ideas after that.

[Immanuel Can]

Peterloo, and the Luddites, are evidence of class struggle and not the only evidence, of course.

Nobody says there's no such thing as skirmishes that cross class lines. The question is whether, as Marx insisted, "class struggle" is the comprehensive way to analyze all, or even much of history. What we have come to see is that far from being, as Marx hoped, a kind of universal tool for decoding the meaning of history, "class struggle" is a very poor tool of analysis...and addiction to Marx's narrowness is precisely why so much classical Marxist writing is so trite, silly and predictable. Nowadays, of course, not even the Neo-Marxists, who are Marx's most desperate apologists, are willing to stand behind "class struggle" as an explication of historical conflict.

The working class "disappeared into the middle class " after advances in technology and especially automation; and improved education, housing, recreation, transport, health care, and communications for the working class allowed social mobility.

This is true: but it's not at all what Marx predicted. It's just further evidence that there was a whole lot that Marx simply did not foresee. He wasn't nearly as clever as he thought he was.

However class struggle continues between the have classes and and the have-not classes.

Another thing Marx missed is that "class" is a flexible category. People rise and fall in and out of "classes" all the time. That's true of the poor and of the very rich alike. So "class" is not a stable category. But what we can say is that rich people can be greedy, but some are not; and poor people can be envious and spiteful, but some are not. None of that warrants belief in stable categories called "class," nor does it suggest inevitable "class" warfare or revolution. Again, Marx was wrong.

There are no "Neo-Marxists"

They will be very surprised to hear they don't exist. There's a lot of them.

There is no need to "stir up " racism.

I thought you said they don't exist, these Neo-Marxists who stir up racism? But now you say they do?

They definitely do. (Consider, for example, Friere, or the whole "Liberation Theology" movement, or "Black Lives Matter": all Neo-Marxist to the core) They try to find it in anything they can, and when it's not involved, they'll try to put it there. "Oppression" is their only explanatory strategy for inequality of any kind. It's like they don't believe in achievement or merit of any kind. They actually have a very spiteful and dim view of human potential...nobody's allowed to rise above anybody else, everybody's just subject to power dynamics by way of class, sex, race, etc., and nobody actually deserves any advantage they ever get: all are "privileges," not earned benefits.

The Marxist view of history is that class struggle is the driver for social progress.

Yeah, that's wrong. "Struggle" produces only destruction. "Progress" is a whole lot harder than just breaking things. You actually have to have positive plans to build things and make them go forward. They don't.

This goes back to his stupid legacy from Hegel, the "dialectical" part of "dialectical materialism." As hard as it is to imagine, these idiots think that progress can come from mere destruction. That's why they call themselves "Critical Theorists," rather than something more positive, like "Constructive Builders." They actually have no plan for being constructive or building any kind of future. They think they're doing their part for "History" (their God substitute) by being merely destructive.

They're spiteful, arrogant, lazy and incompetent. That's pretty much the whole story of "Critical Theory."

But class is indeed a stable category! The poor, the despised. the neglected, and the stranger in our midst have been with us for centuries. and probably always will be with us.

But they haven't been the same people. People move in and out of those categories all the time. People don't just go from rags to riches, either; they go from riches to rags, as well. It's characteristic of inheritor generations to fritter away their wealth, just as it is relatively unremarkable for ordinary people to invent things or create businesses that allow them to rise to great prosperity. These things happen all the time.

So it isn't "class struggle" that's the problem at all. The fact of "classes" at any given time, is indeed universal, as is hierarchy. But they're not "stable:" they're transient, fluid, shifting. And they readily take on new members.

And what's the alternative? If nobody is allowed to rise, then there's no such thing as quality, as innovation, as achievement, as excellence. And this is one of the most unfortunate effects of Socialism: the quashing of human potential. So wonder, then, that Socialist societies tend to stagnate economically and collapse...they tend to be spiteful against merit and excellence, and will not allow people to rise. They instantly view such people as "bourgeios," "counter-revolutionary," "capitalist" and hence as "oppressors" -- often, for no more than being excellent.

[Will Bouwman]

...he was obviously much more democrat than Socialist.

Finally you acknowledge that is possible to be both.

[Immanuel Can]

...he was obviously much more democrat than Socialist.

Finally you acknowledge that is possible to be both.

Again, you misrepresent what I said...but this time with triumphalist self-congratulation, it seems.

You are too soon pleased, alas. I did not say that. I said that to the extent one is a Socialist, one is not a democrat; and to the extent one is a democrat, one is not a Socialist. And I might add, to the extent one tries to be both, one is merely self-contradicting.

I hope this clarifies what you sought so earnestly to muddy.

Look, I get it, Will. You're personally dependent on the NHS, and you mistake a single social program for Socialism (which is a totalizing political and ideological position) as if everything Socialist worked like the NHS. Of course, this is a mistake. The NHS couldn't survive a year without what you call "capitalist" money-generation through a free market economy. Even with that, it's your most expensive single social program, gobbling up much more than it returns to your GDP. In other words, it will only remain in place if "capitalist" enterprise remains vigorous as well. And the irony, then, is that what you think is "Socialism" depends entirely for its existence on the very "capitalist" business practices you claim to despise.

So Socialism will kill the NHS. If you want that, keep campaigning for it.

[Will Bouwman]

Look, I get it, Will.

No you don't.

You're personally dependent on the NHS, and you mistake a single social program for Socialism (which is a totalizing political and ideological position) as if everything Socialist worked like the NHS.

That's ad hominem. As I said:

As well as creating the NHS, the Attlee government nationalised coal, electricity, gas, steel, railways, road transport, civil aviation and the Bank of England. That was about a fifth of the economy. Nationalised industries don't kill people, murderous tyrants do.

In my view, a mixed economy has the advantage that everyone has a stake in certain industries such that they are run for the benefit of everyone, rather than just those with the means to own privatised shares.

The NHS couldn't survive a year without what you call "capitalist" money-generation through a free market economy. Even with that, it's your most expensive single social program, gobbling up much more than it returns to your GDP. In other words, it will only remain in place if "capitalist" enterprise remains vigorous as well.

My thanks to FlashDangerpants for this:

The neoliberal in me feels required to point out that actually Immanuel Can might be economically illiterate to a roughly similar extent that he is philosophically illiterate. Welfare programs functions as insurance and like all insurance policies the point is to spread the cost across a wide population of events that would be financially devastating for the individual. The notion of there being any need for them to be "self sustaining" is a canard that would be rejected both by socialists and capitalists.

It's like saying that your car insurer wouldn't last a week without collecting premiums from policy holders: True, but only in the stupidest way possible.

And the irony, then, is that what you think is "Socialism" depends entirely for its existence on the very "capitalist" business practices you claim to despise.

You really don't get it. Nowhere have I claimed to despise "capitalist" business practices.