carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/10/85)
A couple of months ago JoSH wrote an article in which he explained what he saw as the difference between socialist and libertarian points of view. He wrote: >This may come as a shock to you, but I flatter myself that I *do* >understand the socialist point of view, and I can even tell you what >is wrong with it in a very few words. Socialists view the people of >the world, and their economic interactions, as a great machine or >system, and see things that are wrong, and want to fix them. (Please >note that I'm assuming here that the socialists are both >well-intentioned *and* competent!) Now when you go to fix a machine, >there are two points to the process that I must point out. First, >you change parts or modify the design of the machine without any >consideration for the well-being of the parts in and of themselves, >but only to make sure they properly serve the function they were >intended for. If they are misshapen you throw them away. (Consider >the purges that are a hallmark of the nations that embrace Marxism >thoroughgoingly.) Libertarians believe that consideration of the >individual is foremost, that the rights of people are primary and >those of groups only derivative. Who would you say is the most influential socialist thinker, to whom most socialists appeal as their inspiration? Most people would agree that it is Karl Marx. The fact that Stalin believed in advancing the cause of the proletariat over their dead bodies does not make this a defining element of socialist belief, any more than the fact that some "Christians" have persecuted Jews and heretics make this a part of "what all Christians believe in." I suggest we look at the intellectual father of socialism to see whether Marx's point of view matches the description given above by JoSH. It is precisely Marx's most fundamental criticism of capitalism that it results in the general progress of the collectivity "humanity" at the expense of individuals. This has two aspects: it prevents many people from realizing their potential for a fulfilling life (alienation), and it enriches some by the exploitation of others. Whether Marx was right or wrong, it is indisputable that this is the core of his indictment of capitalism, evident on even a casual knowledge of his writings, and anyone who misses this point has not understood a word of Marx. >(Consider the purges that are a hallmark of the nations that embrace >Marxism thoroughgoingly.) This seems to imply that belief in Marxism implies belief in purges, which is obvious nonsense. Show me a passage (there must be dozens of them) where Marx declares that a large segment of the population should be exterminated "for the good of society." Both Marx and I believe that ultimately only the individual is morally relevant. One commonly hears from libertarian types that socialists "treat people as groups," believe that it is just fine to sacrifice the individual for the sake of society, or believe that something other than the individual counts morally. It is important to see what utter nonsense this is. I can find no support for such views in Marx, and much evidence to the contrary. In the Manifesto Marx and Engels describe their ideal as "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." JoSH's description above as society as a huge machine is exactly how Marx described the factory system under capitalism, in which the worker becomes a replaceable cog in a machine, becoming "an appendage of the machine," to be thrown away (unemployed) when no longer needed by the great capital-generating and -accumulating machine. His basic indictment was that men and women, individuals, were compelled to serve the purposes of this great wealth-generating engine, rather than the system's serving the purposes and needs of individuals. I am perfectly happy to read thoughtful rebuttals to Marx, if you believe he was wrong in his charges against capitalism (I think a great deal of what he said was wrong). But when libertarians show that they do not even understand the basic charge made by Marx against capitalism, I am tempted to conclude that they are grossly ignorant of socialist thought and to question whether they seriously desire to understand the views of people who disagree with them. To be continued. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (10/16/85)
Before I start in on this article, I'd like to thank Mr. Carnes for his subsequent articles on the works of Arrow and Pareto, etc. I must say that Richard has maintained an unusually high level of scholarliness for a netnews discussion. In article <210@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >A couple of months ago JoSH wrote...: >>... Socialists view the people of >>the world, and their economic interactions, as a great machine or >>system, and see things that are wrong, and want to fix them. >>... you change parts or modify the design of the machine without any >>consideration for the well-being of the parts in and of themselves, >>but only to make sure they properly serve the function they were >>intended for. If they are misshapen you throw them away. >>... Libertarians believe that consideration of the >>individual is foremost, that the rights of people are primary and >>those of groups only derivative. > >Who would you say is the most influential socialist thinker, to whom >most socialists appeal as their inspiration? Most people would agree >that it is Karl Marx. ... I suggest we look at the >intellectual father of socialism to see whether Marx's point of view >matches the description given above by JoSH. It doesn't. It is my understanding that Marx spent the vast majority of his effort erecting a comprehensive economic/historical theory of conditions up to and during his day, and didn't spend much effort on figuring out how the Communist revolution would do things better. Indeed, as I and other respondents here have noted, what descriptions of his utopia Marx did give, resemble "Libertaria" as much as any other proposed system. Richard's following logic appears to run like this: -- My description of socialism does not match Marx. -- I therefore do not understand Marx's basic indictment of capitalism. -- I therefore am "grossly ignorant" of socialist thought, and have no "serious desire" to understand it. As mentioned before, I don't think Marx has much to do with socialism as practiced today. When leading socialist thinkers such as Harrington begin economics texts ("Twilight of Capitalism") with lame excuses for the Russian Communist regime ("bad weather"!!!), I will not be put off by "but that's not what Marx said." Socialism, to me, exists wherever there is State interference with voluntary economic interactions. >It is precisely Marx's most fundamental criticism of capitalism that >it results in the general progress of the collectivity "humanity" at >the expense of individuals. ... > >Both Marx and I believe that ultimately only the individual is >morally relevant. If this is true, I do not see why you aren't a libertarian. If you really believe this, how can you support systematic State prior interference with individual moral decisions? *If only the individual is moral, why do you believe in collective control?* If you do not believe in collective control, please say so, explicitly. >One commonly hears from libertarian types that >socialists "treat people as groups,"... I can find no support for such >views in Marx, and much evidence to the contrary. Current-day socialists are strongly connected with efforts to put as much of the economy as possible under State control "for the public good." I am quite ready to believe that Marx was not a great supporter of this particular style of "revolution," since he believed the State to be a tool of the capitalists. However, as before, theoretical Marxism is irrelevant to modern practical socialism. However, I seem to recall that Marx based his theory of history on the idea of the interactions of *classes*, in distinction with then current ideas which placed considerable weight on the actions of *individuals*, typically kings, generals, and religious figures. So I would claim that Marxist thought, at its very core, treats people as groups and not as individuals. --JoSH
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/27/85)
JoSH writes: > It is my understanding that Marx spent the vast majority >of his effort erecting a comprehensive economic/historical theory of >conditions up to and during his day, and didn't spend much effort on >figuring out how the Communist revolution would do things better. True enough. His vision of communism was strongly colored by wishful thinking and the belief that all good things must go together. >Indeed, as I and other respondents here have noted, what descriptions >of his utopia Marx did give, resemble "Libertaria" as much as any other >proposed system. There is a strong resemblance. There are also very important differences, including how to get from here to there. >As mentioned before, I don't think Marx has much to do with socialism >as practiced today. When leading socialist thinkers such as Harrington >begin economics texts ("Twilight of Capitalism") with lame excuses for >the Russian Communist regime ("bad weather"!!!), I will not be put >off by "but that's not what Marx said." Socialism, to me, exists >wherever there is State interference with voluntary economic interactions. JoSH, it won't do to make a list of things one dislikes, and call it "socialism." A better method, when debating with persons who claim to be democratic socialists, is to find out what they actually believe in, and respond to that if you disagree with it. You mention Mike Harrington as making lame excuses for the Russian Communists. I don't recall the passage (I gave my copy of *ToC* to a neoconservative friend) but I do know that Harrington is strongly critical of Soviet Communism and that he bases his critique on none other than Karl Marx, saying in a nutshell that Marx would have found the Soviet Union repellent. Harrington discusses various socialist regimes at great length in *Socialism* (unfortunately out of print last I heard). In *Twilight* Harrington bases his critique of 20th-century capitalism explicitly on Marx. Marx may not have much to do with socialism as *practiced* today in, say, Eastern Europe, but we were presumably discussing the ideals and principles of those who espouse democratic socialism in this newsgroup. (For the record, I consider the Solidarity movement in Poland to be a splendid example of democratic socialism.) Marx remains profoundly important for most Western socialist intellectuals; hence my objection to a critique of socialist thought (society as a machine, individuals as expendable, etc.) that is more or less identical with Marx's critique of capitalism. If JoSH is indeed serious about understanding socialist beliefs, it would be a good thing for him to read Irving Howe's article in the Fall 1983 *Dissent*, "Thinking About Socialism," where Howe says more or less the opposite of what JoSH thinks he will say. I also suggest reading the article on Henry Pachter's writings in the same issue; the excerpts from Alec Nove's *The Economics of Feasible Socialism* in the Summer 1985 issue; Michael Walzer's *Radical Principles*; Howe's excellent anthology *Beyond the Welfare State* including Harrington's article on "What Socialists Would Do In America -- If They Could"; and Harrington's book on *Socialism*. These books and articles will give one a good idea of what democratic socialists are saying. (Please note that I don't necessarily agree with everything they say.) >>Both Marx and I believe that ultimately only the individual is >>morally relevant. > >If this is true, I do not see why you aren't a libertarian. If you >really believe this, how can you support systematic State prior >interference with individual moral decisions? *If only the individual >is moral, why do you believe in collective control?* What I said was that ultimately only the individual is morally relevant. I do not see the contradiction that JoSH finds with a belief in democratic control, which I would roughly define as a tendency toward equalization of the power of individuals over the conditions of their own lives. It is precisely the *individual* that matters. >Current-day socialists are strongly connected with efforts to put as >much of the economy as possible under State control "for the public good." >I am quite ready to believe that Marx was not a great supporter of this >particular style of "revolution," since he believed the State to be a tool >of the capitalists. However, as before, theoretical Marxism is irrelevant >to modern practical socialism. (i) Most Western socialists are not trying to put as much of the economy as possible under state control. (ii) The welfare state was only a gleam in J.S. Mill's eye when Marx wrote *Capital*, so it is a moot point what Marx would have thought of it. (iii) Marx changed his mind about the state being merely a capitalist tool as a result of reflecting on the events of 1848-1852 or so. See *The Class Struggles in France*, *The 18th Brumaire*, and other writings. Modern Marxist theories of the state have gone far beyond Marx. (iv) Again, the belief that Marx is irrelevant to democratic socialism is profoundly mistaken. >However, I seem to recall that Marx based his theory of history on >the idea of the interactions of *classes*, in distinction with then >current ideas which placed considerable weight on the actions of >*individuals*, typically kings, generals, and religious figures. >So I would claim that Marxist thought, at its very core, treats >people as groups and not as individuals. It is true that Marx believed that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." (He also believed that it was the history of the development of the productive forces, and the integration of the two points of view is a major theoretical problem.) The question is, what do you mean by "treat people as groups and not as individuals"? To say that the concept of "class" is extremely useful in explaining the course of history is not to deny the explanatory importance of individuals, still less their moral importance. There is no necessary connection between the theory of class struggle and a belief that people are faceless masses or whatever it is that JoSH means. It is as if I said, "The struggle between the US and the USSR is of enormous importance in explaining 20th-century history," and JoSH replied, "Aha, so you treat people as groups, not as individuals." I welcome thoughtful criticisms of socialist positions, but I do get weary of the endless parade of straw men. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/28/85)
Correction: The article on socialism by Irving Howe that I recommended to JoSH is in the Fall 1985 *Dissent*, i.e. the current issue. *Dissent* is an excellent source for American dem-socialist views. I mentioned Marx's *18th Brumaire*. This is Marx at his finest and is well worth reading even if you have no interest in Marxism, particularly if you are interested in 19th-century France. I suggest reading the first and last sections if you are not sure you want to read the whole thing. It is a first-rate introduction to Marx's theories of history, class struggle, and politics, and in addition is of interest because the subject of the essay, Louis Bonaparte's rise to power, is akin to what we would today call fascism. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes