XPost: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky, alt.philosophy.debate, al   
   .politics.socialism   
      
   Haines Brown  wrote:   
   >J.H.Boersema writes:   
   >> [Followup-To: alt.politics.socialism]   
   >> Liam  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Marx got some things right like how Capitalism destroys society, other   
   >> things he got wrong or didn't solve.   
   >>   
   >> He didn't understand that trade is good.   
   >   
   >I'm curious on what grounds you base this assertion.   
      
   Probably mostly because communism is (so far) known to be anti-trade,   
   anti-free-trade. They wanted a system without competition between   
   companies (as far as I know).   
      
   >My understanding is that Marx saw capitalism as consisting of two   
   >interdependent sub-systems that he called the "sphere of production"   
   >and the "sphere of exchange". Surplus value arising in the sphere of   
   >production is realized in the sphere of exchange, but exploitation is   
   >the result of the interdependence of these two sub-systems. There is   
   >no exploitation in either sub-system taken in itself.   
      
   This is a good example of why I think Marxism will not work: it   
   does not say very much, yet it is *extremely* complicated, adding   
   new words that are supposed to be "very enlightening concepts" at   
   the drop of a hat. And then the reader is supposed to follow all   
   these twists and turns, and it isn't easy.  Like an infinite labyrinth,   
   it always appears to be interesting, to open new perspective, but it   
   never actually gets to the real issue, it never makes complicated   
   things easy. I feel I'm far better off studying reality (stock markets,   
   who prints money, etc).   
      
   This practical problem bothers me with my solution, which involves   
   rotating the currency (implenting new money and therefore deleting   
   all unacceptable amounts of capital, hold by whomever wherever, it   
   doesn't matter): when we (or the poeple) rotate the currency, only   
   the money below the maximum survives. That means we will have every   
   crime group in existence fighting us. It is not just the bourgois or   
   some section of greedy people, we will be up against all Maffia, all   
   crime anywhere, all people who want to be richer then our maximum. I've   
   currently set the maximum on 30 times average. Do you think this is   
   a workable amount, or does it need to be (even) higher, to diffuse   
   more opposition.  The lower the limit, the more opposition, until it   
   becomes impossible to win. What's your guess. If we set the maximum   
   on 2 times average for instance, we will have lost before we began.   
      
   [...]   
   >He also (following the classical political economists), was   
   >concerned only with ownership of the means of production, not   
   >ownership per se.   
      
   I disagree with Marx' definition of words, he should have followed   
   general convention (the people). If he says "no ownership", then that   
   means nobody even owns the socks on their feet. If he can't speak   
   normally, then I have no time to learn some new form of English. How   
   can we win a revolution and learn new and unproductive vocabularies,   
   there is a limit to what a person can do. All this wasted effort.   
      
   [...]   
   >> Marx couldn't see that, he thought all workers were angles. Angles   
   >> do no wrong, so all was supposedly right when the angles have   
   >> power. But it wasn't that simple.   
   >   
   >I fear you are speaking off the top of your head.   
      
   Definitely, I'm counting on you to correct me :-).   
      
   >                                                  The life of Marx   
   >shows clearly that he has no such illusion that workers were all   
   >angels, and I know of nothing in his writings that would suggest   
   >otherwise. That we all become angels is the hoped for outcome of the   
   >revolution to create a communist society, not a precondition for it.   
      
   He probably thought workers were angles, because what he proposed   
   barely had a defense against corruption. There was no free market to   
   keep businesses straight, just a huge collective which was supposed   
   to self regulate by talking like one huge organism. To believe that   
   works, one has to believe the subjects involved are angles.   
      
   >> Don't waste your time studying Marx. You'll just end up repeating   
   >> their mistakes and the Marxists erroneous view on how democracy   
   >> developed.   
   >   
   >I agree that our focus should be on the world as it exists today, but   
   >at the same time it would be unwise to ignore the great thinkers of   
   >the past. We study them especially because they are sometimes wrong,   
   >not because they are fountains of eternal truths. If we don't study   
   >the classics (bourgeois as well as working class), we are doomed to   
   >stand without foundation and unable to communicate effectively with   
   >others.   
      
   I can't disagree with you completely, but I think our focus has to be   
   the real world (obviously), and in order to understand it we can   
   take concepts and ideas from the great thinkers to help us move ahead   
   when needed. We start with the world and gathering data, then think   
   about it directly. Start with something stupid, and make it better,   
   as long as it is us doing the thinking we're going ahead. I figure   
   that reading history is very important, and Marx made good contributions   
   to history writing.   
      
   >> They ascribe the development of democracy (absurdly IMHO) to the   
   >> ruling class (!), helping to plead their case (!).   
   >   
   >Isn't it an historical fact that (bourgeois) democracy was a   
   >consequence of the bourgeois revolution? Didn't the French   
   >bourgeoisie, for example, bring democracy to France? If you wish to   
   >distinguish real/social/economic democracy from bourgeois democracy,   
   >you have to make that distinction explicit, or else no one will   
   >understand your point.   
      
   I just can't accept this, sorry. I think it happened this way: the   
   feudal system came under increased popular pressure. The people were   
   going to get change, so the usual smart people may have put themselves   
   in the head pretending to lead it. And then very soon they did lead   
   it, like the Unions are often trying to divert the working class from   
   their objectives by taking the lead. It is a known strategy, can buy   
   trust and leverage over time. They only pretend to want something,   
   because that means followers. And then certain things need to be   
   given to the people, to placate them, but power isn't really lost so   
   things can be turned into more favorable direction later or immediately.   
   Naturally the bourgois elements tried to retain power this way, and   
   pretend to deserve credit for making democracy (good for their ideological   
   position). That is how I feel about it (can't help it). That   
   is also what I read in an excellent book about the history of English   
   democracy (Paul Foot, The vote, very well worth reading and very well   
   written and entertaining). How can anyone imagine that smug bourgois   
   traders in their palaces wanted to give their workers the vote. I   
   can't imagine how anyone can see it that way. They will never do that,   
   unless they are on the brink of collapse somehow. Maybe Marx thought   
   bourgeois were revolutionary, because he was to a degree himself a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)