Keith Richards, Karl Marx, and the satisfaction of genuine work(slackwire.blogspot.com)
slackwire.blogspot.com
Keith Richards, Karl Marx, and the satisfaction of genuine work
http://slackwire.blogspot.com/2010/12/satisfaction.html
20 comments
Huh?
My reading of the text was that he was praising Marx's concept of work and more or less attacking liberals for not having it. He claims old Karl agree that creative, productive activity is superior to consumption. I see not mention of the Marxist concept of a planned economy in the text either.
There are strong indications that B. Traven was a revolutionary German Marxist who escaped the failed Sparticus rebellion after WWI, btw.
My reading of the text was that he was praising Marx's concept of work and more or less attacking liberals for not having it. He claims old Karl agree that creative, productive activity is superior to consumption. I see not mention of the Marxist concept of a planned economy in the text either.
There are strong indications that B. Traven was a revolutionary German Marxist who escaped the failed Sparticus rebellion after WWI, btw.
Honestly you're probably right when put in that context (I had no idea who B. Traven was) but if that's the case this post is kind of odd. It ignores the end result of every government based on Marx's theories that has ever existed in the history of man.
I mean really, does anyone think people living in communist Russia and being assigned an occupation based on an aptitude test weren't "alienated" from their work (to use Marx's term)?
Also it's odd to quote Jesus while defending Karl Marx (who famously called Religion the opiate of the masses and claimed true happiness could only be achieved when religion was abolished)
Anyway, as I said, you're almost certainly right I'm just saying my mistake wasn't entirely stupid ;)
I mean really, does anyone think people living in communist Russia and being assigned an occupation based on an aptitude test weren't "alienated" from their work (to use Marx's term)?
Also it's odd to quote Jesus while defending Karl Marx (who famously called Religion the opiate of the masses and claimed true happiness could only be achieved when religion was abolished)
Anyway, as I said, you're almost certainly right I'm just saying my mistake wasn't entirely stupid ;)
> It ignores the end result of every government based on Marx's theories that has ever existed in the history of man.
Marx wrote a brilliant critique of capitalism, but failed miserably when it came to designing what the replacement would be. He believed that an almost supernatural rationality would evolve out of the inherent contradictions of capitalism and the worker/ owner conflict; organizing society rationally from the top down is really the only thing of his that made it into supposedly marxist regimes.
Don't judge Marx by Russia -- read Marx. Or, well, don't pretend to know what Marx said...
He also believed very strongly that "communism" could only appear in a society after it had gone through its capitalist stage thoroughly -- he was hoping for Great Britain to become communist, and the idea of an agrarian society like China or Russia becoming communist was just goofy.
Marx also never foresaw the compromises that would happen in an increasingly wealthy and unionized society, and which have forestalled any revolutionary drive (as the builder of the first tract home developments said: people with mortgages and a postage stamp worth of land don't join the CP.)
Also "liberal" here refers to liberal as in "neo-liberal": those who support the freeing up of regulation and tradition in the support of capitalism. You may be using "liberal" in the current usage of "leftwing and sort of socialist" which it never meant originally. This liberalism very much is tied up with "utilitarianism", which basically thinks that everything can be reckoned in terms of consumer utility; the idea that we are driven by consumption and pleasure (as in "the pleasure principle") pervades our society, but is not necessarily the basic scientific principle that economists and Freudians pretend it is; meaningful work or prestige might be contenders...
Marx wrote a brilliant critique of capitalism, but failed miserably when it came to designing what the replacement would be. He believed that an almost supernatural rationality would evolve out of the inherent contradictions of capitalism and the worker/ owner conflict; organizing society rationally from the top down is really the only thing of his that made it into supposedly marxist regimes.
Don't judge Marx by Russia -- read Marx. Or, well, don't pretend to know what Marx said...
He also believed very strongly that "communism" could only appear in a society after it had gone through its capitalist stage thoroughly -- he was hoping for Great Britain to become communist, and the idea of an agrarian society like China or Russia becoming communist was just goofy.
Marx also never foresaw the compromises that would happen in an increasingly wealthy and unionized society, and which have forestalled any revolutionary drive (as the builder of the first tract home developments said: people with mortgages and a postage stamp worth of land don't join the CP.)
Also "liberal" here refers to liberal as in "neo-liberal": those who support the freeing up of regulation and tradition in the support of capitalism. You may be using "liberal" in the current usage of "leftwing and sort of socialist" which it never meant originally. This liberalism very much is tied up with "utilitarianism", which basically thinks that everything can be reckoned in terms of consumer utility; the idea that we are driven by consumption and pleasure (as in "the pleasure principle") pervades our society, but is not necessarily the basic scientific principle that economists and Freudians pretend it is; meaningful work or prestige might be contenders...
> Marx wrote a brilliant critique of capitalism
Not really, because he makes a fundamental mistake. He thinks those that hold capital use violence and oppression against the masses.
But he's got the cause and effect wrong - the people who use violence and oppression wind up seizing capital.
What's the difference? Well, look at history. It's not the merchants and traders and inventors and builders that oppress people - it's the people with swords and guns. Marx's prescription to that is that the oppressed people grab swords and guns and raise some hell, and take over, and then... whoops.
The accumulation of resources (private property) and voluntary exchange (capitalism) aren't problems. Violence, coercion, oppression is the problem. Unfortunately, Marx gets the cause and effect backwards. He sees violent people holding capital, and blames the capital instead of the violence. He then says the people without capital should use violence to seize it... with predictably bad results.
Marx didn't understand capitalism - he never did productive work in his life. The cause of oppression stems from violence and coercion, not accumulation of resources and voluntary exchange.
Not really, because he makes a fundamental mistake. He thinks those that hold capital use violence and oppression against the masses.
But he's got the cause and effect wrong - the people who use violence and oppression wind up seizing capital.
What's the difference? Well, look at history. It's not the merchants and traders and inventors and builders that oppress people - it's the people with swords and guns. Marx's prescription to that is that the oppressed people grab swords and guns and raise some hell, and take over, and then... whoops.
The accumulation of resources (private property) and voluntary exchange (capitalism) aren't problems. Violence, coercion, oppression is the problem. Unfortunately, Marx gets the cause and effect backwards. He sees violent people holding capital, and blames the capital instead of the violence. He then says the people without capital should use violence to seize it... with predictably bad results.
Marx didn't understand capitalism - he never did productive work in his life. The cause of oppression stems from violence and coercion, not accumulation of resources and voluntary exchange.
> Not really, because he makes a fundamental mistake. He thinks those that hold capital use violence and oppression against the masses.
You will disagree, I would imagine, but Marx would argue that one of the most important features of capitalism is that it appears to be an abstract relationship of buying and selling sans violence, even as it is very much a system of oppression of one class over another. He doesn't forget that the swords are put away (though they come out when necessary to sustain the market relationships), he just disagrees with you that forcing a whole lot of people to trade their labor on the market (at a low-ish price, since they don't control the market environment) is any less oppressive than telling a peasant explicitly to till the soil or get killed.
No offense, but he understood capitalism a lot better than you -- he just didn't believe capitalists when they said "it's not the merchants and traders ... that oppress people"
You will disagree, I would imagine, but Marx would argue that one of the most important features of capitalism is that it appears to be an abstract relationship of buying and selling sans violence, even as it is very much a system of oppression of one class over another. He doesn't forget that the swords are put away (though they come out when necessary to sustain the market relationships), he just disagrees with you that forcing a whole lot of people to trade their labor on the market (at a low-ish price, since they don't control the market environment) is any less oppressive than telling a peasant explicitly to till the soil or get killed.
No offense, but he understood capitalism a lot better than you -- he just didn't believe capitalists when they said "it's not the merchants and traders ... that oppress people"
Marx had quite a bit to say about 'voluntary' exchange, hahaha.
joe_the_user's exactly right.
when you don't create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create.
— Why The Lucky Stiff
— Why The Lucky Stiff
"A good trade, when it's a question of meeting basic needs. But once they are met -- and they are met; they are finite, tho liberals, from Mill to DeLong, deny it"
We should be thankful that our ancestors were not content to just live at a bare subsistence level.
We should be thankful that our ancestors were not content to just live at a bare subsistence level.
This is an honest question: When did "liberal" come to mean "who think that human wellbeing consists in the consumption of goods and services"
I presume this is a new political meme that I'd not heard. Where did it come from?
I presume this is a new political meme that I'd not heard. Where did it come from?
I'm pretty well-convinced that sooner or later, quoting Marx and quoting Hitler will have the same levels of social respectability. They both advocated a lot of nonsense and violent insanity.
Just like a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, the advocate of violent nonsense occasionally has a decent quote. Still, you can find better sources of quotes on anti-consumerism than Marx, just like you can find better sources of quotes on helping people than Hitler... too much violent insane nonsense attached to those blind squirrels, even if they occasionally stumble on a nut.
Just like a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, the advocate of violent nonsense occasionally has a decent quote. Still, you can find better sources of quotes on anti-consumerism than Marx, just like you can find better sources of quotes on helping people than Hitler... too much violent insane nonsense attached to those blind squirrels, even if they occasionally stumble on a nut.
If you compared Lenin or Stalin to Hitler, sure, but comparing Marx to Hitler is pretty strange. If anything he's notoriously silent on how exactly one would organize a communist society, and was politically ineffectual. He spends most of his time as a theoretician of how capitalism works, with some pretty vague ideas of what would replace it. A closer analogy might be comparing Marx and Ayn Rand: theoreticians most at home critiquing the social order they don't like, with some very idealized notions of how their preferred version would work, and a flair for manifesto-writing.
I haven't read any of Rand's nonfiction, so correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think she advocated violence as a means of change.
Hitler and Marx both did. Marx advocated violent overthrow and takeover by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - and when it was tried, it worked really, really badly, leading to much destruction and death and misery.
Marxist-inspired philosophy and governance have been a wasteland of insanity and destruction... for the last 100 years, nothing else even comes close in terms of destruction. Fascism comes in a distant second. I don't think any Randian philosophy of individuality has stacked up millions of bodies in the same way, but I'm open to being corrected on that.
Hitler and Marx both did. Marx advocated violent overthrow and takeover by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - and when it was tried, it worked really, really badly, leading to much destruction and death and misery.
Marxist-inspired philosophy and governance have been a wasteland of insanity and destruction... for the last 100 years, nothing else even comes close in terms of destruction. Fascism comes in a distant second. I don't think any Randian philosophy of individuality has stacked up millions of bodies in the same way, but I'm open to being corrected on that.
I may be wrong, but I don't think that Marx advocated first blood. He thought that a peaceful revolution was possible in several countries, but anticipated a violent response from the power in place in others.
Anyway, you seem to forget that a lot of violence has been conducted, if not in his name, under the guise of ideas developed by Adam Smith. How may bloody dictators have been backed, when not put in place, by the US, for economical reasons?
Anyway, you seem to forget that a lot of violence has been conducted, if not in his name, under the guise of ideas developed by Adam Smith. How may bloody dictators have been backed, when not put in place, by the US, for economical reasons?
Rand believes in force. Remember Ragnar Danneskjöld, the philosopher turned pirate?
Rand doesn't believe force should be used to create a utopia. She believes that force should be used in self-defense when it is rational to do so - and this includes defending your property from collectivists. So basically she believes it is morally acceptable to violently defend your property from tax collectors, as long as in doing so you are not sacrificing some greater good such as your happiness and well-being.
Rand doesn't believe force should be used to create a utopia. She believes that force should be used in self-defense when it is rational to do so - and this includes defending your property from collectivists. So basically she believes it is morally acceptable to violently defend your property from tax collectors, as long as in doing so you are not sacrificing some greater good such as your happiness and well-being.
Well, force is an underpinning of the individual. Without the ability to exert force (or to express opposition), an individual ceases to exist.
Will we stop holding communist parties, or will start holding nazi parties?
I agree with most of this post - the part about the value of good, solid work. I disagree with this, which the blogger just presents as a given and does not justify:
Capitalism piles up consumer goods but deprives more and more of us of the satisfaction of genuine work.
In fact, I believe capitalism allows more people to have good, solid, enjoyable work than any other system.
Capitalism piles up consumer goods but deprives more and more of us of the satisfaction of genuine work.
In fact, I believe capitalism allows more people to have good, solid, enjoyable work than any other system.
I think you are right for about 30% of the population -- those who manage the society, even if they don't own it. We (I am a member of the 30%, luckily) get to build organizations, create processes, develop stuff; even if we are doing it for a paycheck and our employers own our patents, it is still fun. However, for the 70% that work as cogs in the machine, capitalism sucks -- but then so did feudalism or state industrialism like the USSR.
The 70% who are cogs in the US generally don't know they have any options, though they do (let me give a hint -- start at community college....). If they all figured it out at once, there would be chaos as all the forklift drivers, fry cooks, and widget assemblers would say (basically) "fuck that" and walk away.
The 70% who are cogs in the US generally don't know they have any options, though they do (let me give a hint -- start at community college....). If they all figured it out at once, there would be chaos as all the forklift drivers, fry cooks, and widget assemblers would say (basically) "fuck that" and walk away.
This is what liberals, who think that human wellbeing consists in the consumption of goods and services, cannot understand. Capitalism piles up consumer goods but deprives more and more of us of the satisfaction of genuine work. A good trade, when it's a question of meeting basic needs. But once they are met -- they are met; they are finite; tho liberals, from Mill to DeLong, deny it -- all the bacchanals in the world are no substitute for the knowledge that one has produced something worthwhile by one's own free efforts.
The problem with that statement is it’s based on a straw man argument that modern liberals are all Marxists. In my experience the modern liberal has evolved beyond Marx’s theories to a hybrid Captalistic/Marxist philosophy that understands the necessity of Captialism but seeks to equalize the resulting wealth created by it.
So modern liberalism is concerned with the rewards of one’s labors where as Marxist theory was concerned with both that and choosing which labor people undertook. Meaning liberals really don't want to rob anyone of satisfaction in one's work they simply want to redistribute some of the compensation one gets for said work.
(and in fairness Marx only advocated a planned society in which people’s abilities were assessed and applied in a way that was best for society. So while a government using that policy might force you to do the work they wanted it should, in theory, have been something you excelled at and could be satisfied in)