12-26-2012, 06:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-26-2012, 07:56 AM by FireIceTalon.)
There is no such thing as a "Marxist" society (nor can there be) - for Marxism isn't material condition of society or an ideology - it is an objective mode of analysis used for understanding human social organization and development. One can be a Marxist and still be a capitalist (not very common, but certainly possible). But if you mean a socialist organization of society as far as improvement goes, this is a pretty general statement. How does one measure improvement? By a nations wealth and GDP? Technology? It is completely subjective. Most people tend to think of improving society in a technological context. By that standard, that would mean the Soviet Union under Stalin was highly successful and there was much incentive to improve society. The truth is, while it did improve rapidly and became a international powerhouse, it did so at great cost to human life and dignity. The same was true of the United States, and still is. Capitalism is a system that supposedly promotes constant growth, but constant growth in a world of limited resources is not only illogical, it's also impossible. Besides, we are looooooong past the point in most areas where we need to continue to grow for society to reach its potential, and even in the areas where we arenit, I see no evidence that we need a market economy and bosses to accomplish it.
As for incentive, we don't need capitalists or capitalism to have incentive to labor. Capitalism has existed for less than 3/10ths of a percent of modern humans time on the planet, and there was incentive in all other social organizations of society prior. Labor is required for survival regardless of whether it is a hunter/gatherer society, a socialist society, feudal, or a capitalist one. However, each of these systems have very fundamentally different social relations with the productive forces in each, though the first two, for all their differences, have one important and distinct thing in common: They lack exploitation, because both are a society of free producers with little to no hierarchy. In both, people produce and process what they need to survive, instead of being forced to produce a surplus values of commodities for a boss, who then turns said surplus value into a profit for itself, even though the value was not produced by his or her labor. There is little incentive to improve in a capitalist society if anything, and that is why it requires a very strong and centralized powerful state to uphold the system. Inequality doesn't arbitrarily exist - it exists and is legitimized through state force, and state force only (well, also through ideology and propaganda, but even these things still require a state to legitimize them). Why do you think things such as general strikes and many other working class methods of organizing are forbidden?
Whether you are interested in having a ferrari and steak dinners or not isn't relevant. The point is, the concept of the free-market is a complete sham, sold to humanity under popular buzzwords like "democracy", "freedom", and so forth, as its own enslavement. I wasn't referring to the state in the context of each individual state in the United States or strictly local governments, but rather in a general sense of the word - rule of law systems that encompass national governments, police, courts, military, etc, as well as international capitalist organizations like the UN or EU. All of these things exist because class antagonisms exist. Socialism isn't about being wealthy or rich - its about living with dignity and being free from exploitation by a ruling class and the state apparatus that protects it. Wealth being virtue is a social construct of capitalism due to its emphasis on money markets, commodity fetishism, and subjective value placed on (or taken from) the importance of particular skills and labor. I could care less about being wealthy, or owning excess material goods. However, I resent the fact I and the majority of society are forced to sell our labor to a boss to survive, and it is he/she, and not us, that reaps the benefits produced by said labor. Lets look at the cold hard facts: Capitalism rewards those who were born into the right family, were in the right place at the right time, and to a great extent, those who have the right skin color, are heterosexual, and have a penis. It punishes those unfortunate enough to be born into the "wrong" family and often those who do not match the common demographic of the ruling class through no fault of their own. It randomly chooses winners and losers at the roll of a dice - and for every winner there is 10's of millions of losers. There is hardly any justice in that. Life is far from simply being an economy of money and goods - there is something far more important that most people don't even think about (at least not in a economical context), and that is TIME.
Marx, by the way, was actually a supply-side economist - just that he (rightly) favored labor and not capital.
As for incentive, we don't need capitalists or capitalism to have incentive to labor. Capitalism has existed for less than 3/10ths of a percent of modern humans time on the planet, and there was incentive in all other social organizations of society prior. Labor is required for survival regardless of whether it is a hunter/gatherer society, a socialist society, feudal, or a capitalist one. However, each of these systems have very fundamentally different social relations with the productive forces in each, though the first two, for all their differences, have one important and distinct thing in common: They lack exploitation, because both are a society of free producers with little to no hierarchy. In both, people produce and process what they need to survive, instead of being forced to produce a surplus values of commodities for a boss, who then turns said surplus value into a profit for itself, even though the value was not produced by his or her labor. There is little incentive to improve in a capitalist society if anything, and that is why it requires a very strong and centralized powerful state to uphold the system. Inequality doesn't arbitrarily exist - it exists and is legitimized through state force, and state force only (well, also through ideology and propaganda, but even these things still require a state to legitimize them). Why do you think things such as general strikes and many other working class methods of organizing are forbidden?
Whether you are interested in having a ferrari and steak dinners or not isn't relevant. The point is, the concept of the free-market is a complete sham, sold to humanity under popular buzzwords like "democracy", "freedom", and so forth, as its own enslavement. I wasn't referring to the state in the context of each individual state in the United States or strictly local governments, but rather in a general sense of the word - rule of law systems that encompass national governments, police, courts, military, etc, as well as international capitalist organizations like the UN or EU. All of these things exist because class antagonisms exist. Socialism isn't about being wealthy or rich - its about living with dignity and being free from exploitation by a ruling class and the state apparatus that protects it. Wealth being virtue is a social construct of capitalism due to its emphasis on money markets, commodity fetishism, and subjective value placed on (or taken from) the importance of particular skills and labor. I could care less about being wealthy, or owning excess material goods. However, I resent the fact I and the majority of society are forced to sell our labor to a boss to survive, and it is he/she, and not us, that reaps the benefits produced by said labor. Lets look at the cold hard facts: Capitalism rewards those who were born into the right family, were in the right place at the right time, and to a great extent, those who have the right skin color, are heterosexual, and have a penis. It punishes those unfortunate enough to be born into the "wrong" family and often those who do not match the common demographic of the ruling class through no fault of their own. It randomly chooses winners and losers at the roll of a dice - and for every winner there is 10's of millions of losers. There is hardly any justice in that. Life is far from simply being an economy of money and goods - there is something far more important that most people don't even think about (at least not in a economical context), and that is TIME.
Marx, by the way, was actually a supply-side economist - just that he (rightly) favored labor and not capital.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)