On the idea of communism - so what did Žižek saj?

[chequita guevara]

Hey, it's not that I think the obsolete musings of nineteenth-century economists shouldn't be applied to solve the problems of today. It's just that I'm more of a bimetallist, myself. Nothing personal.

Damn 19th Century ideas, like . . . the laws of thermodynamics, evolution, psychology . . . .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why stop there?

...Social Darwinism, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why stop there?

...Social Darwinism, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Manifest Destiny, etc...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Well, I'm guessing I'm the only one here who's read Zizek, attended one of his public lectures, and published a review of one of his books (in a real, honest-to-God peer-reviewed journal, not my blog), so I'll say this: Zizek is fun, in the way that Baudrillard is fun. Now, there are those people who find Baudrillard no fun at all, either because he's impenetrable, or facile, or insufficiently Marxist, or all of the above; but I think he's a riot, a provocateur with great, aphoristic insights that may not sustain critical scrutiny but are valuable -- and fun -- nevertheless. Ditto Zizek. They were never the scholars I drew on back when I was a professor (I preferred the Raymond Williams/Stuart Hall/Dick Hebdige school of cultural Marxism), but I did get a kick out of reading him, and he did make me think. But he's not for everyone, obviously.

[Elok]

If Marxism is defunct based on its age ("100 years out of date") then how do you account for all the politicians running countries based on religious tenets from centuries ago?

Religion doesn't belong in government in the first place, AFAIC. It's just a bad idea. And of course most theocracies don't work so well either. Provided they aren't sitting on a giant heap of oil, which unfortunately most of them are at present.

Che, have you considered that all the ideas you cited were SCIENTIFIC advances? Not political ideas, and certainly not economic ones, but contributions to the sciences. And no, "political science" doesn't count. While we're at it, of the three you cited only the laws of thermodynamics have stayed the same since the 1800s (or have they been updated? KH? Kuci?). Evolution and psychology have developed enormously since the days of Darwin and Freud. Psychology no longer even resembles Sigmund's invention, while Charlie's has integrated modern genetics and a host of discoveries. How has communism changed meaningfully since Marx? Assuming you don't consider Leninism/Maoism/Stalinism/etc. "progress."

[Jon Miller]

Science builds on itself. However, we still use F=MA when classical physics approximations work, just like we did 100s of years ago.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I would say that while physics has fundamentally changed the most, it has also been less wrong then the other mentioned sciences. (and soft sciences, which aren't really the same thing)

JM

[Kidlicious]

Hey, it's not that I think the obsolete musings of nineteenth-century economists shouldn't be applied to solve the problems of today. It's just that I'm more of a bimetallist, myself. Nothing personal.

It's just that all the mainstream economists don't know what the **** is going on, but you might not be aware of that.

[Elok]

Well, modern physicians with modern knowledge can't seem to cure herpes; why don't we just check what Paracelsus or Hippocrates recommended as a cure for venereal disease? Can't hurt, right?

[Kidlicious]

Well, modern physicians with modern knowledge can't seem to cure herpes; why don't we just check what Paracelsus or Hippocrates recommended as a cure for venereal disease? Can't hurt, right?

You don't understand. Comparing physicians with economists would make more sense if physicians claimed that herpes would cure itself.

[Elok]

Herpes won't, but plenty of other diseases can be fought off by the body alone. And in case you haven't noticed, even the Great Depression eventually ended. Regardless, Marx predated too many changes for me to seriously think that he might have the answer. The internet, among other things. And those vast industrial armies he saw overthrowing their masters? Outsourced to the third world. And if they did rise up they'd be gunned down pretty quickly by today's vastly improved armies. Terrorism is the best the army of the proletariat could accomplish.

All of this is beside the point, of course, since human nature would prevent communism from working in any era. But there's scant chance of convincing you of that.

[chequita guevara]

Herpes won't, but plenty of other diseases can be fought off by the body alone. And in case you haven't noticed, even the Great Depression eventually ended.

It ended because of massive government intervention, i.e., war spending for WWII and the destruction of European and Japanese production for a decade (i.e., hardship didn't end for them until the mid 50s). Without WWII, it's unlikely capitalism would have recovered in time to save itself from socialist revolution, at least without turning to fascism.

[Kidlicious]

Herpes won't, but plenty of other diseases can be fought off by the body alone.

If you look at the history of economic thought you'll see that economists have a tendency to believe that it's better to let the economy fix itself than to intervene in the economy at all. It's not much different today, as economists tend to be finance oriented. Their models are based on the assumptions about human nature that a philosopher made over 300 years ago, assumptions that have proven to be inaccurate over time. Yet they still make the same assumptions as it in in their own self-interest to do so. Only when it is in their own self-interest to do so (ie bailouts) will they claim that the government needs to intervene in the economy.

Marx was the one who first made it clear how stupid these people are. All economics before Marx is moronic, yet economists cling to it because to do otherwise would give credit to Marx. They are utterly ideologically bent. There's no hope for them. Give up on them already.

All of this is beside the point, of course, since human nature would prevent communism from working in any era. But there's scant chance of convincing you of that.

Nothing should be clearer to the educated person than the fact that the assumption of human nature that the mainstream economists make is false and that the assumption that Marx made is correct. That is that it is better for everyone when people cooperate with each other instead of competing with each other, and that humans are very capable of this.

[Elok]

If you look at the history of economic thought you'll see that economists have a tendency to believe that it's better to let the economy fix itself than to intervene in the economy at all. It's not much different today, as economists tend to be finance oriented. Their models are based on the assumptions about human nature that a philosopher made over 300 years ago, assumptions that have proven to be inaccurate over time.

??? Are you referring to Adam Smith? Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, so you're about fifty years off if so. I'll assume you are.

Yet they still make the same assumptions as it in in their own self-interest to do so. Only when it is in their own self-interest to do so (ie bailouts) will they claim that the government needs to intervene in the economy.

Not really. Total laissez-faire went out of style circa 1900, at least in America. Government regulation of the economy does not equal government ownership of capital. Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Nothing should be clearer to the educated person than the fact that the assumption of human nature that the mainstream economists make is false and that the assumption that Marx made is correct. That is that it is better for everyone when people cooperate with each other instead of competing with each other

And perpetual-motion machines would end global warming, but it ain't gonna happen.

and that humans are very capable of this.

Only in a very, very limited sense and for a very short time. What tokens of workers' government we do have (e.g. labor unions) are hopelessly corrupt, and I see no reason why a larger, less restrained version would fare better. Do you want to hear the wacky story of my mother's adventures with the Teamsters?

Che, I don't know how one would go about proving or disproving your claim ("it's unlikely that capitalism...") and I admit that neither history nor economics is my strong suit. But I could just as easily use the limited effect of the New Deal programs to argue against government intervention in general, no?

[chequita guevara]

Heraclitus

On the Idea of Communism: A Report
On the Idea of Communism: Notes On Day 1