It's important to note that this is a particular kind of value, a neo-classical definition. The Marxian one is independent of what people will pay for an item; for example, land, honor, titles of nobility etc. Have no value.
> As with all IP, once created the value of a copy is pretty much zero. It's a simple case of supply and demand, the supply is infinite so logically the price is zero.
Read in a certain way (e.g. use of value vis–à–vis price), this is super Marxian.
Luckily, philosophers do not believe in the fact that their different ideas actually compete with each other.
Besides this, Russia is a capitalist country. My apologies if you weren't stating that it wasn't.
I don't want to live in a country that is run exclusively by peasants. That happened, successfully, in russia. In the 1920s. And the result was not pretty.
Sure, russia is "capitalist" now. Capitalist means absolutely nothing in terms of philosophy. Its just a word used by marxists to express their annoyance with a vague concept that results in the creation of value (and they obviously have no problem with value, but the returns should absolutely, entirely, end up in the hands of the peasants, not some hokey dokey CEO. That aside, russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences.
Specifically in the case of Russia, they have another big problem - which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues.
People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris. They took stock options over vacation time.
No, it didn't. The Leninist vanguard were not all (or even largely, especially at the highest ranks) peasants.
Even in feudal economies, peasants had individual or collective property interests in land (serfs and slaves might not, but those are different than peasants, and serfdom had been abolished in Russia generations before the Revolution.) Russian peasants at the time of the Revolution generally were individual landholders because of the recent breakup of collective ownership (other places similar reforms were implemented eventually led to most former peasants ending up as wage laborers as large capital interests bought up agrarian land, but that hadn't had time to happen yet in Russia, and the de-collectivization was still popular among peasants, which is probably a big factor in why peasants in Russia were seen as class enemies of the proletariat by the Bolsheviks; they were, if only tenuously and transitionally, essentially situated like members of the petit bourgeoisie.)
While true it was too little and too late, the conditions of russian peasants at that time were still very serf-like. That and WWI defeat sparked the russian revolution, along with certain interest in the West to destabilize Russia.
The Leninist vanguard generally was not peasants, whether or not they were true Communists.
This is patently (excuse the pun) false. One of the largest economic texts it Capital by Karl Marx; in this book his only objective is to critique classical political economy, and by doing so set out what constitutes capitalism. It's not vague, Marx defines capitalism in very concrete terms. Her refers to the capitalist mode of production, which consists of production to maximise exchange value of commodities, the private ownership of social means of production, and the primacy of wage labour.
>and they obviously have no problem with value
This is false. Communists do have a problem with value, their qualm is with exchange value ruling production, which is almost a unique quality of capitalism. It results in shoddy goods, goods not made to be used, but to be exchanged in a money-commodity circuit.
>end up in the hands of the peasants
Not even Communists argue for this; the Communists argue for the means of production to be put into the hands of the people, who can, within themselves, elect leaders who are qualified for the task. This is democratic rule, rather than autocratic rule (which is what there is now) of a particular firm's productive capacity within an industry.
>russia was not "capitalist" for a long time, and still suffers the consequences.
You're right, it had the feudalist mode of production for that time. With the advent of the USSR, it had the state-capitalist mode of production. On what basis do I declare this? On the basis of Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of production.
>which is the idea that they are still somehow the core of the USSR and have to restore that thing, instead of trying to fix their real issues.
What issues are you talking about, in particular? I think the requirement to sell one's labour to a class of property owners is a rather big issue.
>People seem to forget that there are janitors at microsoft who drive ferraris.
That doesn't mean that they are not exploited; janitors driving Ferraris has nothing to do with the problems of capitalism.
I consider Marx a clown, and marxism is a clown fiesta, and "capitalism" is the cause they fight against. Of course it contains "meaning".
Communism, on the other hand, is at least a valid idea. Its by no means viable, because its in direct conflict with human nature, survival instincts, intrinsic properties of physics and a bunch of other issues, but as a concept, communism is kinda cool.
I'm not contesting that feudal lords were a thing. Certainly not in the middle ages. To what extent that was still the case around 1890 - I'm not sure. I wasn't around back then. I don't think feudalism is a thing in the present, at least not in central europe.
If you want to study this whole class system, Nietzsche does a lot better job of explaining is and is way less pathetic about it. "Morals as a concept are installed by rulers to keep their sheep in check, deal with it".
- Marxism and Communism may be closer to each other than anarchism and communism, but they are not the same thing. Marx called for a peasant uprising. He's just pissed about the fact that the value created by peasants ends up in the hands of their owners.
- There is no autocratic rule in the free world. France elected a "capitalist" in sarkozy because they were pissed with financials. Then they elected a socialist in whoever the current guy is. Now theyre pissed with financials. Next, they are electing either the lunatic Le Pen who claimed that ebola bombs should be dropped on romania because it would give them both valuable scientific data and eliminate a bunch of people that the world doesnt need.
- Germany is ruled by the two big parties for a long time now because they are so close to each other in ideas and anyone who deviates from the mainstream is called a nazi or an evil capitalist or some other hate inspiring nonsense that you can only vote for her.
- The US was very fucking sure about the fact that they would elect the wall streets darling. Everyone knew it. People didnt even cast their vote because obviously the orange one would not win. Now he did. And people seem to forget that that guy was elected. Hes a fucking moron with the potential for Hitler stardom, but people elected that guy. That was not wall street. That was people who voted for change. Now they dont get change and they get fucked over because the guy is in it for the money but they certainly got whom they voted for.
-You're right, it had the feudalist mode of production for that time. With the advent of the USSR, it had the state-capitalist mode of production. On what basis do I declare this? On the basis of Marx's definition of the capitalist mode of production.
It doesn't really matter what you declare this. I know that its not communism. Its never communism. But at what point do people accept that every time a country tried communism, everything went to shit? It clearly doesnt work. I mean it works for no one. No one achieves anything worthwhile in communism experiments. Not a single person. But a whole lot of them end up in gulags.
And I'm not saying that communism is bad. But the results that came out of communism are so spectacularly bad, EVERY SINGLE TIME, that trying again is unethical. People think that Hitler was a bad person, but Mao achieved thrice the kill count without even trying.
> What issues are you talking about, in particular? I think the requirement to sell one's labour to a class of property owners is a rather big issue.
I'm talking about the fact that Russia is ruled by a person that was formerly part of the KGB and really wants his big soviet union back - and backs it up by moves like blatantly annexing parts of other countries whenever possible. The baltic states are shitting their pants a lot, these days.
I don't feel particularly exploited, btw. We live in a very free world. If you don't want to sell your time, just don't do it. Start your own company. See how that goes. We are all capable of taking chances. Some win, some lose. Some don't even try. Somehow, those who are too weak, or preoccupied with other things, are blaming those who did try, for the fact that they have relatively easy lives.
I'm often confronted with the fact that I was "lucky" and only get to have such thoughts because I was lucky. The thing is, I was lucky. I was born in central europe. Thats already jackpot worthy. We constitute way less than 10% of the worlds population and live like gods by default. The worst of the worst hobo in germany is way better off than almost anyone in bangladesh.
And I was probably a lot luckier than that. Other circumstances.
But we are all really fucking lucky that in the past, some entrepreneurs were fed up with the fact that there was no running water and that water was always infested with mud and bacteria and doctors didnt think it was cool that 5 out of 7 babies died of the common cold. And they solved those problems. And became rich. If there had never been an option to become rich in the first place, how many of those guys would have pulled a Picasso instead and just painted? If you take away just 10% of the useful inventions made by people who only got ambitious because money, where would we be today instead?
If you can make the argument that the rich benefit from the peasants getting redistributed funds, you should also be capable to make the argument that the worst of the worst peasant today lives like a god, compared to the richest of the rich just 100 years ago. And thats not hyperbole. Travel back 100 years and tell the still reigning king of Germany just about the bottom tier technologies we have access to. I'm pretty sure they'd consider that blasphemy.
Markets are different from capitalism. The fact that you don't consider it a stage of human history is strange, as capitalism has origins in a series of historical events. The Wikipedia article on capitalism is very good for this.
>obfuscates that and tries to reason that there is some oppressive force, exhibited by a ruling class, over the peasantry
No, Marx talks about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat being the two classes which engage in struggle in our capitalist society. However class struggle is not unique to capitalism, it is, as Marx describes, the history of all struggle hitherto. Now there are other minor classes aside from these in society, as there were in Marx's time - the petit-bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. However peasantry was largely used to describe the feudal mode of production.
>I don't think feudalism is a thing in the present, at least not in central europe.
Many parts of the world had not yet emerged from the feudal mode of production around Marx's time, and large swathes had not even seen large industry expansion. Even in Lenin's time, the functions of capital were not as developed in Russia as they were in other European nations (Germany and England being those leading the industrial revolution); in fact, Lenin split with his contemporaries on this, those opposed to him, the Mensheviks, believing that Russia had not reached capitalism yet, thus a revolution would be inappropriate and doomed to failure.
>"Morals as a concept are installed by rulers to keep their sheep in check, deal with it".
Marx also talks about the common forms of morality, family, justice etc. as bourgeois distinctions, as do his contemporaries such as Max Stirner and Bakunin.
>Marxism and Communism may be closer to each other than anarchism and communism
Marxism is not a form of society, it is a method of analysis, which originated in political economy but has since been carried over to various other fields, ranging from geography to literature. Communism implies an anarchist society, as Communism is to do away with rulers, including those rulers of land.
>There is no autocratic rule in the free world.
I was referring to the method of organisation within a company or firm, not how countries are organised. In terms of country political systems, those which are parliamentary democracies are, according to the Marxist analysis, bourgeois democracies, to perpetuate and ensure the survival of the flow of capital.
>But at what point do people accept that every time a country tried communism, everything went to shit?
It depends, some take this position, and others do not. Communism and its sisters, including syndicalism, took root, such as in revolutionary Spain in which 2 million people were engaged in large-scale worker unions, with no bureaucracy, all voluntarily engaging. Same is the case with the third French revolution, when Paris was split into 48 communes, each coordinating with regular meetings the affairs of the revolution.
I think you have an uncharitable view of Communism or similar ideologies, especially given the much changed nature of our world since those times of revolution in the early 20th and late 19th centuries. Don't you think it should be up to modern day Marxists and indeed leftists of any and all persuasions to find and fix those errors?
>I don't feel particularly exploited, btw. We live in a very free world. If you don't want to sell your time, just don't do it. Start your own company. See how that goes.
Whether you feel exploited or not is irrelevant. This can be attributed to commodity fetishism and false consciousness as elaborated by Engels. Most people (especially in developing countries) do not have the opportunity to move out of the situation of selling labour-power for a wage, and even if most people did, there are still those who must do it. Just as the answer in a feudal system isn't "make everyone a lord", the answer within capitalism isn't to make everyone a property owner. There is not sufficient property (in particular land capital) to do this, anyway. Capitalism also requires large amount of wage labour, which would not be possible if the whole world were self employed, and we would resort to a bourgeois commodity exchange economy. Those born to parents without any land will not have any land. This is unfair in my eyes.
>Somehow, those who are too weak, or preoccupied with other things, are blaming those who did try, for the fact that they have relatively easy lives.
Hard work does not give reward, at least not within capitalism. This can be shown by those people who not only take large risk but they work hard too, and they're still wage labourers. And what perpetuates this? The system of property ownership. This had been identified indeed as far back as Rousseau and propagated and identified by all those anarchists and Communists through the 19th century.
Further, we do not blame those who try, we blame those who, in contempt of the idea that every man is born equal and free, hold property for their own profits. It is possible to try and succeed without holding property.
>If there had never been an option to become rich in the first place, how many of those guys would have pulled a Picasso instead and just painted?
This is ridiculous. People generally want to follow their passions, you are forgetting that a lot of development in technology happened when capitalism wasn't about, and indeed the scientists and inventors worked only because they were not oppressed by the rule of wage labour. Oscar Wilde talks about this in his book The Soul of Man Under Socialism. Those great inventors of the past usually did not work for profit at all, they worked out of the flame lit by curiosity, only resorting to the force of work when they had no money - again as a result of capitalism only affording people good life if they own property.
>the worst peasant today lives like a god, compared to the richest of the rich just 100 years ago.
And that's still not good enough. Saying that conditions have improved is just like saying "well, it could be worse" - in other words, the fallacy of relative privation.