[extropy-chat] [Politics] Real Politick

[Robert Lindauer]

On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:45 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The truth of Marxism here, is that by creating an
>> underclass, you
>> create a felt need for revolution and occasionally
>> the people with the
>> guts and/or desperation to try it.
>
> That may be the only truth left to Marxism. Face it
> Robbie, Marxism is sooo 20th century. Its been tried
> dozens of times by various countries and it just
> doesn't work.

Marxism is not a political system, it's a methodology of 
social-science.  As such, it is alive and well.

You may be thinking of totalitarian absolutism which has gone under the 
name of Marxism which, I think most people will agree, has been a near 
total bust (although the chinese trying to buy an american oil company 
was quite a suprise, wasn't it!).  Anyway, the story of failed marxism 
is much like the story about the Kings' inheriting their authority from 
God.

>  It's utility is even less than that of
> anarcho-capitalism, because it drags the entire
> economy down to the level of the lowest common
> denominator.

You're thinking of socialism.  Marxism and socialism are systematically 
related but very much NOT the same thing.  Marxism is a social and 
economic and historical theory about how societies evolve - that is 
"change over time".  In particular it is the theory that material 
factors are the primary influence in the development of a society and 
that political actions have corresponding reactions in terms of their 
effects.  As such, I think it is considered tautological in modern 
social science theory with the exception of extreme "free-willers".  
Even anarchists such as myself recognize that there is truth to the 
notion of historical evolution as worked out in dialectical 
materialism.  But being one of those "extreme free-willers" I remain 
hopeful.  Because when I put on my study glasses, hope is hardly found 
on the world-historical level.

There is some truth to your "lowest common denominator" expression.  In 
any given social system of persons, there will be those with more power 
and those with less (for some given purpose).  Those with more may 
choose to use that power to enslave their cohabitants or to befriend 
them.  If they choose to enslave them en masse, they will create the 
conditions for revolution - this is a fact I think displayed throughout 
history - peasants have been revolting against warlords since they 
learned to speak with each other in secret.  If they (the powerful) 
choose to befriend them (the weak), they risk being seen as weak and 
finally losing their power to someone who is willing and able to 
enslave them.  This same dynamic occurs in groups of people, where 
bands of people group together to use their power for some effect.  
Marxism made the -now stunningly obvious- observation that when that 
happens, there are effects and those effects are not always the 
intended effect of the group in question.

>  It stifles innovation and enterprise.

I don't think there's any evidence whatever to this effect, or perhaps 
you haven't been watching China buy up all of the US debt it can by 
producing lots of cheap electronic equipment for us efficiently and 
profitably (albeit by the hands of slaves..., but we're just counting 
innovation and enterprise here, not goodwill).

>  And
> invariably it breeds its own status quo and elite
> overclass.

Of course, Marxism is not meant to end at the installation of a new 
ruling class - Marxism is a method by which continual revolution can be 
achieved.

>  What is needed is true democratic
> meritocracy.

Yeah right!  Let's all vote to see who's the best: winner - Brittany 
Spears, ladies and gentlemen, our new queen.  I think Platos' damnation 
of democracy is definitive and ancient and has displayed itself in 
history many, many times.  The masses are easily intoxicated with bread 
and circuses and can be asked to shove their children into a war at 17 
as long as there's food on the table and a good song on the radio.

In a -relatively free- society, it's too easy for the powerful to swing 
things in their favor - to buy or effectively buy votes, to coerce 
people into not voting, to create a complete mystique of value for 
their candidate while running a billion-dollar slander-campaign against 
an opponent, etc.  The reason being that in a -relatively free- 
society, people will take the advantages they can, they cheat, lie and 
steal to attain the power that they've been bred to think valuable.  In 
otherwords, as good as it sounds, the idea of a democratic meritocracy 
is as dead as the meme-name marxism.  What now?

>  Where everyone starts out on a level
> playing field and one can rise as high as one is able
> based upon objective assessment of ones abilities and
> not upon circumstances of birth.

What a great idea!  How do you propose to accomplish it?

>  The ideal society
> would be one where geniuses do not languish in ghettos
> and well-connected idiots do not become president.

I think you're getting the hang of this Marxism thing.  You know, being 
a neo-marxist is kind of like being a Rastafarian (in fact, almost 
identical, now that I think about it) - you have to get over the stigma 
- not showering enough, having dread-locks smoking pot, etc. - and 
listen to what people say by what they do while never giving up the 
beauty-queen hope that world peace will be achieved, that poverty and 
oppression will be conquered, that justice, equality and compassion 
will rule the human beast.

Until then, though, I'm too peaceful to grab an uzi and so am left to 
bitter complaining.  On the positive side, I'm pretty good at 
complaining.  When life leaves you lemons, make lemonade....

Robbie Lindauer