Capitalism v. Marxism, United Order, Law of Consecration

[vorpal blade]

That's somewhat accurate, but again, this is an area of prescription. He believes it is just when people own the means of their own production—for example, I'm a video editor. If I own my own video camera and computer and work for myself, I own my own means of production. However, if I work a wage job, where I can't afford a camera or computer and I thus have to work on my employer's terms, this relation of production will likely be exploitative. I think a fair translation of the Marxist idea is that everyone equally owns the means of their own production—i.e. the workers together own the factory (and the workers, not the factory owner or the shareholders, make the profits), I own my own video equipment, you and your fellow scientists own the whatchamacallits you research with, the farmers own their land (rather than working someone else's land), etc. The products produced by these endeavors would be private property.

Now, the problem with Marx's prescription here is that in practice, when it's not the capitalists who own the means of production, somebody else does: the State. And another power structure simply grows where the old one was, and it's even worse. Power is still consolidated in the hands of the few and that's inevitable.

I haven't read anything in Marx that would lead me to believe that he was in favor of capitalism on even the small scale you mention. It doesn't seem like his philosophy would be self-consistent if he did think that. If people were allowed to have their own means of production it seems to me that everyone would want his business to grow and prosper. Before you know it you might be buying other businesses, or employing others to help you in your video business. If what you acquired was truly private property-yours to do with as you choose-then why wouldn't you use it to increase your own personal worth? I think this has been suppressed wherever Marxism has been tried because capitalism tends to take over. If someone else wanted to go to work for you, because he could acquire more wealth working for you than he could working for himself, how are you going to stop him? Why would you want to?

By the way, I work for wages, and I can afford a camera and a computer. Working for an employer is not usually exploitative, in my observations, but mutually beneficial. In a free society you can choose to work for yourself or an employer. Whatever works out best for you.

[vorpal blade]

As has been stated, the Communist Manifesto is intended to be a polemic piece, not a comprehensive ideology. Yes, history can't be looked at only in terms of economic conflict, but we certainly can't ignore it. We're talking about serfs vs. kings, labor unions vs factory owners, or on the other side of the world, caste system conflicts. To say that there is no validity in these conflicts is to ignore a large section of human endeavor.

I don't ignore the economic component in history, but it is only one factor of many.

To another point, one that I made reference to earlier, but didn't explain, I'd like to explain the concept of state capitalism, which is what I would argue was present in almost every communist state that we have known. In a very real way, Marxism allows for far more ownership of personal property than capitalism does. Let me explain.

I had been having trouble seeing what you find attractive in Marxism. Now I know. It is Capitalism. Only, I don't think Capitalism is present in real Marxism-Marxism that Marx would recognize as Marxism.

Also, you made the point that people work hard and are rewarded for their efforts. You say that you were "dirt poor" when you were born, and worked hard to be "comfortably well off." I commend you for this, but you and I both realize that this is not common. It is a fools argument to say that all have equal access to these benefits. For example, education is critical in earnings. I don't have the statistics, nor do I care to look them up since I'm sure you'll agree on this point, but a college graduate will earn far more in a lifetime than a high school graduate, who earns far more than his peers who did not complete high school (on average. There are exceptions of course). But tell me how easy it is to go to college when your parents work multiple jobs just to put food on the table, versus a child whose parents pay entirely for college, in addition to providing all other needs to be met during that time period? Or when no one in your family has an education themselves? Or when the high school that you can go to, the public school, is not even an accredited institution? There are many, many other factors that inhibite the impoverished from becoming wealthy, but this is just one.

I disagree. I think it is quite common for someone to go from poverty to middle-class or wealthy.

I agree that education is important, though some of the wealthiest people in the country made their wealth without a college education. Statistically you are correct that getting an education is correlated to earnings. I come from a family of nine children. Each of us earned all of our own money to go to college. It wasn't always easy, but I appreciated my education more because I earned it. It isn't about being "easy." The point is that everyone who has the right attitude, and a minimal level of intelligence, can do it. You don't need your parents to pay your way and make it easy for you. The problem with the impoverished is not that they are not allowed to become wealthy, the problem is that they are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary. Sure, it will be easier for some than others, but so what?

Lastly, I would pose a question to you. You've conceded that the law of consecration requires an initial (at least) redistribution of wealth, in that all must give up their goods, in order to be reassigned stewardships. How does this fit at all into capitalism?

The United Order is much more than capitalism. The United Order requires a commitment to share what you have been given with others. The United Order is a method to create wealth and share it. The point is that capitalism is at the heart of the way people earn a living in the United Order. Capitalism is the economic engine that creates wealth, but capitalism is not the principle of Consecration that helps you share the wealth. The economic system of the United Order is not Marxism because fundamentally in the United Order private property is used to create more wealth. The United Order is not socialism where the means of production are held by the state. There is nothing compulsory in the United Order, or Capitalism. The idea that Capitalism involves the ownership of the means of production in the hands of the few is not true.

[vorpal blade]

I find this conversation legitimately fascinating. And, (and this tipping my hand as to just how nerdy I am) I'm reminded of a quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which is one of the best strategy games ever created:

Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Centauri Monopoly"

Specifically the first part. One of the things you learn when you begin a study of economics is that ALL behavior is economic in nature. Resources are limited, and individuals live to establish a specialization (and a subsequent comparative advantage) to acquire what they can of those resources. Everything else is peripheral to that fundamental truth, no matter what label you put on it. If it weren't so, we'd all be making six-figure salaries to watch TV while we eat delicious food, drive Ferraris, and are married to Shakira. Capitalism works, so far, because it accepts this truth.

I was seriously thinking about asking where you folks come up with your ideas about capitalism and Marxism. Now I know. From video games.

People fall in love and get married. Is falling in love economic behavior? Certainly it has economic consequences, and you need to think about the economics before getting married, but is economics an explanation for why most people get married? Marxism would seem to say so, but I reject that notion.

If you believe in an interpretation of history that every action by every individual was based on what he hoped to gain financially from it, then you might see history as the story of class distinctions and suppression of the powerless. But I believe in a wide variety of motivations throughout history, with a common theme of good versus evil. Greed, or the love of money, is not the only force in the universe.

By the way, I don't believe in a zero-sum game that what you acquire takes away from what someone else can acquire. I believe in the creation of wealth, so that what you do can make more resources available to everyone. It is possible in the United Order, using capitalism as the economic engine, for everyone to be rich.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

People fall in love and get married. Is falling in love economic behavior? Certainly it has economic consequences, and you need to think about the economics before getting married, but is economics an explanation for why most people get married? Marxism would seem to say so, but I reject that notion.

If you believe in an interpretation of history that every action by every individual was based on what he hoped to gain financially from it, then you might see history as the story of class distinctions and suppression of the powerless. But I believe in a wide variety of motivations throughout history, with a common theme of good versus evil. Greed, or the love of money, is not the only force in the universe.

Actually, this sort of interpretation—the idea that economics is the driving force for everything—is commonly referred to by Marxists as "vulgar Marxism." Most Marxists subscribe to a more holistic approach that recognizes that economics, law, culture, etc. are all interrelated forces and no single aspect of society can be sufficiently explained as driving the rest of society. However, economics still does determine namny aspects of your life. (For example, see Raymond Williams, "Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory"... I can get you a more complete citation or a copy if you're interested.) I (and most Marxists, I think) would agree with you that economics is rarely the direct cause for marriage.

By the way, I don't believe in a zero-sum game that what you acquire takes away from what someone else can acquire. I believe in the creation of wealth, so that what you do can make more resources available to everyone.

True, but the whole center of marxist philosophy is that the fruits of labors are extracted from wealth-producers by unfair relations of productions.