Metal Reviews

I think a distinction should be made between the words in Das Kapital and the regime of the USSR, which was hardly a utopian paradise.

Nice disclaimer! Blaming Communism for Stalin is a little like blaming Israel for Ariel Sharon, I suppose, but I'm not going to waste time defending either. I agree that the irony is intense, but I think DM might have been more than a little aware of that since he has a history of these sort of revolutionary avatars.


Edit:


True, true. Playing devil's advocate however; it's the Bible and the Crusades, the Koran and 9/11...

Not really irony at all. The slogan itself is nothing to do with the USSR and predates it by over 100 years. It's true that many movements that have used it as a slogan have been crushed pretty undemocratically in supposedly democratic countries. It is also true that it is taken as inspiration by dissenters in totalitarian countries, as it was in Eastern Europe during the 1980s.

EDIT: erk, unless you meant the situation I described was ironic- rather than assuming my tone was ironic. In which case, never mind.

Das Kapital is certainly not a utopian work though... if you actually read it it is very dry and scientific economic analysis for long, tedious periods.

I am currently on my nth attempt at struggling through it... sheesh, heavy going.

The irony is just that: it is juxtaposed against the Hammer and Sickle.
Whatever, I really don't have the time, nor the deisre for a long drawn out debate regarding communism vs. capitalism.
You guys go ahead and dissect them.

I've read some scathing dismissals of Marxism from Popperian points of view. Like Freud's psychoanalysis, it can't be disproved. Something like Marx making up ad hoc exceptions every time something didn't align with his theories to explain it.

Both of which are beset with many shades of grey. And I really should be working, so, later, for now.

But that value system isn't natural; it's imposed by capitalism. Getting people to treat each other with respect shouldn't be utopian.

It can't be disproved because "proof" is a scientific concept. Economics is not a science, no matter how much it may like to pose as one. That's why the scientific bits of Capital are such a pain in the arse to read, IMO.

I'm not sure which specific incidents these Popperian points of view are referring to, though.

I don't know jackshit about Marxism, so I'm just paraphrasing what I vaguely remember. Something about... All societies with capitalist systems will eventually inevitably turn into something else...? Sounding familiar?

Popper is a tool. I was always under the impression he was arguing against historicism. Marx's labor theory of value has been discredited pretty hard but the theoretical criticism aspect of Marx is solid.

Yeah Popper was arguing against dialectical materialism and the progression of society. Popper claimed that history comes through people's knowledge and you can't predict what knowledge will arise so you can't predict historical stages or something like that.

I like Popper, he seems like a clear-thinking guy. Very logical, of course. I'd just like to know what the Marxist response to hi criticism was.

Marx says that capitalism is an inherently illogical and therefore unsustainable system, characterised by severe internal contradictions. Most obviously, society is divided into an owning class (the bourgeoisie) and a working class (the proletariat). The former is compelled to maximise its profit, but can only do this at the material expense of the latter, which constitutes the vast majority of society. How can such a system be sustained?

The idea that there can be such "laws" at work directing society towards a specific end is, I think, where Popper's main critique of Marxism comes from.

My own view is that the Marxist analysis is correct to a degree. Look at the amount of revolutionary upheaval in Europe, Russia, and even the US right up until World War Two. There were huge, huge movements that were clearly anti-capitalist, and which, had they managed to take power (which they did in some cases, and extremely nearly did in others), would indeed have ended capitalism as we knew it. And, these movements WERE a result of the effects of the contradictory laws Marx talks about.

What Marx didn't take into account was the whole Keynesian liberal thing that took off post WWII, which really mitigated the effects of said contradictions and stopped his predictions from working out (which if you look at the USSR etc. was arguably a good thing). Keynesianism went out in the 1970s.... lo and behold, capitalism unchained simply cannot sustain itself after another couple of decades.

What do you mean, Keynesianism went "out" in the 1970s? Isn't Keynesian theory combining the free market opportunity with gov't intervention to minimize injustices? Isn't that what almost every advanced country has today?

The degree to which govt. intervenes is a sliding scale which will never be at zero, but the extent to which it did was drastically cut back in the 1970s/1980s.

I guess I'm mainly referring to the "Anglo-Saxon" economies i.e. US and UK, though.

What is particularly interesting about Keynesianism going "out" in that period, is the industrial relations system. Unions during the Keynesian period were heavily integrated into corporate governance systems. Workers would be guaranteed regular wage rises and limited working days in exchange for playing nice with business and the government, and not striking. This system was completely dismantled in the UK under Thatcher. That's one very clear way in which the role of government retreated dramatically in the period I'm talking about. But if you want more, geez just look at the number of privatisations during the 1980s.

My mom keeps bitching about the privatization of the "public houses". She was studying at UCL during the late 80s, and is scathing about Thatcher.

Thanks for the explanation, though. Economics is one of my weakest subjects, I don't understand the fucking graphs!

Economics makes my head hurt...

I am more of a sociologist/political economist, I guess. I just say my academic area is industrial relations, or if I'm feeling especially pretentious "Critical labour studies".

This thread is the epitome of MR. Communism and religion debates. Needs more ad hominem attacks, though. Well, DM basically did enough for everyone.

I thought it was fairly civil, and definitely at a higher level thanmost on that jerky "Symposium" forum on metal-archives.