From the review of the book, 'Commonwealth', by Hardt and Negri:

For the revolution to succeed, three supposedly corrupt forms of the common must be destroyed. Some of the harshest language in "Commonwealth" targets the family: Mom, dad and the kids might not know it, but they are part of a "pathetic" institution, a "machine" that "grinds down and crushes the common" with "the blindest egoism." Messrs. Hardt and Negri cry: "Down with the family!" The two other killers of the world's spirit: the corporation and the nation. When the multitude seizes "control of the means of production and reproduction," we're promised, the evil trio will wind up on Marx's ash heap of history.

And:

Messrs. Hardt and Negri make little effort to build arguments in support of their wild assertions and predictions. They write as if ignorant of the 20th century and of much else, including economics and social science. (They still quote Lenin and Mao as if they were sources of wise political and economic analysis.) How would abolishing private property not lead to a threadbare totalitarian state, as it has in the past? The authors promise it will be different this time, without explaining why. If you abolish the family, how will children grow into flourishing adults? We must take it on faith that the post-family world will be just fine. (The word "children" almost never appears in the book.)

Are you guys serious aobut this? In particular, the part about abolishing the family just flat out ignores human nature. I understand that this is excerpted material in a review (a rather negative one, at that), but, you can't be serious.

No Marxists on here apart from maybe Andy with the sickle in his banner.

Or do you think anyone who's slightly socialist is a full blown commie?

Great, down with the family.

The gods honest truth about human nature Erco is that we were not designed to stay married for 20 years and live in the same bed with that person, whilst ones children grow up. Even though marriage is better for them mentally. Hell 50 years ago you could have given your offspring to your extended family to look after so you could take breaks here and there. Nowadays unfettered capitalism and stupidly long working hours have seen to it that parents don't seem to have the time. I suppose giving mothers with families to look after more benefits so they could work less hours and be able cope with family life better would be considered socialism/communism in your book though? How do you like them apples?

Take a look at all the journals showing how much marriage satisfaction falls, especially in women after having a child.

Humans are selfish. So either you liberalize marriage so people can break up easier. Or you strip away womens rights and go all Taliban on them. I much prefer the first. Mull on that for a little while.

Judging from the review, (and not having read the book) it sounds like a 'divide and conquer' tactic when they espouse the "down with the family" philosophy. There's nothing like tearing up a family by sowing suspicion and encouraging the state's over the individual's needs. What is ironic is the idea that Hardt and Negri can stand up and be heard in a capitalist society today, only to be suppressed as potential instigators in a hypothetical 'Marxist' society that would more than likely go the way the others did in the past and present. (judging by the way that human nature goes)

I do say that corporations need to be abolished or at least neutered to be less powerful than they are now. Individuals, and groups hiding behind the shield of the 'corporation' still need to be held accountable for their actions.

Speaking as, as far as I am aware, the only self-proclaimed Marxist on the forum, I think I ought to respond. Firstly, it is a little unfair to base my comments on an openly-hostile review published in the Wall Street Journal. Having said that though, I attempted to read an earlier book by Hardt and Negri - 'Empire', published in 2000. I say 'attempted' because I gave up at page 24 (it runs to 413 pages, excluding notes and index). Frankly, I've never read a worse example of vacuous postmodernist drivel in my life (and I studied anthropology at university, so had a fair chance to encounter this particular genre). In as far as I got with it 'Empire' was utterly without factual content, or any pretence to be an assessment of reality. Indeed, like most postmodernist gloop, it denies that reality even exists. This is not Marxism as I understand it in any way, shape, or form. I have no reason to believe that 'Commonwealth' will be any different.

The WSJ describes 'Commonwealth' as "a dark, evil book", Judging by H & N's previous effort, a better description may well be "a pile of poo". Please don't ask me to read it though...

Thanks Andy, I hoped you would offer some perspective!

Airmail, I think you're right and wrong.

Andy, Do you think that 'Marxism' (as original philosophy written by Marx himself) would successfully function societally, and economically? Would there have to be modifications to the philosophy for it to be able to function in the real world? It would seem to on paper, but human nature somehow manages to get in the way...


For the record, I am asking this question with all openness, honesty, and without prejudice.

A curious and inquiring mind would like to know.

quote:

Andy, Do you think that 'Marxism' (as original philosophy written by Marx himself) would successfully function societally, and economically? Would there have to be modifications to the philosophy for it to be able to function in the real world? It would seem to on paper, but human nature somehow manages to get in the way...

The short answer to that has got to be that Marxist philosophy is an explanation for why society and economics are the way they are, and why and how they change. I find Marxist explanations in these fields more convincing than most others, so the philosophy functions for me, and that is what makes me a Marxist. As for whether a society built on Marxist principles would function better than others, I'd first of all have to establish what you mean by 'successfuly function'? I'm not just trying to be obstructive here, without clarification on this, the question is fairly meaningless. In the sense of 'reproducing itself over time' feudalism was successful, but I don't think that is what you mean...

If on the other hand do you mean to ask whether a society based on Marx's objectives would be better for the majority of its members than what we have now, I have to say it could be - again, if I didn't believe that I would not be a Marxist. This is not the same thing as saying that Marx, (or Mao, or Trotsky, or whoever) has all the answers. I belive, as Marx did, that the means of production ought not to be in private hands. I also believe, as he did, that the state as an institution exists in its present form largely to maintain the hegemony of a priviliged minority( the 'ruling class'), and that a more egalitarian society can exist without 'a state' as a separate institution at all (something incidentally that my anthropological studies tend to confirm). This I suppose is the core of my Marxism. Of course there is much that has been learned since Marx's time, and it would be ludicrous to suggest that nothing could be learned from this.

Ultimately though, Marxist philosophy says that societies change over time, regardless of the philosophy of those who study them. And one of the ways that society changes is in its perception of what 'human nature' is. The conflict between different perceptions of 'human nature' are both shaped by, and a part of, the process of social change. It is not necessarily 'human nature' itself (if such a thing really exists...), but our perceptions of it that can impede progress, and maintain the inequalities of the status quo.

I love the idea Andy, honestly. I imagine the words fair and just actually meaning something in such a society. I just have no faith that humanity at this point, is unselfish enough to attempt it or anything close to it. I think it will only look something similar to communism if attempted. In the U.S. I see it failing miserably and amazingly.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
As for whether a society built on Marxist principles would function better than others, I'd first of all have to establish what you mean by 'successfuly function'? I'm not just trying to be obstructive here, without clarification on this, the question is fairly meaningless. In the sense of 'reproducing itself over time' feudalism was successful, but I don't think that is what you mean...

To clarify, how would a potential Marxist society function/perform compared with a typical Capitalist society, for instance would the standard of Western countries be maintained in regards to innovation, productivity, personal achievement and perhaps lifestyle? (the latter would be subjective) I have spoken before with former citizens of the former Soviet Union about life there back then, and in one case the Russian immigrant was a respected civil engineer who designed the layout of factory towns back in the 1950's,- 70's. He said that he was paid the same as the janitor who cleaned his office at the end of the day, and that it really stifled him to think that this was as good as it was going to get, with no promise of a pay raise to cause him to ever desire to excel. The others said pretty much the same thing, and they felt a lot freer in that they could move ahead of the pack according to their own merits here in the States.

Mind that I am not saying that the same would happen in a hypothetical future Marxist system, but if all were equal with equal pay and lifestyles, then there would be the problem of 'dealing' with personal achievement. If it wasn't the case, then I would think that the problem of excellent individual performance being subsequently rewarded would be a cause for potential problems. I feel that this would be similar to my only experience working in a union when I was an apprentice machinist/toolmaker in 1981. I was admonished and threatened frequently to not work so hard or enthusiastically so as to not upset the status quo in the Mobiloil refinery toolroom and shop. After that, I only worked for non union shops where I was most times generously rewarded and recognized and appreciated for the quality of my work and performance. (It seems that in this difficult economy nowadays, the same thing is happening in the Capitalist world where your hard work is never appreciated, but is merely necessary for one to keep their jobs which now entail doing the work [at reduced wages, natch] of 6 other unfortunates who got laid off... ) Now, if production, etc were at such a scale where everyone who contributed would potentially share the same from top to bottom no matter how industrious or lazy they were, then it probably would work. (Oops, did it again...I thought about the union I worked in... )

quote:

If on the other hand do you mean to ask whether a society based on Marx's objectives would be better for the majority of its members than what we have now, I have to say it could be - again, if I didn't believe that I would not be a Marxist. This is not the same thing as saying that Marx, (or Mao, or Trotsky, or whoever) has all the answers. I belive, as Marx did, that the means of production ought not to be in private hands. I also believe, as he did, that the state as an institution exists in its present form largely to maintain the hegemony of a priviliged minority( the 'ruling class'), and that a more egalitarian society can exist without 'a state' as a separate institution at all (something incidentally that my anthropological studies tend to confirm). This I suppose is the core of my Marxism. Of course there is much that has been learned since Marx's time, and it would be ludicrous to suggest that nothing could be learned from this.

Yes, that is part of what I meant. The other was how it would be compared to a Capitalist society. The one successful society that I can think of of that was for the most part a Marxist type society was Sparta. As you are more than likely aware, this was only for Spartan citizens though. The helots unfortunately bore the brunt of supporting the Spartan way of life.

quote:

Ultimately though, Marxist philosophy says that societies change over time, regardless of the philosophy of those who study them. And one of the ways that society changes is in its perception of what 'human nature' is. The conflict between different perceptions of 'human nature' are both shaped by, and a part of, the process of social change. It is not necessarily 'human nature' itself (if such a thing really exists...), but our perceptions of it that can impede progress, and maintain the inequalities of the status quo.

What I meant by 'human nature' was that which causes people's actions, whether they be noble or base. People can say and espouse whatever they wish, and be completely in contradiction in both beliefs and action to what they say to the masses. For example, one might say "I believe that all people are created equal!" very loudly in public, and then quietly say out of the side of their mouth, "But some are more equal than others." (Note that this applies to any philosophy)

Messaschnitzel, you raise some interesting questions that deserve a full answer. I will try to return to this tomorrow, if my internet connection is a little more cooperative, but for now I'd like to clarify that I don't accept the the Soviet Union was in any way a Marxist/Communist society in practice, though the reasons why it failed to be are a question of some dispute. even amongst the non-Pro-Soviet left.

What 'human nature' is, and if indeed it exists at all is of course a question central to anthropology, and I fear that trying to explain my understanding of the subject would take rather a long time, and probably bore the pants off most readers anyway. You are right of course that what people say, and what they do are two different things, but not always in ways you might expect...

Down with panties.

quote:

Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Down with panties.

Woa woa, let's not get crazy here, do you mean down with as in moving them from one location to another, or down with as in ban the panties, cause if it's the latter you are on your own there, lol.

What are panties?

K2