Has Capitalism Met the Marxist Utopia?

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

Too much inequality creates unhappy people. Take two siblings, give one a big fun toy for Christmas and give the other a tiny little slightly
rubbish one.

What's the fall out ?

They both 'gained' from Christmas but do you think it will be a happy Christmas ?

Possibly

if they learn to Share ...

a very eloquent story of very bad parenting

but says nothing about the relationship between the producers of life saving essential goods and services and the people who depend upon them

Jonbvn

Generali wrote: »

Better for everyone to be poor?

Obviously not. However, is it better that numerous people from poor CEO's to dodgy banksters play the heads I win, tails the taxpayer loses game?

Generali

Jonbvn wrote: »

Obviously not. However, is it better that numerous people from poor CEO's to dodgy banksters play the heads I win, tails the taxpayer loses game?

That's not the point though. The point is that Marx wanted a system where everyone had their needs met. Capitalism has delivered that and more to the people of Britain.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Karl Marx's most famous quote was probably, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"......

So I would claim that capitalism has taken the UK and many other countries waaaay past the Marxist ideal. Basically everyone in Britain has all their needs met. There are exceptions but those are generally people who have very severe problems of other kinds: being in an abusive family perhaps or suffering with addiction. The sort of thing that no state can ever truly solve..............
.

The above assumes there is an absolute level of need that is to be satisfied. Our perception of need changes with time. in 1875 I dread to think how many of the population had an outside WC and how many others died of diseases that were incurable at the time.

So part of the answer to the question must be to what extent it is fair to say that needs have been met. The needs that Marx was fighting for have perhaps been met in UK, but if Marx were to return to the UK today, would he say that people's needs are being met when for example 1m people allegedly visit food banks, people still live in damp homes or are homeless, and the elderly still die of hyperthermia?

I am not a student of Marxist philosophy. but I would say that the principle he was elucidating was that everyone has an obligation to do their bit to contribute to society taking into account that we all have different abilities to do so. In return they should expect their needs are met. While I would argue people's needs change over time, I agree that there has been a tendency to expect wants to be satisfied rather than needs.

If the only needs that Capitalism had failed to address are things like abusive families that the state can never solve, I might agree with you. But while Marxism has not succeeded, neither has Capitalism, indeed capitalism may also fail as capital is increasingly concentrated on the few and competition is driven out by the emerging cartels that limit competition.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

I suspect that capitalism will continue for some time failing to deliver needs and continually require people to fight its injustices. Then something will happen to undermine it and new thinking will emerge.

The great success of capitalism in eliminating world famine and disease is perhaps another case study to consider.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

But while Marxism has not succeeded, neither has Capitalism, indeed capitalism may also fail as capital is increasingly concentrated on the few and competition is driven out by the emerging cartels that limit competition.

Capitalism may fail for the reasons you identify but I argue that Capitalism has been a massive success delivering huge prosperity to all that live in broadly capitalist countries.

BobQ wrote: »

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

I think this is a quote that is often misunderstood. I think it is a development of Adam's Smith's great idea:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages

Our dinner is delivered to us by butchers, brewers and bakers who serve our interests whilst acting in a wholly self-interested way. Someone having my interests at heart is not a precondition of me getting a steak sandwich and a beer.

BobQ wrote: »

I suspect that capitalism will continue for some time failing to deliver needs and continually require people to fight its injustices. Then something will happen to undermine it and new thinking will emerge.

The great success of capitalism in eliminating world famine and disease is perhaps another case study to consider.

I argue that it does deliver people's needs very well. People in well run Capitalist countries don't go hungry. They have a roof over their head, an education and the ability to get medical treatment if required. In the UK if you don't have your basic material needs met then it means that you have other unaddressed problems in life (addiction or other forms of mental illness most often).

I believe that Capitalism is in the process of doing that very thing. Famine has been a regular feature of Chinese rural life but GDP growth bringing the country to middle-income levels has largely eliminated famine. Capitalism and trade mean that a failed harvest in China doesn't mean starvation for millions any longer.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf
.....

You mean, I am not the only one that has actually read the Critique of the Gotha Programme?

Generali wrote: »

...Karl Marx's most famous quote was probably, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". For many people that sums up Marxism at a stroke: you do an honest day's work and you receive in return what is required to keep body and soul together: housing, food, medicine etc......

This is what it actually means.

Only in the "higher phase of communist society" can the "narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

In the "higher phase of communist society" (as in utopia has been achieved) everything is available in abundance and money has ceased to exist. Therefore, you can help yourself to whatever you need, whilst you will willingly contribute your own efforts to ensure that this state of affairs continues.

I do not believe that capitalism has so far managed to achieve this Marxist utopia. For that to happen, we need the Zombie Robot Apocalypse of Absolutely Everything.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

...I am not a student of Marxist philosophy. ....

That is very clear from what you have written.:)

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

You mean, I am not the only one that has actually read the Critique of the Gotha Programme?

Panicked skimming as an undergraduate is probably a more accurate phrase than 'read'.

antrobus wrote: »

Only in the "higher phase of communist society" can the "narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

In the "higher phase of communist society" (as in utopia has been achieved) everything is available in abundance and money has ceased to exist. Therefore, you can help yourself to whatever you need, whilst you will willingly contribute your own efforts to ensure that this state of affairs continues.

I do not believe that capitalism has so far managed to achieve this Marxist utopia. For that to happen, we need the Zombie Robot Apocalypse of Absolutely Everything.

Of course we don't have free abundance as there are still resource constraints in many areas although IT is increasing creating abundance as the marginal cost of many IT products is so low that it is effectively $0.00 or perhaps $0.0001.

I would argue that through a C19th lens we have entered a period of abundance for all, in the UK at least.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

.....I believe that Capitalism is in the process of doing that very thing. Famine has been a regular feature of Chinese rural life but GDP growth bringing the country to middle-income levels has largely eliminated famine. Capitalism and trade mean that a failed harvest in China doesn't mean starvation for millions any longer.

Which is exactly what, in a strict Marxist sense, capitalism is supposed to do. Capitalism is supposed to vastly increase the productive forces of society until it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. Basically, capitalism is supposed to end up producing so much stuff, that they can't actually sell all the stuff.

And then you get socialism.

Jonbvn

Generali wrote: »

That's not the point though. The point is that Marx wanted a system where everyone had their needs met. Capitalism has delivered that and more to the people of Britain.

It is the point when a large section of the population become so disillusioned with this game that they take things into their own hands....