Marx was right!

[TTM]

Not that I've read any Marx, but (via Wikipedia) he apparently anticipated the modern American "democracy":

... liberal democracy, under capitalist ideology, is constitutively class-based and therefore can never be democratic or participatory ... According to Marx, representation of the interests of different classes is proportional to the influence which a particular class can purchase. Thus, the public interest, in so-called liberal democracies, is systematically corrupted by the wealth of those classes rich enough to gain representation.

 ...

Thus, according to Marx, parliamentary elections are no more than a cynical, systemic attempt to deceive the people by permitting them, every now and again, to endorse one or other of the bourgeoisie's predetermined choices of which political party can best advocate the interests of capital. Once elected, this parliament, as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, enacts regulations that actively support the interests of its true constituency, the bourgeoisie.

 

Marx ... not entirely wrong! Trump, (and Brexit, and various mostly "nationalist" parties across Europe) being an attempted rejection of this state of affairs. Similar to what happened after great depression in the 30s after the excesses of the 20s...

 

(ps "bourgeoisie" via Marx is simply those who live off of capital and property, as opposed to those that live off of wages, the "proletariat")

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, TTM said:

Thus, according to Marx, parliamentary elections are no more than a cynical, systemic attempt to deceive the people by permitting them, every now and again, to endorse one or other of the bourgeoisie's predetermined choices of which political party can best advocate the interests of capital. Once elected, this parliament, as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, enacts regulations that actively support the interests of its true constituency, the bourgeoisie.

 

(ps "bourgeoisie" via Marx is simply those who live off of capital and property, as opposed to those that live off of wages, the "proletariat")

The same process appears to unfold no matter what system we're governed by because the ultimate constituency are those who govern.  Communist countries have their right and left wings too - those who suck up to power and those who don't.

Edited November 27, 2016 by eyeball

[TTM]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The same process appears to unfold no matter what system we're governed by because the ultimate constituency are those who govern.

Undue influence of the wealthy is always in issue, but can hopefully be minimized with appropriate rules and transparency.  The US has been undermining those rules for decades and then completely jumped the shark with "money = speech".  They have at this point basically instituted corruption.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not clear what this thread has to do with U.S. politics specifically.....no parliament in the U.S. except for a legendary funk band.

"Money = speech" = "U.S. Constitution + Supreme Court"

[Michael Hardner]

Thread moved.

[TTM]

Not clear what this thread has to do with U.S. politics specifically.....no parliament in the U.S. except for a legendary funk band.  

Except that it is a near perfect description of the current state of American politics.  The US is a liberal democracy. The exact form is irrelevant to the point.

"Money = speech" = "[an interpretation of the] U.S. Constitution [by the] Supreme Court"

= institutionalizing corruption 

Edited November 27, 2016 by TTM
spelling

[bush_cheney2004]

16 minutes ago, TTM said:

Except that it is a near perfect description of the current state of American politics.  The US is a liberal democracy. The exact form is irrelevant to the point.

 

Near perfect isn't good enough.   The U.S. is a constitutional republic with democratic elements.  

 

Quote

"Money = speech" = "[an interpretation of the] U.S. Constitution [by the] Supreme Court"

= institutionalizing corruption 

 

See above.

[TTM]

Near perfect isn't good enough.   The U.S. is a constitutional republic with democratic elements. 

Near perfect is fine.  Your constitutional republic is one example of a liberal (western) democracy. Replace "parliament" with "elected government bodies, including head of state" 

See above.

I see nothing relevant.

Edited November 27, 2016 by TTM
clarification

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

The same process appears to unfold no matter what system we're governed by because the ultimate constituency are those who govern.  Communist countries have their right and left wings too - those who suck up to power and those who don't.

Pretty much every "communist" country of the 20th and 21st century wasn't really communist.  Those countries were not ruled by the masses of working people aka proletariat as communism demands and Marx envisioned, they were ruled with an iron fist by a corrupt and rich elite who stole from and brutally controlled and repressed the working people/proletariat, and any of the working people/proletariat who dared raise a dissenting voice were jailed or murdered...which just proves that the actual workers/proletariat had zero political power. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" my ass.

Marx would have spit at the USSR, Cuba, China etc if he were alive to see them.

[TTM]

While I was quoting Marx, I'm not really interested in this devolving into a discussion about communism.   I'm more interested in the democracy and capitalism angle

[bush_cheney2004]

Carl Marx only extended existing labour theory of value canon at the time, and projecting his assumptions into the political realm quickly breaks down for post-industrial revolution economics.   Cheap energy and automation reduced the possible numbers for hordes of workers to "rise up" against the ruling class.   Workers began to see real wage growth with rising GDP (GDP/capita).   That's why Marxism still finds supporters in poor, labour intensive economies/nations.

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

I concur with bc2004 that those factors and others (the so-called capitalist system adopted reforms, and was not just capitalist but open and able to change) have made Marxism inapplicable to later economics.

[TTM]

Again, I don't care about the rightness or wrongness of Marxist communism (I have little opinion on the subject; as far as I'm concerned the correct solution is not communism but the modern welfare state).

Regardless of Marx's conclusions, his analysis of the problem regarding the influence of unfettered capitalism on democracy 100+ years ago is a spot on description of modern American politics,  and helps explains the success of Trump and similar movements elsewhere. 

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by TTM
readability

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, TTM said:

Regardless of Marx's conclusions, his analysis of the problem regarding the influence of unfettered capitalism on democracy 100+ years ago is a spot on description of modern American politics,  and helps explains the success of Trump and similar movements elsewhere. 

I agree, he was mostly right about that.  You can try  to separate speech and wealth in a liberal democracy, and do an okay job at it, but there's really no getting around wealth and power in a liberal democracy.  Wealthy people have far greater access to "justice" in the so-called "justice" system than your average worker, it's going to be the same with political speech, controlling versions of the "truth" (ie: in the media) through speech etc.

Yes it explains partly the rise of Trump, and also the rise of Bernie Sanders.  In the U.S. it's completely out of control.  The wealthy control almost all of the mainstream media, and can donate to campaigns through Super Pacs with no money limits.  The wealthy probably had some kind of influence over the US justices who made that decision in the 1st place for all we know.

Liberal democracy is great but it's also designed as way to ensure private properly rights aka the wealthy get to keep their riches and power.  Basically, in a liberal democracy the monarchy is abolished by the wealthly aristocrats keep their wealth and power.

[bush_cheney2004]

Liberal democracies do not operate to please fans of Marx....liberal democracies and economics made Marx irrelevant.   Unionization is actually down in the U.S. , while "right-to-work" is way up.   The social welfare state is growing.   "Austerity" has been rejected as a long term fiscal policy.   Debt is good....just like Greed.

The proletariat is more interested in wide screen HD televisions and smart phones than Carl Marx.

 

[Michael Hardner]

Those two statements seem at odds with each other, when you look at history.  If democracies didn't operate to please fans of Marx, how and why did they change, exactly ?

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Those two statements seem at odds with each other, when you look at history.  If democracies didn't operate to please fans of Marx, how and why did they change, exactly ?

 

Democracies have evolved to reflect greater wealth, more capital, growing markets, and social change.   Slavery use to be legal in "liberal  democracies".

Economics trumps virtue...and it trumps Marx too.

Edited November 28, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

"social change."  Now you're talking my language.  Two of my favourite presidents that bookended the era of American exceptionalism are FDR and LBJ, and you can guess why.

 

My favourite Marx smoked a cigar and chased his brothers around on a boat.

[bush_cheney2004]

FDR was a "fascist" by any standard being applied to current U.S. or other liberal democracies.   Donald Trump will never get away with such things.

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

"will" = you think he is going to try

If not, you would say "would".  Anyway, good to see your amoral patriotism has its limits at FDR.  Carry on.

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"will" = you think he is going to try

If not, you would say "would".  Anyway, good to see your amoral patriotism has its limits at FDR.  Carry on.

 

Has nothing to do with morality....FDR did as he pleased (mostly) as political reality and circumstances permitted.

All U.S. presidents try things with successes and failures.   FDR pushed this to new levels, and he was called on it at time.

Example:   Donald Trump has been excoriated for threatening to legally deport millions of illegal aliens, while FDR actually interned U.S. citizens.

 

[Michael Hardner]

It almost sounds like you have an objection to that, but I know better.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

It almost sounds like you have an objection to that, but I know better.

 

Why would I object ?   It is what it is/was.   Playing fast and loose with what constitutes a "liberal democracy" will always be challenged by inconvenient truths.

Marx thought he had it all figured out....they always do.

[Michael Hardner]

You might object if you perceived excessive moralizing or apatriotism, if that is a word.  

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, TTM said:

Again, I don't care about the rightness or wrongness of Marxist communism (I have little opinion on the subject; as far as I'm concerned the correct solution is not communism but the modern welfare state).

Regardless of Marx's conclusions, his analysis of the problem regarding the influence of unfettered capitalism on democracy 100+ years ago is a spot on description of modern American politics,  and helps explains the success of Trump and similar movements elsewhere. 

Where Marx's explanations break down in Trump's case is the idiocy of the proletariat siccing a billionaire on the bourgeoisie that's been screwing them over.  Maybe when the drug Trump spiked his kool-aid with wears off his supporters will start taking matters into their own hands - I won't be surprised if they start with him.