Anti-government propaganda and Marxism

[Darth Wong]

For my entire adult life, I have been hearing American propaganda about how government is intrinsically a bad thing. It is inefficient, it is exploitative, it is coercive. The solution is to weaken government, drain it of its power and wealth, and let the people rule themselves.

But I've noted an interesting exercise: if you read some of Karl Marx's stuff about the bourgeoisie, and replace "bourgeoisie" with "government", it sounds pretty much exactly the same. The bourgeoisie are inefficient; they get in the way of ideal distribution of labour. The bourgeoisie are exploitative; they exploit the labour of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are coercive; they own the means of production and force others to do their bidding. And Marx offers pretty much the same solution: weaken the entire bourgeoisie class, drain it of its power and wealth, and let the proletariat rule themselves.

In both cases, they apparently refuse to ask themselves whether this class they so despise (either the government or the bourgeoisie) is actually necessary for society to function. Is there some huge distinction I'm missing here, or is the "I hate big government" political movement just a minor variation on Marx's "I hate the bourgeoisie" political movement of the 19th century?

[brianeyci]

The only distinction I see that's a small one that at least Marxism's goals are noble. To give everybody exactly the same wealth.

I can't see any noble or moral code ruling laissez-faire capitalism, other than get rich and fuck the people below you. All moral codes try to maximize benefit and minimize suffering, and I don't see how that is necessarily an extension of having an elite ruling class and many slaves. It might benefit the elites but sure doesn't benefit the slaves.

[K. A. Pital]

It's funny how Americans rabidly decry their own government and it's intervention in economy or social policies, but gleefully support the same government when it is making war somewhere abroad or messing in someone else's affairs.

That just strikes as some form of cognitive dissonance; only the most nutty libertarians in America would be truly opposed to American foreign policy, and of course not on a moral basis, e.g. because it's opressive, exploitive, domination-directed, but just because it's the big government...

[Havok]

Could the distinction on the American side come from the division over states rights and Federal rights? I've always though that when people in the US get all riled about "big government" they are referring to the Fed, but not their individual state.

Hasn't all of Russia usually been ruled from one seat of power with only one government or ruling class in control?

[K. A. Pital]

Hasn't all of Russia usually been ruled from one seat of power with only one government or ruling class in control?

Yes and no. For longer periods of history, yes. For a shorter historic period, like, for example, formation of the USSR, the newly-built nationstate was controlled by several republican governments; of course, after some time all of them became controlled from Russia's capital.

[Illuminatus Primus]

For my entire adult life, I have been hearing American propaganda about how government is intrinsically a bad thing. It is inefficient, it is exploitative, it is coercive. The solution is to weaken government, drain it of its power and wealth, and let the people rule themselves.

But I've noted an interesting exercise: if you read some of Karl Marx's stuff about the bourgeoisie, and replace "bourgeoisie" with "government", it sounds pretty much exactly the same. The bourgeoisie are inefficient; they get in the way of ideal distribution of labour. The bourgeoisie are exploitative; they exploit the labour of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are coercive; they own the means of production and force others to do their bidding. And Marx offers pretty much the same solution: weaken the entire bourgeoisie class, drain it of its power and wealth, and let the proletariat rule themselves.

In both cases, they apparently refuse to ask themselves whether this class they so despise (either the government or the bourgeoisie) is actually necessary for society to function. Is there some huge distinction I'm missing here, or is the "I hate big government" political movement just a minor variation on Marx's "I hate the bourgeoisie" political movement of the 19th century?

There are huge similarities in right-libertarians (and anarcho-capitalists in particular) and orthodox Marxists. Their rhetoric, their philosophy, their attitudes are eerily similar. Quite frankly state-intervention in the economy and participatory democracy are the greatest threats to the power monopoly by the rich financier/capitalist ruling class. Therefore an odd combination between pithy but ultimately shallow, half-baked right-libertarian rhetoric and a culture that encourages people to watch TV and not care is the ideal solution to perpetuating the state of affairs.

[Sam Or I]

Wouldn't this be best reflected a site like www.politicalcompass.org. Showing the economic scale and social scale of ones beliefs?

[Darth Wong]

How does that chart have anything to do with what I'm talking about? Please elaborate.

[K. A. Pital]

That scale doesn't show the distinction between authortarian and 'state-imposed' - not every state-imposed policy reflects that the state is authoritarian; a state controlled by a democratic mechanism, or a state body, could "impose" collectivism, but that wouldn't be authoritarian. So "voluntary" could be also state-imposed, through a democratic procedure.

[Sam Or I]

Wouldn't this be best reflected a site like www.politicalcompass.org. Showing the economic scale and social scale of ones beliefs?

[Darth Wong]

Is there some reason why you thought your post would be more interesting when you posted it a second time?

[Lockheed]

For my entire adult life, I have been hearing American propaganda about how government is intrinsically a bad thing. It is inefficient, it is exploitative, it is coercive. The solution is to weaken government, drain it of its power and wealth, and let the people rule themselves.

But I've noted an interesting exercise: if you read some of Karl Marx's stuff about the bourgeoisie, and replace "bourgeoisie" with "government", it sounds pretty much exactly the same. The bourgeoisie are inefficient; they get in the way of ideal distribution of labour. The bourgeoisie are exploitative; they exploit the labour of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are coercive; they own the means of production and force others to do their bidding. And Marx offers pretty much the same solution: weaken the entire bourgeoisie class, drain it of its power and wealth, and let the proletariat rule themselves.

In both cases, they apparently refuse to ask themselves whether this class they so despise (either the government or the bourgeoisie) is actually necessary for society to function. Is there some huge distinction I'm missing here, or is the "I hate big government" political movement just a minor variation on Marx's "I hate the bourgeoisie" political movement of the 19th century?

Well, from what I understand is that the whole idea behind this was partly influenced from the fact that the governments of the time were very, very corrupt and really only cared about the interests of the privileged few. At the time Karl Marx wrote this the so-called bourgeoisie class pretty much dominated entire nations and used their wealth specifically to gain influence in the government and literally rob everyone else of the fruits of their labor. So that is one distinction.

Another one is that he believed that with our technology and industrial capabilities we could literally create a classless society in which everyone was equal.


In the case of the Americas, the rulers over the empires and kingdoms were believed to do so under the divine right of deities, while the American Revolutionaries and other European Enlightenment philosophers argued that it is the people who should decide on who their rulers are, hence the idea of a democracy or republic, and that the government is meant to serve the people. Most of them did not advocate that they should abolish government all together (in fact, anything but that).

The big government thing is more or less the idea that the government should stay out of the affairs of everyday people, but I don't necessarily agree with that.

[Lockheed]

hope that answers your question.

[Sam Or I]

Brian: The chart is by no means perfect. Nor do I claim it to be.

DW: I was responding to the distinction between the 2 groups. Both are anarchist, but they see economics to be vastly different in eachs versions of thier particular anarchy. There are definite similarities between the two, not realizing how complex society is, and that they need the things they oppose.

[brianeyci]

Brian: The chart is by no means perfect. Nor do I claim it to be.

What? I didn't say shit.

If you want my opinion of that chart, the thing is old and not related to what Mike is saying.

What Mike is saying is that the conservotards who want pure capitalism, unrestrained by government, who complain about the "state apparatus" and wish its destruction, are using exactly the same logic as Marx is when Marx attacks the elites.

Only the conservotards are worse, because they desire to maintain power like O'Reilly's desire to maintain the "white male power structure" (yes he actually said that.) At least the Marxists want to give every man equal benefits, as opposed to the conservotards who have a vested self-interest in maintaining the status quo where a small number of elites lord over the masses.

[K. A. Pital]

Only the conservotards are worse, because they desire to maintain power like O'Reilly's desire to maintain the "white male power structure" (yes he actually said that.)

If you look at the sponsors of radical conservative thought, including liberto-nuts, there's always plenty of obscenely wealthy and powerful individuals. Shameless tobacco apologists attack the government not only out of ideological goals - it's my fair guess they have their share of financing from that. Which of course prompts them to have new attacks against the government in any case where it goes against their financial masters.

Of course the true goal of such attacks is not the real "destruction" of the government, but only of it's certain traits which they dislike, which act as a barrier to their goals. Indeed even the promiment supporters of libertarianism have supported dictatorial-power governments ... if only they fully immersed into laissez-faire in economics.

The "small government" ideology is a petty, whiny sockpuppet of the rather rational, and powerful people who dislike the government's intervention into their deeds; they want to weaken only one side of the government, but bolster their own power before the same goverment.

[Darth Wong]

Well, from what I understand is that the whole idea behind this was partly influenced from the fact that the governments of the time were very, very corrupt and really only cared about the interests of the privileged few.

Isn't that the same thing anti-government types say today? All of the ranting about "special interest groups" and "government waste"?

At the time Karl Marx wrote this the so-called bourgeoisie class pretty much dominated entire nations and used their wealth specifically to gain influence in the government and literally rob everyone else of the fruits of their labor. So that is one distinction.

Anti-government propaganda complains that the political class dominates society and robs hard-working citizens of the fruits of their labour. Sound familiar?

Another one is that he believed that with our technology and industrial capabilities we could literally create a classless society in which everyone was equal.

That was another of Marx's beliefs, but it is not relevant to the particular point of comparison we are discussing in this thread.

In the case of the Americas, the rulers over the empires and kingdoms were believed to do so under the divine right of deities, while the American Revolutionaries and other European Enlightenment philosophers argued that it is the people who should decide on who their rulers are, hence the idea of a democracy or republic, and that the government is meant to serve the people. Most of them did not advocate that they should abolish government all together (in fact, anything but that).

How is this relevant to anything I'm saying? Why should a comparison between 21st century free market advocates and 19th century Marxists be in any way related to early enlightenment philosophy?

The big government thing is more or less the idea that the government should stay out of the affairs of everyday people, but I don't necessarily agree with that.

No it's not. The "big government" propaganda says that government itself is the problem, and that it should be drastically reduced in scope. The "red tape" that these people complain about usually affects corporations, not individuals.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Only the conservotards are worse, because they desire to maintain power like O'Reilly's desire to maintain the "white male power structure" (yes he actually said that.)

If you look at the sponsors of radical conservative thought, including liberto-nuts, there's always plenty of obscenely wealthy and powerful individuals. Shameless tobacco apologists attack the government not only out of ideological goals - it's my fair guess they have their share of financing from that. Which of course prompts them to have new attacks against the government in any case where it goes against their financial masters.

Of course the true goal of such attacks is not the real "destruction" of the government, but only of it's certain traits which they dislike, which act as a barrier to their goals. Indeed even the promiment supporters of libertarianism have supported dictatorial-power governments ... if only they fully immersed into laissez-faire in economics.

The "small government" ideology is a petty, whiny sockpuppet of the rather rational, and powerful people who dislike the government's intervention into their deeds; they want to weaken only one side of the government, but bolster their own power before the same goverment.

Ever notice how it is quietly and tacitly accepted that libertarianism necessarily means right-libertarianism? Local integralism or syndicalism, participatory democracy, increased power of local and civic government is never mentioned. As if there are no libertarian socialists. Nope nope, just neuter the state's ability to regulate large business, and everyone will be better off.

[TheKwas]

I think the similarity is being blow out of proportion by Mike. If you take Marx's work and replace the word "bourgeoisie" with "government", you end up with alot of nonsense statements. Take historical materialism for example: How can society and the modes of production move away from the noble class to the 'government' (class?). The nobles were the government prior to the advent of capitalism.

Or the exploitation theories of Marx: If we replace bourgeois with 'government' we have to conclude that the government controls the means of production. Not even the most silly of libertarians would (ok, maybe the most silly of them would) argue that any western government has that much power.

The exploitation in both ideologies is pretty different in structure.

Once you simplify the comparison down to "They hate x and want to weaken/get rid of x", well I can more or less compare any two ideologies. Are anti-corporate leftists a minor variation of anti-government libertarians?

[brianeyci]

How can society and the modes of production move away from the noble class to the 'government' (class?).

This is actually what conservotards believe. There is too much intervention by government in production, too much control. They want control back in the hands of the nobles, the way it was in the 60's, and less government regulation and intervention. You say it's a nonsense statement because it isn't true, but that's irrelevant to comparing what conservotards think of the world to what Marx thinks of the world.

Or the exploitation theories of Marx: If we replace bourgeois with 'government' we have to conclude that the government controls the means of production. Not even the most silly of libertarians would (ok, maybe the most silly of them would) argue that any western government has that much power.

Conservotards actually believe government controls the means of production and wants to take it away from them. They believe government controls the means of production through barriers to trade and over-regulation.

The exploitation in both ideologies is pretty different in structure.

Once you simplify the comparison down to "They hate x and want to weaken/get rid of x", well I can more or less compare any two ideologies. Are anti-corporate leftists a minor variation of anti-government libertarians?

No, the variables are different. The structure, the logic is very similar. If you want to entertain a comparison between ecoterrorists and libertarians you can make your own thread and do your own comparison.

[Darth Wong]

I think the similarity is being blow out of proportion by Mike. If you take Marx's work and replace the word "bourgeoisie" with "government", you end up with alot of nonsense statements. Take historical materialism for example: How can society and the modes of production move away from the noble class to the 'government' (class?). The nobles were the government prior to the advent of capitalism.

Or the exploitation theories of Marx: If we replace bourgeois with 'government' we have to conclude that the government controls the means of production. Not even the most silly of libertarians would (ok, maybe the most silly of them would) argue that any western government has that much power.

This is like saying that all of the historical strategists' musings on war are irrelevant to the modern day because none of them knew about airplanes.

Obviously, the specific mechanisms through which these classes operate is going to be different. But the underlying rhetorical technique (identifying a powerful group, declaring it to be exploitative by using its power to interfere with the presumed natural order of things, and then concluding that it should be reduced and marginalized in order to solve all of these problems) is the same.

The exploitation in both ideologies is pretty different in structure.

So? The basic ideology of identifying an exploitative group and declaring that the solution is to eliminate or shrink it rather than finding ways to improve it is the same.

Once you simplify the comparison down to "They hate x and want to weaken/get rid of x", well I can more or less compare any two ideologies. Are anti-corporate leftists a minor variation of anti-government libertarians?

It's hardly that simple. The point of comparison is very specifically a form of pseudo-logic in which, once you declare that a social class is not productive, you conclude that it should ideally be eliminated from the economic model without bothering to test whether a society or economy can function without this class. Unfortunately, you seem incapable of distinguishing between that comparison and "it must be 100% identical on every point of comparison".

[K. A. Pital]

Nope nope, just neuter the state's ability to regulate large business, and everyone will be better off.

Yeah. Syndicalism doesn't exist, trade unions are an obstacle on the way to the glorious future (paved by Bhopal), and who needs "local governments" with their "local taxes" when a corporation could conveniently run things and provide all services for you, without those "taxes" and "social security"?

I guess the big deal for those people is not ideology, save a very, very small fraction of real zealots - it's more like some sort of competition, when corporations grow big enough they can try to compete with the government for all of it's services, and they have their well-paid lobbyists, which are the "small government" propaganists.

It's fairly easy to see this as large-scale competition in action. Except the corporate competitors don't look any more honest or effective than the government, but shout through every kind of media that they are.

The libertarian socialists, syndicalists and others "don't exist" only due to absolutely disproportionate ability to voice their opinion, especially in America. The corporation lobby uses the media as a vehicle of competition against the government, and so those who are against this approach really "don't exist".

[Norseman]

The only distinction I see that's a small one that at least Marxism's goals are noble. To give everybody exactly the same wealth.

I can't see any noble or moral code ruling laissez-faire capitalism, other than get rich and fuck the people below you. All moral codes try to maximize benefit and minimize suffering, and I don't see how that is necessarily an extension of having an elite ruling class and many slaves. It might benefit the elites but sure doesn't benefit the slaves.

You don't see the noble or moral code ruling laissex-faire capitalism? You are aware that the theorists of the 19th Century often defended free trade and capitalism as a utopian project that would prevent war and benefit everyone?

From such a point of view capitalism and free trade means that a wine farmer in France can co-operate with a British ship's captain to deliver wine to an American store. By linking the whole world together with trade and commerce they believed that not only would everyone benefit, not only would everyone become richer, but war and strife would be reduced when everyone worked together peacefully for mutual benefit.

Moreover laissez-faire also meant freedom from the crippling government regulations of the day. Consider what the Freedom of Trade means, basically you can set up your printers shop or apothecary without having to be a member of a guild. Without having to follow Royal Prescripts regulating the number of printers or apothecaries that a city can support. Instead everyone was free to give it a go, to be the best they could be.

Moreover Free Trade AND internal Laissez-Faire means that trade can't be monopolized. That is imagine if the wine trade in your area was controlled by the Most Honourable Wine Trading Company, and that you were forbidden to sell your wines to anyone but your neighbours or the company. That is also pretty grim stuff, and it affects the small farmers more than the big conglomorates.

These examples are not taken from thin air, such things existed, and indeed they were fairly common before the mid-19th Century.

Obviously most of these theorists accepted that there had to be SOME regulations (e.g. the apothecary had to be certified so he didn't pass out poisons by accident), but in the main people should be free to do what they wanted.

Moreover these ideas and ideals did benefit the average working man. Did you know that proto-Labour Unions were the biggest supporters of free trade? It's true, that's because free trade meant cheaper grain, and cheaper better food. The factories were bad, that's true, and yet people left the countryside in troves looking for, and finding, a better life.

Now in retrospect we may smile at some of their ideas; World War One proved that extensive trading links were not, as some claimed, a panacea against war. The suffering of the working classes in the Gilded Age was indeed bad, shocking even when you see it today. However it's unfair to say that there's no moral or ethical arguments in favour of it.

Of course today virtually all countries have a mixed economy, and government welfare is more widespread than ever. However the reason for this is that given the great wealth caused by the industrial revolution the workers were upset that they didn't get their fair share. In order to prevent revolution (but also due to genuine moral sentiment), the various elites and governments began to increase welfare payments and pass laws to benefit the workers.

However if any of the free trade fantasists want to see what REAL government interference in the economy looks like I'd like to send them in a time machine back to the 17th and 18th Centuries!

[Norseman]

Now in retrospect we may smile at some of their ideas; World War One proved that extensive trading links were not, as some claimed, a panacea against war. The suffering of the working classes in the Gilded Age was indeed bad, shocking even when you see it today. However it's unfair to say that there's no moral or ethical arguments in favour of it.

Ghetto Edit: I meant in favour of Laissez-Faire, not suffering and oppression, just so we're on the same page here.

[Rye]

In both cases, they apparently refuse to ask themselves whether this class they so despise (either the government or the bourgeoisie) is actually necessary for society to function. Is there some huge distinction I'm missing here, or is the "I hate big government" political movement just a minor variation on Marx's "I hate the bourgeoisie" political movement of the 19th century?

I think the best way of showing American propaganda on this matter is through the Western genre. The only distinction, really, is that instead of asking for help or accomplishing things as a community (which sometimes happened in so-called "liberal westerns"), the True American Cowboy accomplishes everything on his own and then lives free somewhere near civilisation, but far enough from it that he requires no aid and does the right thing by other people. I think you're right; for the most part, the desire to be free from oppression and stifling conditions of the bureaucrats and kings is identical in the two ideologies. The only differences I see are that american philosophy wants freedom (and success as a result) for the individual, Marx wants it for the collective.