Marxism can elimimate global poverty

[firecoins]

Only a TRUE marxist country can mess up communism correctly.

 

[BPSCG]

Marxism isn't necessary to eliminate poverty. We could do it now if we had our priorities straight.

[MontyPython]

(Cut to a sign saying 'How To Do It'. Music. Pull out to reveal a 'Blue Peter' type set. Sitting casually on the edge of a dais an three presenters in sweaters - Noel, Jackie and Alan - plus a large bloodhound.)

Alan: Hello.
Noel: Hello.
Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on 'How To Do It' we're going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here's Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.
Jackie: Hello, Alan.
Alan: Hello, Jackie.
Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there'll never be any diseases ever again.
Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.
Noel: Great, great, Alan. Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.
Alan: Bye.
Jackie: Bye.

(Children's music.)
​

[/MontyPython]

 

[Alt+F4]

Not sure what's online, but the news that US schools are lagging far behind other countries in math and science is hardly new.

Are you talking about US schools today or are you trying to compare US schools with schools in communist countries during The Cold War?

 

[Tony]

Well, if you mean it can eliminate world poverty by eliminating people, Marxism is certainly Man's most successful attempt.

Please show evidence that Marx advocated the mass killings of people that were perpetrated under the rubric of communism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not sure what's online, but the news that US schools are lagging far behind other countries in math and science is hardly new.

And "other countries" = communist countries since when?

Yes, but there are enough that are to bring the average down.

Below that of communist countries? You'll have to provide some evidence of this claim. You have provided none yet.

I find this extremely unconvincing. Lots of people would choose to do their own plumbing if they had extra leisure time. Europeans can certainly hire a plumber and spend their free time watching TV, or they can spend half their free time fixing their plumbing and spend the extra money on going out for the rest of the time.

Europeans don't HAVE extra leisure time. That's my whole point: studies which actually look at leisure time, and not just time off work, find that Americans have MORE leisure time than Europeans. The argument that workers in communist countries are better off because they work less paid hours means nothing, because it's not time off paid work which most people care about, it's leisure time, and there's no reason (given what we know about the difference between Europe and the US) to think that they had more leisure time.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, if you mean it can eliminate world poverty by eliminating people, Marxism is certainly Man's most successful attempt. It's killed something like 100 million people in a little under 100 years (counting since 1917). That makes the math easy: Marxism has killed an average of a million people a year over the last century. At that rate, it would kill off the world's entire population of six billion in about 6,000 years, at which point there will be no more poverty. Of course, it's faltered since the 1980's, and we'd have to bring back Marxism to the people of Russia, China, and eastern Europe to get back on track, so it probably won't work.

Short of warfare, Marxism is the greatest wealth destroying engine our planet has ever seen. Add to that its nonpareil record in destroying human life and you have to ask yourself if it was not in fact a "gift" from race of extraterrestrials bent on exterminating humanity who didn't want to leave their tentacle prints on the evidence, because surely no human could be such a sociopathic genius.

The logic in this post is way off kilter, but I'm just going to respond with this:

Atheism is claimed to have killed off the same number of people, if not even more people. Therefore, if you become an atheist, then it will cure religion's problems as everyone dies. It's the same logic.

"Communist Countries" were not really communist. They were still class-based societies nonetheless, just that the classes were arranged differently (with some members of the Communist Party usually being the upper class). Further, almost all communist countries were dictatorships, arranged under morally-challenged leaders.

I'd also be careful with calling them Marxist. While they based their ideals and policy (supposedly) on Marxism, they did change many of the details; and every country had their own idea of how to handle it. Maoism, for instance, has it's own name.

 

[Thomas1016]

marxism is a illusion used to hypnotize the masses by power hungry elites who do not share the same living standards of the people they enslave.

 

[BPSCG]

Please show evidence that Marx advocated the mass killings of people that were perpetrated under the rubric of communism.

Law of Unintended Consequences.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," was a prescription for mass slavery, though Marx didn't realize it. Resistance to mass slavery led to mass murder.

 

[Lonewulf]

Resistance to mass slavery led to mass murder.

Which says more about the leaders that forced communism on the people than it does about Marx or Marxism.

Have anything better?

 

[Lonewulf]

Surely the problem with the USSR was that they were not true Marxists?

<Runs away and hides.>

Question: Has democracy always worked in every country? Has there ever been negative consequences under a democracy? Oh, but the failures aren't true democracies, are they?

(Though, as we do not live in an Athenian Democracy, I should state that as a "democratic republic"; but the point stands regardless).

 

[Thomas1016]

The logic in this post is way off kilter, but I'm just going to respond with this:

Atheism is claimed to have killed off the same number of people, if not even more people. Therefore, if you become an atheist, then it will cure religion's problems as everyone dies. It's the same logic.

"Communist Countries" were not really communist. They were still class-based societies nonetheless, just that the classes were arranged differently (with some members of the Communist Party usually being the upper class). Further, almost all communist countries were dictatorships, arranged under morally-challenged leaders.

I'd also be careful with calling them Marxist. While they based their ideals and policy (supposedly) on Marxism, they did change many of the details; and every country had their own idea of how to handle it. Maoist Communism, for instance, has it's own name.

doesnt matter what you lable it, you can not have marxism without marxism having controle of the masses. any threat to that controle would not be tolerated. and since mans nature does not allow for him to be controled eventually the 2 come to logger heads. inside every person is the yearning for freedom and self determination marxism does not allow for that therfor the 2 can not co-exist forever.

 

[Tony]

Law of Unintended Consequences.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," was a prescription for mass slavery, though Marx didn't realize it. Resistance to mass slavery led to mass murder.

So you have no evidence. Glad we cleared that up.

I tend to agree with the above BTW, but I know that Marx never advocated mass murder.

Edit: Lonewulf makes a good point in post #29.

 

[UserGoogol]

Europeans don't HAVE extra leisure time. That's my whole point: studies which actually look at leisure time, and not just time off work, find that Americans have MORE leisure time than Europeans. The argument that workers in communist countries are better off because they work less paid hours means nothing, because it's not time off paid work which most people care about, it's leisure time, and there's no reason (given what we know about the difference between Europe and the US) to think that they had more leisure time.

What's the difference between leisure time and time-not-working? I was under the impression that those terms were synonyms.

 

[BPSCG]

Atheism is claimed to have killed off the same number of people, if not even more people.

Who has made this claim?

"Communist Countries" were not really communist. They were still class-based societies nonetheless, just that the classes were arranged differently (with some members of the Communist Party usually being the upper class). Further, almost all communist countries were dictatorships, arranged under morally-challenged leaders.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, no true Scotsman, blah blah blah. People always say that. "Oh, well, China wasn't Marxist. Oh, well , the USSR wasn't Marxist." If not, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying. The problem is, on the way towards their perfect Marxist societies, they became brutish totalitarian states, and the only people who managed to get out of poverty were the guys sitting on top of the heap with the clubs, and their cronies. Pattern was repeated over and over again. Hmmm, must be something wrong with Marx's vision of how the world would eventually become communist.

I'd also be careful with calling them Marxist. While they based their ideals and policy (supposedly) on Marxism, they did change many of the details; and every country had their own idea of how to handle it. Maoism, for instance, has it's own name.

Fine. They all aspired to Marxism, but unfortunately, couldn't get there without the inconvenience of mass murder.

I stand by my claim: Short of war, Marxism is the greatest wealth-destroying, people destroying engine this planet has ever seen. And yet there are those who say, "Let's try it again."

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a hundred million times, shame on me.

 

[Lonewulf]

doesnt matter what you lable it, you can not have marxism without marxism having controle of the masses. any threat to that controle would not be tolerated. and since mans nature does not allow for him to be controled eventually the 2 come to logger heads. inside every person is the yearning for freedom and self determination marxism does not allow for that therfor the 2 can not co-exist forever.

A debatable point, but I won't bother. I don't advocate communism. I consider communism to be an extremist policy. At the same time, I don't advocate anarchy.

There has to be some level of state control in a society. There are some socialist policies that are adopted, and some non-socialist policies that are not. There are some things controlled by the state (such as police force, miilitary, etc.), and there are some things that are not.

 

[Ziggurat]

I love to the evidence for that.

Here's a comparison between Americans and Germans:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp697.html
ftp://repec.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp697.pdf
Americans work more paid (market) hours than Germans, but end up with more leisure time.

Stats from page 4, leisure time per week (in hours):
US men: 114.4
German men: 113.7
US women: 115.4
German women: 113.3

Are you saying that I cannot hire someone to fix my plumbing? That's news to me.

Not at all. I'm saying there's a difference in the incentive structure based on economic factors which make Americans more likely than Europeans to hire labor for household work. And you can look in the paper above for mathematical models of what I refer to if you really care about the details.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Question: Has democracy always worked in every country? Has there ever been negative consequences under a democracy? Oh, but the failures aren't true democracies, are they?

(Though, as we do not live in an Athenian Democracy, I should state that as a "democratic republic"; but the point stands regardless).

Sorry. Can't answer that. I'm hiding.

 

[BPSCG]

Americans have more leisure time than Europeans.

I love to [see] the evidence for that.

Me too!

ETA: Damn you to hell, Ziggurat!

 

[Ziggurat]

What's the difference between leisure time and time-not-working? I was under the impression that those terms were synonyms.

No, they aren't synonymous. Time spent cleaning your house, doing laundry, fixing the roof, etc. is not leisure time. It's labor: nobody pays you for it, so it doesn't get counted in most metrics of "work", but it sure isn't leisure time.

 

[Lonewulf]

Who has made this claim?

Usually Christian fundamentalists, that cannot disseminate the idea from the policy.

Sounds familiar, no?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, no true Scotsman, blah blah blah. People always say that. "Oh, well, China wasn't Marxist. Oh, well , the USSR wasn't Marxist." If not, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying. The problem is, on the way towards their perfect Marxist societies, they became brutish totalitarian states, and the only people who managed to get out of poverty were the guys sitting on top of the heap with the clubs, and their cronies. Pattern was repeated over and over again. Hmmm, must be something wrong with Marx's vision of how the world would eventually become communist.

Yeah yeah, and saying that corrupt democracies aren't true democracies is no true Scotsman, blah blah blah.

Fine. They all aspired to Marxism, but unfortunately, couldn't get there without the inconvenience of mass murder.

Once more, that says more about the people in charge than it says about the policy itself. It also says more about the mindset of people coming out of WWI and WWII, after severe loss of life made life seem worthless.

I stand by my claim:

Color me surprised.

Short of war, Marxism is the greatest wealth-destroying,

I won't argue that, for sure. Many of the economic policies adopted by communist countries could have been better modified if a retarded monkey spent 10 minutes on a typewriter.

people destroying engine this planet has ever seen.

And I think that this says more about the people that ended up in charge. Murder is not innate to the idea, as murder is not defined within the idea itself.

If people end up murdered under a democracy, then that does not reflect on the democracy itself, but the policies that the people accepted.

Economics (your "wealth-destroying" argument) is a dog of a different breed, however. Economics and economic theory is not seperable from the Marxist theory.