Marxism can elimimate global poverty

THere never was "real" Marxism will always be the excuse on why Communism doesn't work. Of course in the end, you small group of people will end up in charge of what is good for everyone. This group will never runn it like "real" Marxism because it would require them to give up their own power.
 
BPSCG said:
Who has made this claim?

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.
Click to expand...

Crying "no true scotsmen" is a convenient way for you to turn off your brain, but it is a cop out. There is also a rash of murderous totalitarian regimes calling themselves "Democratic" when in fact they aren't democratic.

Are you going to claim "no true scotsmen" when I point out that North Korea isn't really a democratic country?

How come you don't deride democracy because of those regimes?
 
Lonewulf said:
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).
Click to expand...

Man is corruptable and therfore any form of goverment can be corrupted. The diffrence is in a democracy the people can vote corrupt politicians out of office in a marxist goverment this doesnt happen since they risk being thown out of power. That is why marxists always have to controle every aspect of peoples lives becuase of cousre they know what is best for the people even if the people don't realize it **sarcasm**

we see the true nature of marxism taking root right now in Venezuala. people who speakout agianst chavez are persecuted, arrested, newspapers closed, the legislator stacked with chavez supporters who in turn give chavez totalitarian type powers. Of course thats is becuase papa chavez knows what is best for the people.........
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you left out commuting to and from work, which has increased in time due to both longer commuting distances more people are now experiencing and traffic congestion, which slows you down.
 
BPSCG said:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," was a prescription for mass slavery
Click to expand...
Hardly. It was more a description of his moral views. To him, an ideal world would provide each with all their necessities and would demand of no one that they work harder than they are capable. Stalinist countries managed to do the exact opposite by demanding people to work unreasonably hard and not provide them with everything they might reasonably need. Something cannot be a "prescription" for doing the exact opposite of what it prescribes.
 
what is very sad is right now alought of marxist theology is being taught in the universities and colleges of the U.S. and kids are swallowing it hook line and sinker.
 
Earthborn said:
Hardly. It was more a description of his moral views. To him, an ideal world would provide each with all their necessities and would demand of no one that they work harder than they are capable. Stalinist countries managed to do the exact opposite by demanding people to work unreasonably hard and not provide them with everything they might reasonably need. Something cannot be a "prescription" for doing the exact opposite of what it prescribes.
Click to expand...

OMG are you kidding???
 
Thomas1016 said:
what is very sad is right now alought of marxist theology is being taught in the universities and colleges of the U.S. and kids are swallowing it hook line and sinker.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, is this suppose to make sense?
 
Thomas1016 said:
what is very sad is right now alought of marxist theology is being taught in the universities and colleges of the U.S. and kids are swallowing it hook line and sinker.
Click to expand...

Theology:

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

Marxism says nothing about God. But I'm assuming that English isn't your first language? I just want to clear this up before we move on, in case it wasn't a simple vocabulary error. I think that you meant ideology?
 
Last edited:
Earthborn said:
Hardly. It was more a description of his moral views. To him, an ideal world would provide each with all their necessities and would demand of no one that they work harder than they are capable.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but that statement has enough loopholes to drive a truck through.

Just exactly who is it that determines what one's abilities are? -- you, yourself or the state? And then, just what is meant by no one will work harder than they are capable of? -- again, how is that limit determined?
 
Hmm, so much for this thread being about marxism eliminating global poverty. hehe
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I still find this unconvincing, and I don't think you understand my point. The American might work an eleven hour day, drive home, pick the kids up from daycare, and sit exhausted in front of the TV eating fast food before bedtime. The mess and the laundry he leaves for the maid. That's three hours of leisure time.

The European might walk to the kid's school, stop at the market, buy food, walk the kids home, spend an hour cooking and an hour cleaning up, do laundry while helping the kids with their homework, and finally watch one hour of TV. That's one hour of leisure time.

The American cannot work three hours less each day, because he will lose his job, and even if he didn't he wouldn't be able to afford the car payments and the co-pay on his insurance. Hiring an unskilled Mexican to do the chores is cheaper than buying his own health insurance.

The European might be able to work an extra three hours and hire a maid, but why should he?

These examples are somewhat exaggerated for effect.

These examples are exaggerated for
 
Just thinking said:
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but that statement has enough loopholes to drive a truck through.

Just exactly who is it that determines what one's abilities are? -- you, yourself or the state? And then, just what is meant by no one will work harder than they are capable of? -- again, how is that limit determined?
Click to expand...

Well, someone has to decide.

An employer has to decide how reasonable a workload he puts on your shoulders is.

The state has to decide what the poverty line is, if they pay for welfare.

The state makes many decisions in the end, especially when it comes to taxes. We haven't quite run away from the questions you're posing.

I mean, heck, if I could find a company that would support my lazy ideal work schedule, that would be great. But someone else decides what is reasonable and what is not for me.
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
Well, someone has to decide.

An employer has to decide how reasonable a workload he puts on your shoulders is.

The state has to decide what the poverty line is, if they pay for welfare.

The state also has to decide what medical bills to paid under medicaid programs.

I mean, heck, if I could find a company that would support my lazy ideal work schedule, that would be great. But someone else decides what is reasonable and what is not for me.
Click to expand...

You'll have to think outside the bun in this case. Conditions in the countries that went this route put few limits on individual workloads. You might want to check out what some working conditions are like in China, for example.
 
Just thinking said:
Maybe it's wrong to think it can be eliminated.
Click to expand...

Naw, I think that poverty can be eliminated in the end. I don't think that it can be eliminated easily, though.

The question I'd ask is, even if poverty could be eliminated, are there any nasty side effects that we don't want that comes along with it?

You'll have to think outside the bun in this case. Conditions in the countries that went this route put few limits on individual workloads. You might want to check out what some working conditions are like in China, for example.
Click to expand...

I think I may be misunderstanding you here. It seems like you're talking more about the policy of a "communist" country than the ideology of Marx?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom