Marxism can elimimate global poverty

[Earthborn]

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.

There is no such thing as a Marxist government. Marx was very much against all forms of government. He even went as far as refering to all forms of government as "dictatorships", even democracies with a fair representation of the working class (dictatorship of the proletariat).

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.

It is unfortunately true that if a authoritarian wants to get support, he can fool people by promising to bring the exact opposite. Want to the secret service to spy on people? Just claim it is to "protect our freedom". Want to polarise the opinions in your country? Claim to strive for unity...

Marxism can easily be perverted to its opposite, and used to justify atrocities. This is not a flaw of Marxism specifically. It is a flaw of all political philosophies.

 

[Thomas1016]

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?

your right I meant Ideology of course I am sure as educated as you are you have never done the same.

 

[Tailgater]

The idea itself is a good one. It's packaged all pretty and laced with gold and perfect in every way IF everyone agrees to live that way. That is the problem. Humans want more than to work at what they are best at or to share with others. That is why it is the perfect "prescription" for the opposite. Someone has to "convince" those who do not want to participate to be in or out (out usually means convinced harshly or killed).

 

[Just thinking]

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

Evidence? It's always been around and there have been many forms of governments. I think my skepticism is warranted for at least some consideration.

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 mean like insane tax rates? Government ownership and control of business? Lack of will to succeed due to lack of incentives? Nah ... nothing too nasty there.

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?

When you can show me a state run communist economy that's like that of Marx's ideals instead of what we see commonly resulting, then I'll agree there is a difference between the two.

 

[Thomas1016]

There is no such thing as a Marxist government. Marx was very much against all forms of government. He even went as far as refering to all forms of government as "dictatorships", even democracies with a fair representation of the working class (dictatorship of the proletariat).

It is unfortunately true that if a authoritarian wants to get support, he can fool people by promising to bring the exact opposite. Want to the secret service to spy on people? Just claim it is to "protect our freedom". Want to polarise the opinions in your country? Claim to strive for unity...

Marxism can easily be perverted to its opposite, and used to justify atrocities. This is not a flaw of Marxism specifically. It is a flaw of all political philosophies.

you can not have a society without goverment, people need rules and regulations and people to administer them otherwise you have anarchy. even the most primitive tribes have have a form of goverment.

 

[Earthborn]

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

No doubt.

Just exactly who is it that determines what one's abilities are? -- you, yourself or the state?

That's a good question. Since Marx never elaborated on what an actual communist society would be like, no one really knows. There is only one thing that is certain: since according to Marx communism is by definition a stateless society, it cannot be the state.

The claim that a stateless society is possible is probably the weakest point of the whole philosophy.

 

[gnome]

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.

This statement uses the vaguest language possible. It is akin to me saying "AIDS is afflicting the population and people are dying from it."... there is no possible way to discern proportionality.

If you mean "there exist universities and colleges in the US where marxist ideology is taught, and some students agree with it"... then I say so what? All kinds of ridiculous things are taught somewhere, and even the most ridiculous and dangerous of ideas will have SOME adherents. That's called living in a free country.

If you mean that Marxism is taught by enough colleges to be alarming, and believed by enough students to be dangerous... well, I'm going to have to see some figures. Anecdotes don't support anything but the weaker, trivial version of what you said.

 

[Earthborn]

you can not have a society without goverment, people need rules and regulations and people to administer them

I think so. You think so. But Marx didn't.

otherwise you have anarchy.

Obviously. And that is exactly what Karl Marx favoured: a highly civilised form of anarchy where everyone shares everything with everyone, everybody is nice to everybody else and everybody is happy.

You can call it naive if you like. You just can't say that it in any way resembles what countries ruled by communist parties were actually like.

 

[Thomas1016]

This statement uses the vaguest language possible. It is akin to me saying "AIDS is afflicting the population and people are dying from it."... there is no possible way to discern proportionality.

If you mean "there exist universities and colleges in the US where marxist ideology is taught, and some students agree with it"... then I say so what? All kinds of ridiculous things are taught somewhere, and even the most ridiculous and dangerous of ideas will have SOME adherents. That's called living in a free country.

If you mean that Marxism is taught by enough colleges to be alarming, and believed by enough students to be dangerous... well, I'm going to have to see some figures. Anecdotes don't support anything but the weaker, trivial version of what you said.

Did I mean it happening at a alarming rate....NO, but alought of kids are being taught it by proffessors who really believe it. What I find hard to believe is why it is taken so seriously when common sense says you can't have utopia without some form of leadership (goverment) becuase it goes agianst mans very nature. and history teaches that govermental marxism does not work becuase it requires the controling of the masses which goes agianst mans nature of freedom and self determination. Yet this ideology is taught as being attainable when in fact it is not, that is simply bad education.

 

[BPSCG]

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.

If you tell me to leap out a fiftieth floor window, flapping my arms as hard as I can, and fly to the next building, is that not a prescription for killing myself, even if you honestly believe I can fly?

What Marx prescribed was similar. Telling people they shall work to provide others what they need is telling them they do not own the fruits of their own labor. Forcing people to do that is slavery. Very few people are willing to be slaves - it's probably against human instinct. Killing people who refuse to be slaves is murder. Killing millions of people who refuse to be slaves is mass murder. Marx certainly did not intend that outcome; he certainly wanted what was best for humanity. But he was a theoretician, and did not live to see the terrible results of the numerous attempts to execute his theory.

And yet there are those who still say, "Let's try again; it never got a real chance."

 

[Tailgater]

I think so. You think so. But Marx didn't.

Obviously. And that is exactly what Karl Marx favoured: a highly civilised form of anarchy where everyone shares everything with everyone, everybody is nice to everybody else and everybody is happy.

You can call it naive if you like. You just can't say that it in any way resembles what countries ruled by communist parties were actually like.

I don't think anyone said there was a resemblance. Marxism is not based in reality. Trying to make it reality is what makes the jump to the communism we see.

 

[BPSCG]

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?

I don't understand your point. I'm not the one claiming "no true Scotsman"; it's those who claim that China and the USSR weren't truly Marxist regimes. The argument follows the following (tired and worn-out) pattern:

"Communism should be given a chance."
"It was; it failed in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Eastern Europe..."
"Oh, those weren't truly communist countries (i.e., they weren't true Scotsmen)."

My point is that even if they were not yet truly communist countries - and I can agree they were far from what Marx envisioned - they were trying to be communist countries, and ended up, in every case, transforming themselves from poor countries ruled by despots to poor countries ruled by totalitarian masters. Yippee; another victory for the human race. China and eastern Europe finally wised up and they're doing much better today.

And yet there are those who say, "Communism never got a fair chance. Let's try it again."

 

[Beerina]

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.

Athiesm doesn't "kill people off" because people are athiest. Communism destroys wealth as a core result of its core concept.

"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).

Moving the goalpost in defense of emotional investment in a belief that, dammit, just cannot be wrong. Like religion.

Further, almost all communist countries were dictatorships, arranged under morally-challenged leaders.

Yeah, whatever. I suppose they'd have done better under dictatorships arranged by first-rate, stable intelligences.

And communism without dictatorship won't be communism very long as people start up their own businesses that absolutely crush the grotesquely inefficient government endeavors.

 

[gnome]

Did I mean it happening at a alarming rate....NO, but alought of kids are being taught it by proffessors who really believe it. What I find hard to believe is why it is taken so seriously when common sense says you can't have utopia without some form of leadership (goverment) becuase it goes agianst mans very nature. and history teaches that govermental marxism does not work becuase it requires the controling of the masses which goes agianst mans nature of freedom and self determination. Yet this ideology is taught as being attainable when in fact it is not, that is simply bad education.

Agreed, but... how much is a lot?

I would add that if you actually spoke to the professors they would likely have plausible answers to your objections. You and I both would probably still disagree with their point of view, but I suspect their arguments are not insane or incomplete on their face... and plausible enough to convince a few people.

 

[Earthborn]

If you tell me to leap out a fiftieth floor window, flapping my arms as hard as I can, and fly to the next building, is that not a prescription for killing myself, even if you honestly believe I can fly?

Not if I also what characteristics your body must have and under which circumstances it might work, and specifically warn you that might kill yourself if you don't get it exactly right.

Telling people they shall work to provide others what they need is telling them they do not own the fruits of their own labor.

To represent Marx' views a bit better: it is telling them they should not own the fruits of their labour to the exclusion of others.

Forcing people to do that is slavery.

Forcing people to do anything can be argued to be slavery. Marx was not a fan of forcing people to do anything. Saying "a perfect world has freshly mowed lawns" is not a prescription to violently force people to mow their lawns.

Very few people are willing to be slaves - it's probably against human instinct.

That's debatable.

And yet there are those who still say, "Let's try again; it never got a real chance."

I happen to think that it has gotten a fair chance, and I also think many of his predictions have come to pass. Just not in the countries that tried to forcefully impliment them, but rather in the countries that Marx predicted they were most likely to happen... such as England and Germany and other Western European places. Those countries do have political systems in which the working class has a large political influence ("dictatorship of the proletariat"), pretty efficient social welfare systems ("socialism") and where people are efficiently provided with their necessities even to the point where they become willing to work to provide for others.

 

[Earthborn]

Moving the goalpost in defense of emotional investment in a belief that, dammit, just cannot be wrong.

It's not moving the goalposts, it is pointing out where they have always been since Marx. "Communism" is a classless, stateless society, and that has been its definition from the beginning.

And communism without dictatorship won't be communism very long as people start up their own businesses that absolutely crush the grotesquely inefficient government endeavors.

There would be no "grotesquely inefficient government endeavours" because there would not be a government. If there is a government, there is no communism. You can't have a stateless, classless society with a state and a ruling class.

 

[Ziggurat]

I still find this unconvincing, and I don't think you understand my point.

I took a position: Europeans have less leisure time than Americans. I backed that up with hard evidence. I understand your point perfectly: you think that since this conflicts with your preconceptions, rather than your preconceptions being wrong, there must be something wrong with the measure. So you claim that American leisure time is of lower quality than European leisure time. But you have no evidence for that position other than crude charicatures and stereotypes.

 

[ChristineR]

I took a position: Europeans have less leisure time than Americans. I backed that up with hard evidence. I understand your point perfectly: you think that since this conflicts with your preconceptions, rather than your preconceptions being wrong, there must be something wrong with the measure. So you claim that American leisure time is of lower quality than European leisure time. But you have no evidence for that position other than crude charicatures and stereotypes.

Would you like me to back up the claim that Americans watch more television? That they eat better? That they walk more? That they drive less? Why don't you do the research yourself?

 

[Ziggurat]

Would you like me to back up the claim that Americans watch more television? That they eat better? That they walk more? That they drive less? Why don't you do the research yourself?

No, I wanted you to back up the claim that American leisure time is of lower quality than European leisure time. But skip that for now: why don't you back up some of your original claims? You made all sorts of claims regarding Communist countries vis-a-vis capitalist ones (America in particular) without providing any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Tailgater]

Would you like me to back up the claim that Americans watch more television? That they eat better? That they walk more? That they drive less? Why don't you do the research yourself?

Why bother. According to you, he could just have his Mexican do it, since he is too busy. I wasn't aware most Americans had maids either. What a life. Just for the record, we do laundry, cook, and help the kids with homework too. I hope my boss doesn't find out I only work 8 hour shifts. Oh, I'm self-employed. I don't have one. Good thing, I would hate to lose my car. Exaggerated for effect.

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.