Marxism can elimimate global poverty

RandFan said:
BTW, George Orwell is a hero of many American conservatives because of his broadside of communism in his book, Animal Farm. I don't think many of them know that Orwell was a socialist.
Click to expand...

Yeap.

Orwell was against a totalitarian regime and state, not against socialism. He was also an idealist and a soldier before he became a realist.
 
ChristineR said:
First of all, the PISA program only goes back to 1999, but it basically indicates that the former Soviet republics are doing better than the US, with the exception of Russia, which is doing worse.
Click to expand...
Reference please? The 2000 PISA study has only one former Soviet Republic in the statistics, Latvia, and it's marks were slightly below Russia, and thus worse than the US.

UNICEF has issued a report concerning the "alarming decline" in school quality since the collapse of communism. So it's not unreasonable to move up from the current quality (roughly equal to the US) to a higher quality.
Click to expand...
I'll see your article referencing a UN article and raise you a quote direct from a UN paper of a 1992 meeting:
6. Mrs. Ider had inquired about the appropriations for education. In the former Soviet Union, education had been given great attention. After the Second World War, appropriations for education had amounted to between 9 and 11 per cent of budgetary resources. That policy had borne fruit: in 1957 the first sputnik had been launched and in 1961 the first man had been placed in orbit. After 1957 the experts of many advanced countries had studied the education system in the former Soviet Union and had found that the teaching of natural sciences was at a high level. However, beginning in 1963, educational reform had so mangled syllabuses that it had prompted revulsion in the young against mathematics. After 1963 education in the Soviet Union had fallen apart; budgetary appropriations had declined from 11 per cent to 5.5 per cent when Mr. Gorbachev had appeared on the scene and, with all due respect, Mr. Gorbachev had not once mentioned education while he was in power. Mr. Gorbachev, who was known for his phenomenally good health, had not attended an all-Union congress of teaching staff because of a sore throat; in 1987 at a plenum of the Communist Party Congress at which education was discussed, he had spoken about perestroika, not education. At present, by decision of the Belarusian Supreme Council, 10 per cent of the national budget of Belarus was devoted to education.
Click to expand...
 
I did a quick scan of some of the 2003 PISA statistics and they show scores for countries like Russia, Latvia and Poland improving from 2000. In some categories they are now statistically equivalent, or better, than US scores. Looks like the current government systems in those countries are doing a reasonable job at improving education.

Why US scores are generally worse than EU scores is something best left for a different thread.
 
RandFan said:
You left out Mary Poppins. I can't imagine a better representation of an English bloke than Bert.
Click to expand...
Good catch, but after further consideration, I cannot possibly list Mary Poppins given that she revealed her breasts in SOB (and one other film, too, I think). No truly British lady would ever do such a thing.

That being said, like Snide, I agree with your views of what you would find acceptable in a state (vis a vis a dose of socialism).
 
This thread has been ridden almost completely off the rails, and is headed towards the cliff to the point that we're discussing movies in which Julie Andrews bared her breasts.

Back to the OP: Dann, I observed that the topic of the OP set an impossibly high bar. Rather than asking if Marxism can eliminate world poverty, I would ask you if you can show that Marxism has eliminated poverty anywhere. If so, where?
 
andyandy said:
Marxism can elimimate global poverty

discuss. :)
Click to expand...


Well maybe not strict Marxism but a form of socialism could do this; in principle of course, all depends on whether humans will ever be capable to go beyond 'the predatory phase of human development' (Einstein). Yes much of strict Leninism (and even some of the Marxian ideas) has been 'falsified' but this does not mean that socialism as a general doctrine (going well beyond Lenin ideas and even Marx's) is not viable...The words of Bertrand Russell (after visiting Soviet Russia in 1919) are as actual today as then...

"To attempt to bolster it up [capitalism] is a useless diversion of energies which might be expended upon building something new. Whether the new thing will be Bolshevism or something else, I do not know; whether it will be better or worse than capitalism, I do not know. But that a radically new order of society will emerge, I feel no doubt. And I also feel no doubt that the new order will be either some form of Socialism or a reversion to barbarism and petty war such as occurred during the barbarian invasion. If Bolshevism remains the only vigorous and effective competitor of capitalism, I believe that no form of Socialism will be realized, but only chaos and destruction. This belief, for which I shall give reasons later, is one of the grounds upon which I oppose Bolshevism."
Click to expand...


Russell 'hits the nail' here, there is absolutely no good reason (then and now) to think that the capitalist system is the 'nec plus ultra' (the best and the 'end of history') of all possible social systems (as a strong worldwide propaganda tries to brainwash)...

Happily the freedom of expression is not the 'property' of capitalism (and of its fundamentalist doctrine 'laissez faire') and neither are the 'superhumans' of our days (the investors, managers of transnational corporations, 'experts' in economy and other 'know all') the 'peak of rationality'; at a closer look it is easy to see that many of them are modern conquistadors...the huge amounts of energy lost to defend capitalism (basicaly 'setting in stone' a dogma) deserves a much better cause...

But this will become fully visible only for our successors, in few hundred years, when the actual euphoria of 'defeating communism' will totally dissipate in front of reality...finally they will be obliged by Nature (if the level of civilization will remain the same) to really make man and end in itself and not merely a mean for new accumulations...

Marx underestimated indeed the capacity of capitalism to avoid collapse but this does not mean that capitalism is the most rational path at this moment...in my view capitalism has already ended its positive role. Only a future beyond 'the predatory phase of human development' (preserving the freedom of opinion) can finally give to a vast majority of humans the chance to really live a decent life.

But for this it is necessary to be able to 'see' well beyond the existing context, to be able to go well beyond our day by day 'isms'...only then will humans be able (or close) to 'direct history' instead of being at its mercy. Unfortunately something which is hardly possible now (this is entirely due to humans; there is no necessity in the actual status quo, it is far from being the most rational)...Personally I think that capitalism will fall one day (not because humans choose to change it willingly as would be normal) but only after desperate tries to save it with all costs, even in lost situations: either as Schumpeter once wrote (internal stresses over long time) or, much more probable, due to Nature itself (many civilizations of the past disappeared due to non rational exhaustion of resources) or devastating wars.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid that you are wasting your time, metacristi. Andyandy isn't seriously interested in the question, which is why I limited myself to presenting him with a couple of links to articles about the question:
Why are many people in developing countries poor?
Why we don’t make a pitch for communism with a “well thought-out concept of a planned economy”
“Jobs” — “Globalization” — “Competitiveness” …
Some remarks about the capitalistic relation between
Work and Wealth
This one might also be interesting reading for American fans of free enterprise:
How free enterprise in New Orleans has operated once again

Marx primarily wrote about the causes of the modern form of poverty (in Das Kapital), but as soon as they are clear, it is fairly obvious what you have to do to eliminate poverty. The webpage containing the articles above also contains several articles about the 'classics' by Marx and Engels, most of them in German, however:
www.gegenstandpunkt.com
 
metacristi said:
Well maybe not strict Marxism but a form of socialism could do this...
Click to expand...
Then why not just say socialism and ignore Marxism. If so then I'm willing to agree. I say that as one who was at one time fanatically anti-socialist.

Russell 'hits the nail' here, there is absolutely no good reason (then and now) to think that the capitalist system is the 'nec plus ultra' (the best and the 'end of history') of all possible social systems (as a strong worldwide propaganda tries to brainwash)...
Click to expand...
I don't believe that capitalism is the best and ultimate. It's just one that has delivered so much to so many. It's not perfect but it's demonstrably very good. Most Americans live in a virtual paradise compared to many economic and political systems of the past.

Happily the freedom of expression is not the 'property' of capitalism (and of its fundamentalist doctrine 'laissez faire') and neither are the 'superhumans' of our days (the investors, managers of transnational corporations, 'experts' in economy and other 'know all') the 'peak of rationality'; at a closer look it is easy to see that many of them are modern conquistadors...the huge amounts of energy lost to defend capitalism (basicaly 'setting in stone' a dogma) deserves a much better cause...
Click to expand...
I'm going to dismiss this as simply rhetorical flourish. You are entitled to an opinion but you give us no reason to agree with you. You are simply waxing philosophically. That's fine.

But this will become fully visible only for our successors, in few hundred years, when the actual euphoria of 'defeating communism' will totally dissipate in front of reality...finally they will be obliged by Nature (if the level of civilization will remain the same) to really make man and end in itself and not merely a mean for new accumulations...
Click to expand...
More rhetoric. Capitalism exists largely because it works. Food production has exploded. Humans are living ever increasing life spans. We have 40 hour work weeks, vacations, etc.

Yes, I hear you. There is much wrong. Many are poor. There are problems with distribution of wealth and inequality and injustice. The sheer number of blacks in the American prison system is stark proof that the *American dream is, to a significant degree, a myth. But we live in a Democracy and we can become more enlightened and we can work to overcome the effects of racism and poverty and class in America.

Those are platitudes I will agree but they are ideals that are possible. I think we would best work to improve our society rather than jettison it for a promised utopia that could very well plunge us into something much worse.

Marx underestimated indeed the capacity of capitalism to avoid collapse but this does not mean that capitalism is the most rational path at this moment...
Click to expand...
This is not the sin of Marxism. The sin was failing to understand human nature. While Marx was head and shoulders above Ayn Rand she got something that he didn't. Innovation and productivity is gained through freedom and choice. Give people freedom over their lives and money and property and they will solve many of the problems of society. The advances in food production came largely from capitalism. The efficiencies in productivity came from capitalism.

in my view capitalism has already ended its positive role.
Click to expand...
I see no reason to make this assumption but I respect your POV.

Only a future beyond 'the predatory phase of human development' (preserving the freedom of opinion) can finally give to a vast majority of humans the chance to really live a decent life.
Click to expand...
You have a stilted and myopic view of capitalism. It ISN'T simply about predatory human nature.

Read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Altruism is very much a part of our evolution and capitalism.

But for this it is necessary to be able to 'see' well beyond the existing context, to be able to go well beyond our day by day 'isms'...only then will humans be able (or close) to 'direct history' instead of being at its mercy. Unfortunately something which is hardly possible now (this is entirely due to humans; there is no necessity in the actual status quo, it is far from being the most rational)...Personally I think that capitalism will fall one day (not because humans choose to change it willingly as would be normal) but only after desperate tries to save it with all costs, even in lost situations: either as Schumpeter once wrote (internal stresses over long time) or, much more probable, due to Nature itself (many civilizations of the past disappeared due to non rational exhaustion of resources) or devastating wars.
Click to expand...
Capitalism, to me, is not sacrosanct. If it falls away then fine so long as it gives way to something better. I have no problem with that. However, Capitalism is not an evil system to be viewed only with contempt and a dream that it one day end. This is an immature and silly view. One that demonstrates a drinking of the koolaid.

Capitalism has given us something unprecedented in the history of humanity. It has provided the longest and most expansive increase in human health and well being. It has not been perfect but lets be honest. No system can be. There will always be inefficiencies in any system. Perhaps there is something better out there. Who knows. Personally I'll take capitalism with a some degree of socialism so long as I have freedom.

*I'm using America because it is what I know best and not necessarily the best example. However it is rather high in HDI and that is with a large influx of poor migrants.

BTW, I'm a fan of Norway and Denmark.
 
Last edited:
dann said:
Marx primarily wrote about the causes of the modern form of poverty (in Das Kapital), but as soon as they are clear, it is fairly obvious what you have to do to eliminate poverty.
Click to expand...
Much more easily said than done. And let's be honest enough to say that no system has ever completely eliminated poverty. It's an ideal but one that is fraught with problems.

Marx erred in believing that humans would be motivated without a profit incentive to improve the lives of all humans in a society. We should be willing to note that many socialist countries today enjoy the technology and benefits developed by Capitalism. Increased productivity including food production is largely driven by Capitalism.

Let's get rid of the propaganda and the emotionally charged rhetoric of the right AND left. Let's avoid platitudes and pejorative judgments of political systems and economic systems. This does not serve us as a whole.
 
When it comes to eliminating world poverty, birth control + markets regulated to maximize efficient use of resources probably works better than capitalism or communism.
 
And what is the difference between capitalism and "markets regulated to maximize efficient use of resources"? Efficient for what?
 
dann said:
And what is the difference between capitalism and "markets regulated to maximize efficient use of resources"? Efficient for what?
Click to expand...
I don't mean to speak for Dave but, efficent for whatever the resources are are or for what ever they are used for.

There is capitalism and there is regulation. Some captialists and libertarians believe that there should be no regulation. Some of us believe that some degree of regulation is good. The devil is in the details of that one though.
 
No ism can save a self destructive person, therefor, poverty is there to some degree. And life is more about happiness and satisfaction than the ownership of property, I may choose to live alone in the wild with few assets, that dose not mean I am living a "poor" life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom