Marxism can elimimate global poverty

[andyandy]

started to prevent a derail from a separate thread.

discuss.

 

[Beerina]

See several hundred involuntary economic experiments from last century. It's no longer a viable theory.

 

[andyandy]

well i'm hoping that Dann's got some new arguments.....

we shall see.

 

[ChristineR]

In the Central and Eastern European Communist countries at least very few people were very, very poor. Almost everyone was poor by our standards, but no one was homeless and everyone had health care, and the population as a whole was better educated than in the US.

 

[BPSCG]

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.

 

[Tailgater]

In the Central and Eastern European Communist countries at least very few people were very, very poor. Almost everyone was poor by our standards, but no one was homeless and everyone had health care, and the population as a whole was better educated than in the US.

Huh?

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0112205/stalinsrussia.html

The enormous demands placed on the workers meant that millions of them lived in harsh conditions, working on the vast projects in the interior of Russia. The state tightened its control on the workers. Absenteeism was treated extremely harshly. The large emphasis on heavy industries meant that consumer goods were high in demand. Shops were empty, clothing was in short supply and many household items were unavailable. THe lack of consumer products was one example of the fall in the standard of living. Because of the huge influx of people going into the cities from the countryside, there were insufficient medical facilities, houses and schools. Workers were poorly paid.

I'd rather be homeless.

A totalitarian government is one where there is only one party allowed - the ruling party. In Stalin's Russia this meant that the Communist Party was supreme. All criticism and opposition is eliminated. The people are expected to be totally loyal to the state and to the person at the head of the government. Stalin ruled as a dictator, commanding his people with absolute power. He conducted many purges against his rivals and introduced a new constitution which reinforced his power. The secret police and even a cult helped to build up his image and keep him in power.

Reasons for the Purges

Under Stalin's totalitarian government of the 1930s, many purges were held, killing millions.

The main reason for the purges was because Stalin felt insecure. People were questioning his leadership, his methods and his policies. Many people were unhappy with the harshness of his Five Year Plans. He also faced criticism from within the party. Politicians who were overly critical of Stalin were at risk, but a few took their chances.

I guess this was better than the food rationing of the early 1900s?!?!

 

[thinkingaboutit]

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

 

[ChristineR]

Tailgater, I see no conflict between what I said and the quotes you posted. The OP was about poverty, not human rights, so I didn't say anything about that.

 

[Ziggurat]

In the Central and Eastern European Communist countries at least very few people were very, very poor. Almost everyone was poor by our standards, but no one was homeless and everyone had health care, and the population as a whole was better educated than in the US.

Many homeless in the US are mentally disturbed. They would not be homeless in Communist countries because they would be in insane assylums or in prisons - both of which are probably much worse places to be in communist countries than in the west. Despite the problems of deinstitutionalization, I don't see the communist solution as in any way preferable for these people.

 

[Garrette]

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

Just spread the money around and all is hunkey-dorey, right?

 

[Tailgater]

Tailgater, I see no conflict between what I said and the quotes you posted. The OP was about poverty, not human rights, so I didn't say anything about that.

You said very few people were poor or homeless, but they lived with harsh (almost slave like) conditions to work for the collective.

You said everyone had healthcare and higher education, but the medical facilities were insufficient. Same with houses and schools.

The second quote is what you get in order to force the people to be in the collective.

 

[shemp]

... because surely no human could be such a sociopathic genius.

I'm working on it. I've got the first half down pat.

 

[ChristineR]

You said very few people were poor or homeless, but they lived with harsh (almost slave like) conditions to work for the collective.

You said everyone had healthcare and higher education, but the medical facilities were insufficient. Same with houses and schools.

The second quote is what you get in order to force the people to be in the collective.

No, I said that there were few very, very poor. There was almost no homelessness, although many people lived in crummy housing. Although medicine was not very good, everyone had access to basic medical care, which is not the case in the US. Nobody had to beg or go to a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. School facilities were poor, like everything else, but they did a much better job of teaching than in the average US school. Those lucky enough to live in wealthy communities or to be able to send their children to private schools have good teachers and good facilities, but for millions in the US its drug-ridden, dangerous, dirty public schools or nothing.

And although human rights were disastrous, people did not work like slaves. They worked fewer hours per week than people in the US and had generous vacation policies. People in prisons probably did work like slaves, but that falls under human rights again.

 

[Alt+F4]

School facilities were poor, like everything else, but they did a much better job of teaching than in the average US school. Those lucky enough to live in wealthy communities or to be able to send their children to private schools have good teachers and good facilities, but for millions in the US its drug-ridden, dangerous, dirty public schools or nothing.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

 

[Tailgater]

No, I said that there were few very, very poor. There was almost no homelessness, although many people lived in crummy housing. Although medicine was not very good, everyone had access to basic medical care, which is not the case in the US. Nobody had to beg or go to a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. School facilities were poor, like everything else, but they did a much better job of teaching than in the average US school. Those lucky enough to live in wealthy communities or to be able to send their children to private schools have good teachers and good facilities, but for millions in the US its drug-ridden, dangerous, dirty public schools or nothing.

And although human rights were disastrous, people did not work like slaves. They worked fewer hours per week than people in the US and had generous vacation policies. People in prisons probably did work like slaves, but that falls under human rights again.

Many targets which the workers had to meet were set - and most were unrealistic. For example, there was to be a 250% increase in total industrial output and a 350% increase in heavy industries. The people were given no leave and absenteeism was treated as treason. Many workers had to slog for 11 hours! However, none of them revolted, as they knew their wages were paid in food rations, which meant they would DEFINITELY not eat if they did not work. Propaganda was used. Brochures, pamphlets and posters were distributed all over to boost the people's morale. Human examples were used. One man was said to be working at a rate 500% more productive than the average worker. Of course, most of these figures were exaggerated and the people were killed by jealous workers.

I'll get back to the rest of your post when I can. Kids are hungry.

 

[Ziggurat]

Although medicine was not very good, everyone had access to basic medical care, which is not the case in the US.

Not true. Everyone in the US has access to medical care. It's guaranteed by law, and if you ever go into a hospital, you'll see signs everywhere pointing out that you cannot be denied emergency care even if you cannot pay. Not everyone has access to insurance, but that's the same thing. If you get in a car accident, even without insurance, you're probably MUCH better off in the US than in a communist country. It's far from perfect, but the US healthcare system doesn't actually resemble how its most outspoken critics typically portray it.

Nobody had to beg or go to a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. School facilities were poor, like everything else, but they did a much better job of teaching than in the average US school.

According to who? Because frankly, I don't believe it. Are there any good studies of public school effectiveness in communist countries which weren't essentially controlled by those communist governments? I don't see why they would allow such studies without their control. I hope I don't have to spell out why that might be problematic. Communist governments always have a built-in incentive to make their schools (and in fact anything they do) look better than they are. In the US, we often have the reverse incentive: teachers unions and school administrators have an incentive to magnify problems because it serves as a rallying cry for increased funding.

Those lucky enough to live in wealthy communities or to be able to send their children to private schools have good teachers and good facilities, but for millions in the US its drug-ridden, dangerous, dirty public schools or nothing.

You said communist countries taught better than the average US school. There are undoubtedly some bad schools out there. But the average US public school is not a drug-ridden, dangerous, dirty school.

And although human rights were disastrous, people did not work like slaves. They worked fewer hours per week than people in the US and had generous vacation policies.

That argument gets used to promote Europe over the US too. Problem is, time off of paid work is not the same thing as leisure time. Americans have more leisure time than Europeans. Lower tax rates and less government control leads to greater labor specialization, which means people in the US hire other people to do particular jobs (fixing their plumbing, for example) that Europeans have to do themselves (at a much greater time cost because of lower efficiency of unspecialized labor). Communist countries got more time off paid work because the problem was probably just worse: I doubt they ever had more leisure time than Americans.

People in prisons probably did work like slaves, but that falls under human rights again.

Nothing to see here, move along

 

[Earthborn]

Americans have more leisure time than Europeans.

I love to the evidence for that.

Lower tax rates and less government control leads to greater labor specialization

So many claims without evidence in such a short sentence. Please show evidence that the US has significantly lower tax rates, less government control and that lower tax rates and less government control leads to greater labour specialisation.

which means people in the US hire other people to do particular jobs (fixing their plumbing, for example) that Europeans have to do themselves

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

 

[ChristineR]

I'll get back to the rest of your post when I can. Kids are hungry.

That's a pretty gross simplification of the quota system. It was corrupt and frequently cheated on. There were all sorts of behind the scenes negotiations. The usual result was that a lot of people just showed up and never did any work at all and what stuff did get made was of very poor quality.

If your quote were accurate, then communist countries should have had insanely high productivity rates, which they did not. It's a better description of life in this country where if you don't (or can't) work you get no food rations at all.

Your quote is essentially saying that the quota system worked (it got people to work hard and make lots of stuff) and that it didn't at the same time. I'd just say that it didn't work.

 

[ChristineR]

Not true. Everyone in the US has access to medical care. It's guaranteed by law, and if you ever go into a hospital, you'll see signs everywhere pointing out that you cannot be denied emergency care even if you cannot pay. Not everyone has access to insurance, but that's the same thing. If you get in a car accident, even without insurance, you're probably MUCH better off in the US than in a communist country. It's far from perfect, but the US healthcare system doesn't actually resemble how its most outspoken critics typically portray it.

I said everyone had access to basic medical care. The ability to force an ER to treat you after your simple problem has degenerated into a life-threatening emergency is NOT basic medical care.

According to who? Because frankly, I don't believe it. Are there any good studies of public school effectiveness in communist countries which weren't essentially controlled by those communist governments? I don't see why they would allow such studies without their control. I hope I don't have to spell out why that might be problematic. Communist governments always have a built-in incentive to make their schools (and in fact anything they do) look better than they are. In the US, we often have the reverse incentive: teachers unions and school administrators have an incentive to magnify problems because it serves as a rallying cry for increased funding.

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

You said communist countries taught better than the average US school. There are undoubtedly some bad schools out there. But the average US public school is not a drug-ridden, dangerous, dirty school.

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

That argument gets used to promote Europe over the US too. Problem is, time off of paid work is not the same thing as leisure time. Americans have more leisure time than Europeans. Lower tax rates and less government control leads to greater labor specialization, which means people in the US hire other people to do particular jobs (fixing their plumbing, for example) that Europeans have to do themselves (at a much greater time cost because of lower efficiency of unspecialized labor). Communist countries got more time off paid work because the problem was probably just worse: I doubt they ever had more leisure time than Americans.

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.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

<Runs away and hides.>