Marxism can elimimate global poverty

[D'rok]

In my view (and I may be wrong, I admit), the Democratic Republic isn't really a democracy, it's a mish-mash of different concepts pulling together to, ideally, carry out a form of government that best serves it's people. But it isn't rule by the majority of people, which is what I believe the traditional (as in, "old time") meaning of democracy is all about; a majority vote and the like.

I think you're pretty spot-on with this in general. One wrinkle is universal enfranchisement. Even though there are institutional barriers to the tyranny of the majority, all citizens can vote. Or put another way, everyone is a citizen. Ancient democracies were not egalitarian societies - they were slave based societies with a very small voting franchise. In that sense, at least, the modern democratic republic is more democratic.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think you're pretty spot-on with this in general. One wrinkle is universal enfranchisement. Even though there are institutional barriers to the tyranny of the majority, all citizens can vote. Or put another way, everyone is a citizen. Ancient democracies were not egalitarian societies - they were slave based societies with a very small voting franchise. In that sense, at least, the modern democratic republic is more democratic.

Mmmmh, that is a good point, they were slave-based, and I'm not sure if women could vote in those societies.

I guess you could then say that America is far more a democracy today than it was when it was first set up. But I still think that there are many key differences that keep it from being a "pure" democracy, and that a "pure" democracy is not ideal.

In the same sense, Marxism may be an ideal society on paper, but in practice there is no way to get to it. On the other hand, a pure democracy isn't ideal on paper, but in practice can be made (by twinking it to the point where it's a mish-mash of different political ideals and the like) into something more ideal.

 

[D'rok]

In the same sense, Marxism may be an ideal society on paper, but in practice there is no way to get to it. On the other hand, a pure democracy isn't ideal on paper, but in practice can be made (by twinking it to the point where it's a mish-mash of different political ideals and the like) into something more ideal.

I understand what you're saying here. Another way to think of it is to see Republics on the American model (which is based in no small degree on Republican Rome btw) as taking an ideal and making it pragmatic, practical and stable. Experiments in Marxism usually end up taking an ideal and attempting to shoe-horn it onto reality with no thought for the real-world consequences (and those consequences are bloody).

Ironically, Marx was a determinist. He saw communism as inevitable, but only after global capitalism had uplifted the whole world into the industrial age. So from that POV it's capitalist globalization that is the current ongoing Marxist experiment.

 

[Chaos]

*snip*

Ironically, Marx was a determinist. He saw communism as inevitable, but only after global capitalism had uplifted the whole world into the industrial age. So from that POV it's capitalist globalization that is the current ongoing Marxist experiment.

Not an experiment. According to Marx, the natural progression of societies is from tribal to feudal to capitalist to communist.
And Marx - AFAIK - never saw something like capitalist globalization coming. He envisioned a communist globalization sweeping away the old capitalist system.
Sometimes I wonder what Marx would say if he could see what his 20th century successors have made of his theories.

 

[D'rok]

And Marx - AFAIK - never saw something like capitalist globalization coming.

(Pulls out the big guns)

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image."

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto

 

[marksman]

Sometimes I wonder what Marx would say if he could see what his 20th century successors have made of his theories.

Since he claimed to be an historian who proceeded through observation and re-evaluation, I would hope that he would have seen that his theories were flawed and would have worked to refine them.

Significantly, he died well before progressive movements managed to legislate workers' rights, health care, child labor laws and many of the legislations that, in the West, have helped to ease the burden on working families. Those were not development he thought would the capitalists would allow to be implemented, or at least, their implementation would not ameliorate the underlying condition. I would hope that he would have revised his theories accordingly.

Contrary to popular belief, he was not against socialist movements that sought to legislate a socilaist workers' movement. On the contrary, he was very much their supporter. I have a feeling he might have been sucked into a Bolshevik revolution himself. I would hope that in hindsight, he would have realized it was a mistake.

Of course, this is all speculation.

 

[Lonewulf]

I understand what you're saying here. Another way to think of it is to see Republics on the American model (which is based in no small degree on Republican Rome btw) as taking an ideal and making it pragmatic, practical and stable.

Yes! Exactly! That's what I was trying to say. Thank you.

Experiments in Marxism usually end up taking an ideal and attempting to shoe-horn it onto reality with no thought for the real-world consequences (and those consequences are bloody).

Yeah, that's a way of looking at it.

 

[D'rok]

Since he claimed to be an historian who proceeded through observation and re-evaluation, I would hope that he would have seen that his theories were flawed and would have worked to refine them.

Significantly, he died well before progressive movements managed to legislate workers' rights, health care, child labor laws and many of the legislations that, in the West, have helped to ease the burden on working families. Those were not development he thought would the capitalists would allow to be implemented, or at least, their implementation would not ameliorate the underlying condition. I would hope that he would have revised his theories accordingly.

Contrary to popular belief, he was not against socialist movements that sought to legislate a socilaist workers' movement. On the contrary, he was very much their supporter. I have a feeling he might have been sucked into a Bolshevik revolution himself. I would hope that in hindsight, he would have realized it was a mistake.

Of course, this is all speculation.

I agree with all of this. I don't think Marx anticipated just how dynamic capitalism could be or that it would co-exist as sucessfully as it has with the welfare state.

 

[Lonewulf]

I agree with all of this. I don't think Marx anticipated just how dynamic capitalism could be or that it would co-exist as sucessfully as it has with the welfare state.

If Marx ever took a time travel machine, and he learned about all of this, he would probably say, "Oh, wow, the future is interesting!"

And I'm not just talking about the cars and stuff.

Contrary to popular belief, he was not against socialist movements that sought to legislate a socilaist workers' movement. On the contrary, he was very much their supporter. I have a feeling he might have been sucked into a Bolshevik revolution himself. I would hope that in hindsight, he would have realized it was a mistake.

I dunno about that.

Marx once stated, "I am not a Marxist" when he saw how Marxism was being used. I dunno if he would've truly advocated violent overthrow and a people's party.

Plus there's the fact that his entire theory involves a stateless world, and the USSR was still a "state".

 

[marksman]

Sometimes I wonder what Marx would say if he could see what his 20th century successors have made of his theories.

He might say, "Holy crap! I can see the future!"

 

[Lonewulf]

He might say, "Holy crap! I can see the future!"

"The world revolution won't be Marxism! It'll be McDonaldsism!"

 

[Schneibster]

You did well. It's really about authority and responsibility. It's also about ceding some of your personal freedom in order to get the benefits of an organized society. A "classic" democracy, AKA "direct" democracy, is essentially an anarchy- at the cost of both tyranny of the majority, and every individual being required to participate in every decision, it is unworkable. Representational government (i.e. a constitutional democratic republic) is as close as you can get without these drawbacks, and the constitution must be carefully crafted and minimally adjusted later.

 

[Lonewulf]

You did well. It's really about authority and responsibility.

Thank you, and yes it is.

It's also about ceding some of your personal freedom in order to get the benefits of an organized society. A "classic" democracy, AKA "direct" democracy, is essentially an anarchy- at the cost of both tyranny of the majority, and every individual being required to participate in every decision, it is unworkable. Representational government (i.e. a constitutional democratic republic) is as close as you can get without these drawbacks, and the constitution must be carefully crafted and minimally adjusted later.

Right.

Which is why I think that claiming that he's following the ideology of "democracy" is pretty misleading. He isn't; he's following the ideology of a democratic/monarchic republic, but not a pure democracy. Sure, most people know what he means, but my key point here is that blind ideology is dangerous. This ties back to the idea that "technology without ideas == bad, but ideas == good". Not all ideas are good, and more people die from ideologies than technology. There were mass murders of entire civilizations before the gun even existed; before civilizations even used steel. Before they even used iron. It has nothing to do with technology; technology might make it "easier", sure, but with sufficient leverage you can move the world; and if you control a million men, you can potentially kill a million others, even with sharp pointy sticks if that's the level of technology. Hell, I believe that if you look at the numbers (I haven't done any actual comparisons here, so I don't say this with certainty), you'll find that Stalin starved more people to death than he shot with guns or bombed with planes.

Personally, I don't follow the "ideology" of democracy, or even representational government. I follow the "ideology" of pragmatism, with the end desire to have a solution that works best for humanity (the people) as a whole. A democratic republic, insofar, has worked best to that effect. But I would be willing to switch over to a different kind of government (or a different kind of democratic republic) if it shows itself to be even better and more beneficial to us as a whole.

So pretty much, I go with what works. The democratic republic works. So I go with that. But I'm always willing to change my mind; I do not blindly follow one path or the other without looking at other paths and considering.

 

[yinyinwang]

And I said "majority", not everyone. Do you know what majority means? If not, click on the word. It leads to something called a dictionary.

Even involving majority in every decision is also technically impossible.

If the majority of people decide that a lesser population should die, or have their civil liberties taken away, then you have a system that commits crimes against minority groups. You consider this ideal? I didn't know that about you. Do you see nothing wrong with bigotry, even against a minority population? Or a minority religion? Or a minority ethnic group? You see absolutely nothing wrong if a majority decides to take away the rights, priviledges, and even lives of the minority?





Read above. I believed that it was self evidence why you don't want to give the majority the power to inflict crimes against the minority. I see now that I was wrong in your case.


Here's a tip: Wolves don't prefer grass. Do you understand that?

This is just the simple stuff. I'm not even going to go into the details of a majority of people that are ignorant on a subject voting on it, and their vote carrying more power than actual experts on the subject that actually know what the hell they're talking about. But I don't want this to go over your head or anything.

It isn't as simple as you imagine.
You think it is simple because you didn't do the home work called thinking, you just buy the idea from someone else and take it as self-evident.
If you set the majority as 100%, which means every one, what about the so call majority over minority tyranny?

 

[Lonewulf]

Even involving majority in every decision is also technically impossible.

Majority vote is meant to accomplish that. That's the reason why "democracy" and "majority vote" are often interchangeable in speech.

It isn't as simple as you imagine.
You think it is simple because you didn't do the home work called thinking, you just buy the idea from someone else and take it as self-evident.
If you set the majority as 100%, which means every one, what about the so call majority over minority tyranny?

Wow, you're right. It isn't "as simple as I imagine"! I mean, you just need to have 100% of the population have their every wish and desire, without anyone in it being screwed over! That is a complicated concept.

 

[Chaos]

(Pulls out the big guns)

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image."

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto

Isn´t it a far-fetched to say *this* refers to globalization? What makes you think this does not refer to spreading the 19th century, highly localized version of communism all over the world?

 

[Schneibster]

You think it is simple because you didn't do the home work called thinking, you just buy the idea from someone else and take it as self-evident.
If you set the majority as 100%, which means every one, what about the so call majority over minority tyranny?

Have you actually been paying any attention to what we're saying, or are you just repeating the same thing over and over after someone proved you hadn't a clue what you were talking about?

Yes, that is a rhetorical question and anyone can go look and see what you've been saying and come to a conclusion as to the answer without you having to actually go to the trouble to give one. Don't bother yourself.

 

[D'rok]

Isn´t it a far-fetched to say *this* refers to globalization? What makes you think this does not refer to spreading the 19th century, highly localized version of communism all over the world?

Good grief. Do you even know what the words bourgeois and bourgeoisie mean? I'll help you out:

"Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class which obtains income from ownership or trade in capital assets, or from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares, and services."

Here's some more bolding for emphasis:

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image."

 

[yinyinwang]

Have you actually been paying any attention to what we're saying, or are you just repeating the same thing over and over after someone proved you hadn't a clue what you were talking about?

Yes, that is a rhetorical question and anyone can go look and see what you've been saying and come to a conclusion as to the answer without you having to actually go to the trouble to give one. Don't bother yourself.

"Have you actually been paying any attention to what we're saying"?
I wish you knew what you are talking about.
Every fool can make his foolish conclusion, why bother putting yours here?

 

[Lonewulf]

"Have you actually been paying any attention to what we're saying"?
I wish you knew what you are talking about.
Every fool can make his foolish conclusion, why bother putting yours here?

Irony, thy name is yinyinwang.