Marxism can elimimate global poverty

[Lonewulf]

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 may end up disagreeing with that assessment if you end up starving to death.

Or get cancer and can't have it treated.

 

[Beerina]

For example, in the US a large number of unnecessary MRIs are done for economic reasons, in Canada there is a long wait for MRIs. So it's not obvious which is better.

Anybody can stir up outrage in the masses and violently seize control of MRI manufacturing to "bring it cheaply to the masses". Umm, hooray?

What about the next MRI or CAT? If it weren't for the profits the freer countries generate, how the hell do you think you'll get these nice pretty lifesaving toys your government can violently bring cheaply to the angry masses?

Government funding only goes so far, and should be in addition to "unconscionable profits". This moves technology ahead the fastest, and thus saves the most lives in the long run.

 

[rikzilla]

Are you saying Marxism has eliminated poverty in Cuba?

Marxism is only a huge failure due to that old bugaboo: Human Nature. Now if we were all just cattle or sheep we'd have perfect communism. Folks just need to heed the authorities and stop all that pesky thinking and everything will be cool.

BTW: What is the Marxist/Communist record on the environment? Surely Marxism is green?? Eh???

-z

 

[yinyinwang]

You may end up disagreeing with that assessment if you end up starving to death.

Or get cancer and can't have it treated.

If I am away from stress and pollution, my chance of getting cancer is pretty much low, so what the treatment for?

 

[Lonewulf]

If I am away from stress and pollution, my chance of getting cancer is pretty much low, so what the treatment for?

The sun gives you cancer.

Not masturbating regularly increases risk of cancer.

And are you saying that there is no stress in the wild? What, are you talking about the Disney version of wildlife, or the real version? You still have to eat; what if you fail to get something to eat for even a few days? Otherwise, where does your food come from? What if your shelter is damaged and not easily repaired by you alone? What if you're caught in a storm, or a flood, or any other numerous hazards?

Alright, let's ignore cancer. What about any of the other various diseases you could easily be exposed to? Or poisonous animals and vegetation?

Oh, I'm sorry, don't mind me, I'm just pissing on the idea of a perfect idealistic Disney version of "living in the woods".

 

[yinyinwang]

The sun gives you cancer.

Why would I let the sun do that?

Not masturbating regularly increases risk of cancer.

I am sure you can find a way out.

And are you saying that there is no stress in the wild? What, are you talking about the Disney version of wildlife, or the real version? You still have to eat; what if you fail to get something to eat for even a few days? Otherwise, where does your food come from? What if your shelter is damaged and not easily repaired by you alone? What if you're caught in a storm, or a flood, or any other numerous hazards?

If this is the first time you are thrown into a jungle, I can understand you are under presure.

Alright, let's ignore cancer. What about any of the other various diseases you could easily be exposed to? Or poisonous animals and vegetation?

see above.

Oh, I'm sorry, don't mind me, I'm just pissing on the idea of a perfect idealistic Disney version of "living in the woods".

The good news is I don't have to face a loaded gun.

 

[yinyinwang]

what a strange thing to say. Do you want to expand upon what you mean?

Hitler has just complained that he was not given a fair chance to make a better world.

 

[andyandy]

Hitler has just complained that he was not given a fair chance to make a better world.

What are you talking about?

 

[Lonewulf]

If this is the first time you are thrown into a jungle, I can understand you are under presure.

And you're never under pressure afterwards?

Once more, Disney != Reality. Forests are not full of happy singing wildlife that never harm each other.

see above.

See above.

The good news is I don't have to face a loaded gun.

There's no way I can take your posts seriously. Really.



Intriguing idea:

People needed protection in the wild. To get protection, they banded together. To band together, they pooled resources and came up with inventions to make life easier. The inventions became domesticated animals and vegetation, which created permanent settlements and the rise of technology. Dwellings and weapons were upgraded, as was everything else we needed to make life more bearable and survivable.

And now, while we sit at the conclusion of all that (well, not quite the conclusion, as it's always evolving and changing, but you know what I mean), we have almost everything we need. If I need food, I don't need to risk life and limb to hunt a wild boar with a spear and crossed fingers, I just go to the local store and get the meat for a bargain price. If I need shelter, I go inside. If I need an education, I apply to a university online. If I need medical treatment or advice, I go to a doctor. All the modern conveniences for a nice and easy life at my fingertips; and you want to go all the way backwards to the original setting, idealizing it to the point where you assume that it's somehow "better", which is baloney.

Claiming that going back to the wild without using any modern convenience or contributing to future knowledge or research is the same as claiming that we should go off the bible for all information, and can't learn any other way. It's regression, not progression.

You want to go back to the wild? Fine. Log off, and don't respond to this post. Take your computer and donate it to someone else, or trash it. Leave your home, take your family (if you have any), and go straight into the wild. Take some time to learn things before you go, maybe, but please, go do it. Go and live with your furry Disney animal friends and have a nice time back pre-civilization.

Meanwhile, I will sip my margarita, listen to my favorite band, kick back, and relax.

However, if you do respond to this post, if you do keep your computer, and if you do ever go to a medical doctor, or consult any kind of scientific or technical handbook, then this makes you nothing more than a hypocrite.

 

[dann]

First of all, this is not in defence of Mr Wang’s notions.

People needed protection in the wild. To get protection, they banded together.

Human beings are simian, not ursine. They tend to like people. I.e. they weren’t running around in the woods all alone, they were banded from the starting point. Marx wrote about the notion of society consisting of banding Robinson Crusoes.

To band together, they pooled resources and came up with inventions to make life easier.

Yes, they pooled resources, but not particularly to band together. They already did. Opposing thumbs and a bit of intelligence added to the banding made them successful hunters and gradually made some of them able to understand what happened to the seeds they sacrificed to their gods and their dead. At first they may have thought that it was the gods thanking them for their sacrifices, but today most of them have got beyond that misconception. (You don't pray a lot when you study agriculture today, I think ...)

The inventions became domesticated animals and vegetation, which created permanent settlements and the rise of technology. Dwellings and weapons were upgraded, as was everything else we needed to make life more bearable and survivable.

Simply ”became”, simply ”were upgraded”?

And now, while we sit at the conclusion of all that (well, not quite the conclusion, as it's always evolving and changing, but you know what I mean), we have almost everything we need.

Your ”we” is a dangerous misconception. Some people have more than enough, others have absolutely nothing.

If I need food, I don't need to risk life and limb to hunt a wild boar with a spear and crossed fingers, I just go to the local store and get the meat for a bargain price.

I don’t know about you, but I can assure you that most people have to do a lot more than just go to the local store! Even plastic money doesn't last for ever!

If I need shelter, I go inside.

Unless you’ve been evicted …

If I need an education, I apply to a university online.

If you have the time and the resources.

If I need medical treatment or advice, I go to a doctor.

If you happen to live in a society with free doctors – or are rich enough to afford the ones you have to pay for.

All the modern conveniences

that you can afford?

for a nice and easy life at my fingertips; and you want to go all the way backwards to the original setting, idealizing it to the point where you assume that it's somehow "better", which is baloney.

The point is that the alternative doesn’t exist today. (See original accumulation). The poor have no alternative to working for the owner of the land, the factories etc. – unless you consider starvation an alternative. This is what makes the labour force so extortable.
In the 20th century the process of original accumulation came to Greenland. In the beginning the Inuits were still very unreliable as workers. You might place them in a factory shelling shrimps, but as soon as whales or seals were spotted, they disappeared from the workplace. The Danish imperialists used to blame the lack of work ethics, but the whole point was that they had a better alternative than shelling shrimps in a factory! Gangers at building sites had to organize work as singing games: “We dance over here and pick up the girder, then we dance over there and put it down. Then we dance our way back, pick up another girder …”, which to the Danes proved the primitive, childish nature of the Inuits – because the Danes were too dumb to see that the Inuits simply were not interested in boring work routines that they were not dependent on. Today they are – to the extent that every third teenager on the east coast of Greenland commits suicide.

Claiming that going back to the wild without using any modern convenience or contributing to future knowledge or research is the same as claiming that we should go off the bible for all information, and can't learn any other way. It's regression, not progression.

And clearly impossible. Today all (useful) land is owned by somebody.

You want to go back to the wild? Fine. Log off, and don't respond to this post. Take your computer and donate it to someone else, or trash it. Leave your home, take your family (if you have any), and go straight into the wild. Take some time to learn things before you go, maybe, but please, go do it. Go and live with your furry Disney animal friends and have a nice time back pre-civilization.

Meanwhile, I will sip my margarita, listen to my favorite band, kick back, and relax.

However, if you do respond to this post, if you do keep your computer, and if you do ever go to a medical doctor, or consult any kind of scientific or technical handbook, then this makes you nothing more than a hypocrite.

Well, it is possible to show the absurdity of Mr Wang’s claims without idealizing the circumstances we live in. Speaking of Disney …

 

[BPSCG]

I would ask you if you can show that Marxism has eliminated poverty anywhere. If so, where?

Poverty as defined by HDI (Human Development Index)? Didn't we have this discussion already?

Are you saying Marxism has eliminated poverty in Cuba?

No, it returned with a vengeance in the 1990s!

Then could you please stop dodging the question I asked you above? Can you show that Marxism has eliminated poverty anywhere? If so, where?

 

[dann]

I'm not 'dodging' any questions. Cuba managed to get rid of the kind of poverty that existed in the country before Castro and his followers took over. And, like I said, it returned with a vengeance when its allied Socialist countries embraced Capitalism.
So far Marxism, the analysis and criticism of Capitalism, has not managed to to eliminate poverty anywhere. It also hasn't been implemented anywhere, i.e. Capitalism successfully overthrown and a suitable society and economy to fulfill the needs of people instead of the owners of private property established.
For the time being almost nobody seems to be seriously interested in getting rid of Capitalism and the poverty it causes which makes the question of what Marxism hasn't achieved rather obvious: So far it hasn't managed to convince the victims of Capitalism that Capitalism, the globalized market economy, is the cause of their misery.

 

[BPSCG]

Cuba managed to get rid of the kind of poverty that existed in the country before Castro and his followers took over. And, like I said, it returned with a vengeance when its allied Socialist countries embraced Capitalism.

So, if I understand you correctly, the only way for Cuba to get rid of poverty was to have other communist/socialist/Marxist countries propping it up. And when those countries decided the great experiment wasn't working, Cuba collapsed all over again.

So far Marxism, the analysis and criticism of Capitalism, has not managed to to eliminate poverty anywhere. It also hasn't been implemented anywhere, i.e. Capitalism successfully overthrown and a suitable society and economy to fulfill the needs of people instead of the owners of private property established.

Why not? Castro certainly achieved the first part of your formula, "successfully" overthrowing capitalism(how would one unsuccessfully overthrow capitalism, anyway???), so why the stalling regarding establishing "a suitable society and economy to fulfill the needs of people instead of the owners of private property"? He's had half a century, with no significant opposition. Why the stalling?

For the time being almost nobody seems to be seriously interested in getting rid of Capitalism and the poverty it causes which makes the question of what Marxism hasn't achieved rather obvious: So far it hasn't managed to convince the victims of Capitalism that Capitalism, the globalized market economy, is the cause of their misery.

Hasn't Castro persuaded the people of Cuba?

And while I would not argue that capitalism has eliminated poverty, either, has it escaped your notice that the richest countries in the world are capitalist? Even China has figured that out, and is getting wealthy at an astonishing pace. Rather than criticize capitalism because it has not made everyone wealthy, wouldn't it be more productive to try to study and mine the secrets of its success?

You remind me of the people who claim they can do remote viewing or dowse for water or predict astrological signs. They make claims, and when the claims fail scrutiny, they make excuses that something interfered with the remote viewing, or the local weather conditions weren't right that day for dowsing, or the person whose sign was being detected wasn't mentally cooperative. Same with Marxism: "Oh, well China wasn't really a Marxist country. Oh, well, Cuba would succeed except that other countries didn't cooperate."

At some point, the remote viewer, the dowser, the astrologer, the Marxist should simply come to terms with the uncomfortable idea that his pet theory just doesn't work.

 

[RandFan]

So, if I understand you correctly, the only way for Cuba to get rid of poverty was to have other communist/socialist/Marxist countries propping it up.

Bingo. Cuba was a feather in the cap of the Soviet Union and they (the Soviet Union) were willing to prop up Cuba until their own brand of Marxism bankrupted the Soviet Union.

 

[Lonewulf]

First of all, this is not in defence of Mr Wang’s notions.

Duly noted.

Human beings are simian, not ursine. They tend to like people. I.e. they weren’t running around in the woods all alone, they were banded from the starting point. Marx wrote about the notion of society consisting of banding Robinson Crusoes.

Of course they were banded from the starting point. How the hell else did they have sex which led to babies?

I'm not sure I get your point here. We didn't start out with civilization nor with permanent settlements.* Nomads did not progress in technology, permanent dwellings did (and what led to permanent dwellings? Domestication of livestock and crops).



*Well, okay, except for the Minoans. They pretty much started out with permanent settlements as opposed to a nomadic lifestyle. Which, interestingly enough, seems to have led to a less divisive structure between the genders, and less of a "he does, she does" sort of social system.

Yes, they pooled resources, but not particularly to band together. They already did. Opposing thumbs and a bit of intelligence added to the banding made them successful hunters and gradually made some of them able to understand what happened to the seeds they sacrificed to their gods and their dead.

I'm not sure why you felt this response was necessary. It does not counter any of my points.

Pooling resources and aiding each other has the side effect of making providing for each other, through hunting and the like, more feasible.

At first they may have thought that it was the gods thanking them for their sacrifices, but today most of them have got beyond that misconception. (You don't pray a lot when you study agriculture today, I think ...)
Simply ”became”, simply ”were upgraded”?
Your ”we” is a dangerous misconception. Some people have more than enough, others have absolutely nothing.I don’t know about you, but I can assure you that most people have to do a lot more than just go to the local store!

Most people where?

Geographically, most people here in the United States are still provided for, and are able to make their way.

There are other countries where this is not so. That is unfortunate, but has more to do with the economy of the country and the distribution of wealth more than anything else.

Even plastic money doesn't last for ever!

Of course it doesn't.

But do you have any evidence that the poverty rate here in the United States is incredibly abundant, to the point where you can claim that "most" people in it are impoverished?

Unless you’ve been evicted

By who?

If you bought and paid for your land, then it's the government that decides whether you live there or not. Most measures I've seen that involve collectivism and communism involve heavy government control; eviction is less an argument for communism, more an argument for private ownership.

…If you have the time and the resources.

The same is true with surviving in the wild. Or surviving in any particular location.

You have to pull your weight, or you have to have someone there to take care of you. Many people here in the U.S. need to be taken care of, and usually either are taken care of by private non-profit organizations, retirement homes, or have disability care (which is somewhat socialistic, provided) by either private or public accommodations.

However, if everyone decided to not spend any time pulling their own weight, then neither society nor civilization could progress. Everything would shut down, and we'd all die.

If you happen to live in a society with free doctors – or are rich enough to afford the ones you have to pay for.

Or you gain medical insurance from private or public accommodations.

I'd also like to know that this is a proposition that TANSTAAFL applies; There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. "Free" doctors are not free. The money still comes from somewhere. America's problem is that no one likes to pay high amounts of taxes, and yet everyone wants "free" goodies from the government. As a result, America has a tendency to borrow lots of money from other countries; now the national debt is up to trillions of dollars. I don't think we'll be able to pay that off in my lifetime...

that you can afford?

Naturally. But I have seen no evidence that there is an extreme amount of people that cannot afford conveniences here in America.

You are not poor. You're talking to me on a computer. You probably have a roof over your head. You probably eat three square meals a day (I don't, I eat junk food all the time, but then that's a personal choice). I'm not poor, I have all of that (which is provided to me thanks to my mother). But even if no one did provide anything for me, there are others that can help me progress, including non-profit private organizations and public organizations.

The point is that the alternative doesn’t exist today. (See original accumulation). The poor have no alternative to working for the owner of the land, the factories etc. – unless you consider starvation an alternative. This is what makes the labour force so extortable.

What, and labor unions have no influence whatsoever?

Well, it is possible to show the absurdity of Mr Wang’s claims without idealizing the circumstances we live in. Speaking of Disney …

Hm? I'm not idealizing, I'm explaining how it is.

I have conveniences. You have conveniences. By most measures, most people here in America have conveniences. They are provided for by someone, or can provide for themselves. If that is an ideal, it has been reached, but not to the point of perfection.

Sure, there can be improvements made, but your theory of radical change has not been shown, proven, nor demonstrated to be effective.

I just want to note here that ideology and reality make strange combinations. Sometimes an idea can match reality. Sometimes it does not. Sometimes reality destroys an ideal. Sometimes it does not.

You have to be careful which ideology you bet your money on; some of those horses are prone to biting.

 

[Tailgater]

The Soviet Union bought most of Cuba’s sugar for expensive prices. Cuba spent this money on health, education and the army. This made Cuba’s schools and hospitals some of the best in the world, and the army fought in Africa to support black Africans against the white South African army. Cuba also supported groups in South America fighting against the dictators of those countries.

However, the Cuban government began to control most of life in Cuba under the communist system. Disagreeing with the Cuban government and Fidel Castro in public was not allowed. Some Cubans did not like this and tried to leave Cuba. Most Cubans who left went to America. Some Cubans who did not like the government and stayed were put in jail. Many groups from around the world protested against Cuba because of this, and demanded that Fidel Castro give up power.

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. This meant that Cuba, which has sold most of its products to the Soviet Union, had no money coming into the country. The Americans made the restrictions against contact with Cuba tighter unless Fidel Castro gave up power. Cuba became very poor in the 1990s. This became known in Cuba as “The Special Period”. Because of the disaster, Cuba changed to allow less control by the government, more discussion amongst the people, and private shops and businesses. Cuba also tried to get tourists to visit the island.

In the 2000s, tourism to Cuba began to make money for the island again. Though Fidel Castro remains in power, he has passed all duties to his brother Raul after an illness. Fidel Castro is 80 years old and is one of the longest serving heads of state.

Hmm, looks like less control and more of that evil capitalism is bringing Cuba back from the poverty of the 90s.

 

[yinyinwang]

However, if you do respond to this post, if you do keep your computer, and if you do ever go to a medical doctor, or consult any kind of scientific or technical handbook, then this makes you nothing more than a hypocrite.

I didn't say every body should do the same, I just said if I choose to live in the wild with few assets, it is not necessarily "poor". That is all.
Do you remember that the more you have, the bigger the worry?

 

[yinyinwang]

What are you talking about?

I am talking about giving every idiot multiple chances to mess my life with their freak fantasies.

 

[Lonewulf]

I didn't say every body should do the same, I just said if I choose to live in the wild with few assets, it is not necessarily "poor". That is all.
Do you remember that the more you have, the bigger the worry?

Well, it certainly ain't rich in resources.

 

[yinyinwang]

Well, it certainly ain't rich in resources.

Maybe rich in ideas or in thoughts.