A Few Comments on Marx

[Commander-K25]

Given my apparent inability to post the long "Misconceptions about Conservatism" topic, I wont even try to post this, but rather link to source where I found it. Just a few comments on Marx's Communist Manifesto. You "Neo-Communists" really should examine what your beliefs are founded upon before you defend them.

Click here

[Slizor]

Why do I even bother?

:The problem with Marx's grandiose vision of social engineering is that it assumes humans will play by rules which are against their nature

Human nature can not be proven, it is an unsupported premise.

Humans won't work as hard without self-interest to motivate them, as anyone familiar with the behaviour of our evolutionary ancestors will quickly realize.

This is not an explaination, this is a weak attempt of a cover-up.

And absolute power does corrupt absolutely, even in the hands of the benevolent Communist Party.

Communism does not have to be totalitarian.

This is Karl Marx's biggest mistake: his assumption that all of the societal classes in an industrialized world will coalesce into two remaining classes: wealthy industrial property owners and starving labourers. The critical distinction is between people who work for a living, and people whose money works for them.

Actually it's those who produce and those that do not. The Middle class is bourgeoisie.

and many of us achieve that goal, even from the humblest beginnings.

*cough* Unsupported.

Events have shown that a free-market system does offer great opportunity for those with ambition and intelligence

Lovely generalisation there, yet totally unsupported.

Here he tries to portray one of the strengths of the free market as a weakness, by complaining that someone should be in "control".

No, he complains that people die and starve in the bad times. Is that a strength?

The vast disparity in living conditions between communist states and free-market states is proof that the lack of a central controlling authority is not the glaring weakness that he claimed it to be.

They were not communist, don't get me to go into it since even you Commander accept this arguement.

Millions of people subtly and collectively influence the cyclical direction of countless separate industries through their spending and investing choices (every dollar counts as a "vote" of sorts, making the free market more democratic than the government in many ways).

If every dollar counts as a vote and Bill Gates has trillions of Dollars....

Chronic over-production is not a bad thing! It's actually a good thing, for two reasons:

But it causes a recession. Der.

Unlike Marx (or his fans, most of whom have never set foot inside a factory), I actually have worked in a highly automated factory, and I have worked as a skilled professional, co-operating with others to design and build products.

Designing is not what he was talking about. He was talking about things like sweatshops.

but they fail to realize that communism seeks to take power from the masses by its very nature, by replacing free markets (which are controlled by the masses) and competing corporations (which the masses can punish, reward, or even destroy) with government monopolies, which the public has no power to directly control (to say nothing of punishing or destroying them if they are displeased with their performance).

Again, his arguement falls apart with the Bill Gates, loads of votes thing.

No matter what flowery language Karl Marx chooses to use, the simple reality is that government power will always be in the hands of the few

He is saying that the government is controlled by Capitalists, thus the poor have no power, when the few who would control get into power they will work for the poor, not the rich.

This is his suggestion for a solution to that oversimplification, and it's a solution which is never really justified.

This justification is that if they get rid of private property, they destroy the rich....who live off private property.

cont.

[Slizor]

Well I just lost my second post and I'm not gonna do it fucking again...now.

[dagger-happy]

Just one question, Slizor. If the totalitarian Communist states we saw in the 20th century were not truly Communist, then how would your Communist state differ, and how could it be achieved, given that all the previous ones "failed" in their endeavours?

[Slizor]

Just one question, Slizor.

It's two questions.

If the totalitarian Communist states we saw in the 20th century were not truly Communist, then how would your Communist state differ,

It wouldn't be totalitarian. Also, it wouldn't be war-mongering, it wouldn't put the needs of the Urban people ahead of the rural people. Etc, etc.

and how could it be achieved, given that all the previous ones "failed" in their endeavours?

This one would be a movement of the people, as opposed to a group of professional revolutionaries.

[Commander-K25]

At 8/9/02 07:27 AM, Slizor wrote:
Human nature can not be proven, it is an unsupported premise.

Human nature is what makes us tick. It is the direct result of millions of years of evolution. It is the set of basic instincts and desires that we are born with. When you're a baby, does society tell you to want food when you're hungry, or to cry to get it? Human nature supplies basic desires and motives, refined from our basic need and the animal desires of our evolutionary ancestors. Society channels and facilitates those desires. Why do people get an education? To get a job, obviously. Why do they need a job? To eat and live. Why don't they just steal what they need? Well, some do, but society has channeled that desire. If you want to live, then you must work for it. That is how you live, but society did not tell you to want to live in the first place. If you don't believe in human nature, then explain it. You merely say that it can't be proven. Alright, so prove it doesn't exist, because I have made my case. Saying that it just can't be proven is an excuse of a response. By your logic, I can't prove that you exist.

This is not an explaination, this is a weak attempt of a cover-up.

It is simple logic based on evolutionary and everyday evidence. If you tell me to do something for "the good of the proleteriat," I might do it. Offer me money or payment that I can keep and spend as mine alone, to do it, then I will be much more inclined.

Communism does not have to be totalitarian.

And 2+2 doesn't have to equal four, but it does. Communism has inbuilt totalitarian tendancies that lead to oppression. Communism is based on political theory, as much as it is touted as the common man's political system. Only a few elite intellectual types can truly understand this theory and it's direction in a revolution. THey rise to the top and become the new elite rulers (Lenin, Trotsky, etc.) They describe themselves as champions of the people, because the people don't know what they really want, they must be "set in the right direction" by men who "know what they're doing."

Actually it's those who produce and those that do not. The Middle class is bourgeoisie.

So all are decadent bourgeoisie exploiting the "people" except the absolute poorest of the poor. I ask you then, who are the "people", if the majority (the middle class) is "bourgeoisie"?

*cough* Unsupported.

Look around you, there are many examples. I'll give you another. After the Vietnam War, many South Vietnamese immigrants came to the US, the so-called "boat people." Many of them settled along the Gulf coast and became shrimp trawlers. A few families would pool their money and work until they could get their own boat. They saved all they had and began shrimping. They would often live on the boat in tight cramped quarters because they couldn't afford a house, but they had two important things, the will to work and ambition. They saved all that they had and eventually they became more successful than the shrimp trawlers that already lived in the area. Now, they've replaced many of the original fisherman and are doing quite well. Why? Was it government handouts? Was it welfare that made them successful? It was the will to work and get ahead.

They were not communist, don't get me to go into it since even you Commander accept this arguement.

It is proof. Who won the Cold War? Who is leading the world whilst Russia is trying to grasp the concept of not being dictated to about how to work and earn a living?

If every dollar counts as a vote and Bill Gates has trillions of Dollars....

Then that probably means he he makes a good product. If Windows didn't work, then rather than getting a subsidy from the central government to prop up a bad product and force feed it to the public through government stores, he would have been forced to madke something better or go out of business and find another occupation. He makes a good product, not perfect, but the best on the market, and thus, the public has voted him number one.

But it causes a recession. Der.

A recession is just a correction. The market cannot grow infinitely, nor can it be stagnant. It must constantly be moving, and this means down as well as up.

Designing is not what he was talking about. He was talking about things like sweatshops.

Yes, but what was needed, (and what was done), was reform, not a risky and radical new social order.

Again, his arguement falls apart with the Bill Gates, loads of votes thing.

Yes, he has loads of "votes." This is a bad thing?

He is saying that the government is controlled by Capitalists, thus the poor have no power, when the few who would control get into power they will work for the poor, not the rich.

That is naive. Power corrupts.

This justification is that if they get rid of private property, they destroy the rich....who live off private property.

Or they destroy private property so now everyone is poor, (except the central government, of course). This in fact what happened.

[Slizor]

You merely say that it can't be proven. Alright, so prove it doesn't exist, because I have made my case. Saying that it just can't be proven is an excuse of a response. By your logic, I can't prove that you exist.

One's personality is defined by two things, nature and nuture. Nuture includes the envoirment as well. It is impossile to distingish(sp) what characteristic comes from where, why? ecause you can not remove a human from an envoirment.

This is not an explaination, this is a weak attempt of a cover-up.

It is simple logic based on evolutionary and everyday evidence. If you tell me to do something for "the good of the proleteriat," I might do it. Offer me money or payment that I can keep and spend as mine alone, to do it, then I will be much more inclined.

What about if you do something because you enjoy it?

Communism does not have to be totalitarian.

And 2+2 doesn't have to equal four, but it does.

Weak.

Communism has inbuilt totalitarian tendancies that lead to oppression.

Such as?

Actually it's those who produce and those that do not. The Middle class is bourgeoisie.

So all are decadent bourgeoisie exploiting the "people" except the absolute poorest of the poor. I ask you then, who are the "people", if the majority (the middle class) is "bourgeoisie"?

The majority of the world is not bourgeoisie.

*cough* Unsupported.

Look around you, there are many examples. I'll give you another. After the Vietnam War, many South Vietnamese immigrants came to the US, the so-called "boat people." Many of them settled along the Gulf coast and became shrimp trawlers. A few families would pool their money and work until they could get their own boat. They saved all they had and began shrimping. They would often live on the boat in tight cramped quarters because they couldn't afford a house, but they had two important things, the will to work and ambition. They saved all that they had and eventually they became more successful than the shrimp trawlers that already lived in the area. Now, they've replaced many of the original fisherman and are doing quite well. Why? Was it government handouts? Was it welfare that made them successful? It was the will to work and get ahead.

Because people have, doesn't mean they will

They were not communist, don't get me to go into it since even you Commander accept this arguement.

It is proof. Who won the Cold War? Who is leading the world whilst Russia is trying to grasp the concept of not being dictated to about how to work and earn a living?

You accept that Russia was not communist, yet you say this...

If every dollar counts as a vote and Bill Gates has trillions of Dollars....

Then that probably means he he makes a good product. If Windows didn't work, then rather than getting a subsidy from the central government to prop up a bad product and force feed it to the public through government stores, he would have been forced to madke something better or go out of business and find another occupation. He makes a good product, not perfect, but the best on the market, and thus, the public has voted him number one.

This is not the point, the author tries to say that people can vote with their money, however, it is not fair if someone has an unequal vote.

But it causes a recession. Der.

A recession is just a correction.

"Correction" = Hardship.

Designing is not what he was talking about. He was talking about things like sweatshops.

Yes, but what was needed, (and what was done), was reform, not a risky and radical new social order.

Heh, I could have sworn sweatshops still existed.

Again, his arguement falls apart with the Bill Gates, loads of votes thing.

Yes, he has loads of "votes." This is a bad thing?

Yes. Why should one person have more votes than another?

He is saying that the government is controlled by Capitalists, thus the poor have no power, when the few who would control get into power they will work for the poor, not the rich.

That is naive. Power corrupts.

That is unsupported.

This justification is that if they get rid of private property, they destroy the rich....who live off private property.

Or they destroy private property so now everyone is poor

Or everyone is rich.

[patach]

Unfortunately to most "Neo-Communists", the fact still stands that human nature exists.

Human nature, of course, is greed. Pretend that all people are honest and humble. If all people were honest and humble, then Capitalism would fall like a rock, and Communism could actually work.

But not all people are honest and humble. In fact, many... obviously showing alot everywhere in America, thirst for selfish desire. Whether Materialistic, Power, or even religious gains (all three symbolizing stupidity).

Unless of course, Marx can find a way to make all people honest and humble, Communism still stands as a difficult matter to conquer.

[Slizor]

Human nature, of course, is greed. Pretend that all people are honest and humble. If all people were honest and humble, then Capitalism would fall like a rock, and Communism could actually work.

You say that most people aren't honest and humble, you therefore imply that there is some people that are honest and humble, how can they defy human nature like this? Answer: They can't, because human nature is not to be greedy,it can't be or there wouldn't be altruistic people.

[patach]

You say that most people aren't honest and humble, you therefore imply that there is some people that are honest and humble, how can they defy human nature like this? Answer: They can't, because human nature is not to be greedy,it can't be or there wouldn't be altruistic people.

I'm not implying that there is no such thing as honest and humble people. It's just that Capitalism can handle a larger amount of selfish and evil people more than Communism can. Communism requires a large amount of cooperation and honesty, which so far in America, politicians as well as citizens don't seem to have.

[P-Chan]

The true co-operation and honesty in humanity can be found in some less technologically advanced cultures.

If you looked at ancient hunter gathering tribes, you'd find that they were very altruistic. The same goes for some Native American cultures, etc. There are some really good examples of altruism modern times too. The Kibbutzes of Isreal and the Amish and Mennonite communities in North America are fairly true to communal ideals.

But I don't think this is the type of communism Karl Marx was talking about. As well, I don't think many of the technological and cultural innovations of our modern world could have been created from such societies. Also, I don't know if such communal systems could be applied to many of our modern societies and metros.

That's my 2 cents...

[dagger-happy]

At 8/11/02 02:03 PM, P-Chan wrote: The true co-operation and honesty in humanity can be found in some less technologically advanced cultures.

If you looked at ancient hunter gathering tribes, you'd find that they were very altruistic. The same goes for some Native American cultures, etc. There are some really good examples of altruism modern times too. The Kibbutzes of Isreal and the Amish and Mennonite communities in North America are fairly true to communal ideals.

But I don't think this is the type of communism Karl Marx was talking about. As well, I don't think many of the technological and cultural innovations of our modern world could have been created from such societies. Also, I don't know if such communal systems could be applied to many of our modern societies and metros.

Good point. Mass industrialisation has killed a lot of our altruism because we are no longer as involved with each other, receiving pay from a faceless corporation, taxed by faceless government and often working as a tiny cog in a gigantic machine. This encourages competition, ambition to have more influence over the huge collective and diminishes the practical worth of altruism in the eyes of many.

However, this competition against each other also fuels innovation and advancement. Lack of competition in the Soviet Union made its economy stagnate, and the products they did make were frequently shoddy because there was no danger of a rival product being bought instead. Necessity is the mother of invention. The economic danger in a future communist state would surely be for it to fall into the apathetic stagnation of Breznhev's era. How can you encourage innovation in today's industrialised, metropolised world, as effectively as capitalism, without some kind of incentive? Would those who produced more in their shifts be rewarded? And would you be able to harness the altruism people often display in small, tightly-knit groups for mass production?

[Slizor]

How can you encourage innovation in today's industrialised, metropolised world, as effectively as capitalism, without some kind of incentive?

Get people who enjoy inventing things, or have a knack for it, or both.

Would those who produced more in their shifts be rewarded?

Nope, however, if they do not live up to their own personal quota it would be investigated.

And would you be able to harness the altruism people often display in small, tightly-knit groups for mass production?

Indeed, make factories nice places, and get rid of a heirarchy.

[kurtcobain9]

At 8/11/02 02:03 PM, P-Chan wrote: The true co-operation and honesty in humanity can be found in some less technologically advanced cultures.

yes maybe the only way forward is true anarcy,its not exactly communism.look at ancient greece,where there were small city states and geunine self rule,no corrupt politisins takeing it upon themselves to think for the constituents.i mean,in america,its a two party system,vote for them or throw it away on the greens or something

[dagger-happy]

At 8/11/02 04:24 PM, Slizor wrote:

Would those who produced more in their shifts be rewarded?

Nope, however, if they do not live up to their own personal quota it would be investigated.

That's the mistake Stalin made. Fulfilling the quota becomes more important than the quality of the product. For example, poor quality, reject grain would be stored in silos so that the quotas could be ticked off and everyone is happy - except the people who have to eat the low quality food.

[Slizor]

That's the mistake Stalin made. Fulfilling the quota becomes more important than the quality of the product. For example, poor quality, reject grain would be stored in silos so that the quotas could be ticked off and everyone is happy - except the people who have to eat the low quality food.

Stalin set impossible targets. Poor quality products only possile solution. Anyhow, people can be happy eating poor quality food, look at McDonalds.

[dagger-happy]

At 8/17/02 03:48 PM, Slizor wrote: Stalin set impossible targets. Poor quality products only possile solution. Anyhow, people can be happy eating poor quality food, look at McDonalds.

Well, that's true, but I meant that it resulted in half the food being inedible, despite the bureaucracy claiming a success. So you would set an easier target to attain? But then there would be no point in making more than is required... I know farmers could be working for their own profit after fulfilling the quota, but what about the menial jobs that have to be done, like supervising millions of caps being screwed onto bottles on assembly lines? People would never work harder than to a mediocre level unless they get something in return for their extra effort. The Soviet Union was always poorer than America, and even in the eighties you had to join a long que for something as essential as bread. Is that really a better way of living?

[Slizor]

Well, that's true, but I meant that it resulted in half the food being inedible, despite the bureaucracy claiming a success. So you would set an easier target to attain? But then there would be no point in making more than is required...

Who needs more than is required?

I know farmers could be working for their own profit after fulfilling the quota, but what about the menial jobs that have to be done, like supervising millions of caps being screwed onto bottles on assembly lines? People would never work harder than to a mediocre level unless they get something in return for their extra effort.

They don't now anyway.

The Soviet Union was always poorer than America, and even in the eighties you had to join a long que for something as essential as bread. Is that really a better way of living?

Are you seriously saying that the USSR and USA have had the same circumstances?

[P-Chan]

At 8/18/02 07:01 PM, Slizor wrote:

Well, that's true, but I meant that it resulted in half the food being inedible, despite the bureaucracy claiming a success. So you would set an easier target to attain? But then there would be no point in making more than is required...

Who needs more than is required?

I know farmers could be working for their own profit after fulfilling the quota, but what about the menial jobs that have to be done, like supervising millions of caps being screwed onto bottles on assembly lines? People would never work harder than to a mediocre level unless they get something in return for their extra effort.

They don't now anyway.

The Soviet Union was always poorer than America, and even in the eighties you had to join a long que for something as essential as bread. Is that really a better way of living?

Are you seriously saying that the USSR and USA have had the same circumstances?

You may want to stop with all the rhetorical questions and just say what you mean. I've noticed that you can detract from some really meaningful posts through constant questioning.

[Slizor]

You may want to stop with all the rhetorical questions and just say what you mean. I've noticed that you can detract from some really meaningful posts through constant questioning.

If an experiment was done to decide what was better, Capitalism or Communism, the systems would be given exactly the same circumstances to deal with. Firstly, the USA was what 150 years older than the USSR. The USSR was surrounded by unfriendly Capitalist countries. They started after being devestated in the first world war, then had to fight a "civil" war. They also had to fight most of a world war by themselves(80% of Nazi soldiers were killed by Russian Soldiers.) Etc etc, the list goes on.

[P-Chan]

Look at Russia before the communist revolution, and then look it afterwards. I'd say it was a success as the style of government was a major factor in its rapid industrialization and eventual emergence as a world power. Could such a leap be made with the Czars in place? I don't know.

Ironically, I tend to think of the real world form of communism as either a transitional government or one where the primary goal is to sustain a population.

[Slizor]

Could such a leap be made with the Czars in place? I don't know.

Could such a leap have been made with a democracy? Nope, Industrialisation came at a great human cost. Any democratic government would have been kicked out for trying such a thing, unless the people weren't stupid(which wasn't/is never true). It may have made a great industrial leap, but it was on the blood of their comrades.

[P-Chan]

At 8/19/02 09:45 AM, Slizor wrote:

Could such a leap be made with the Czars in place? I don't know.

Could such a leap have been made with a democracy? Nope, Industrialisation came at a great human cost. Any democratic government would have been kicked out for trying such a thing, unless the people weren't stupid(which wasn't/is never true).

I can think of one country that followed that route.

Japan was a nation that industrialized at a blindly fast pace with the consensus of the people in mind. Have you heard of the Meiji era? It's facinating to read about.

In 1867 Japan was a feudal nation with midevil technology that had little contact with the outside world. In less than 50 years, it somehow managed to completely indusrialize itself and become a great power in the region! It even beat Russia in a war and started having colonies of its own.

A brief article:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/oriental_history/17895

It may have made a great industrial leap, but it was on the blood of their comrades.

Agreed.

[Slizor]

Could such a leap have been made with a democracy? Nope, Industrialisation came at a great human cost. Any democratic government would have been kicked out for trying such a thing, unless the people weren't stupid(which wasn't/is never true).

I can think of one country that followed that route.

Dude, your source even says that it was ruled by an oligarchy.

In 1867 Japan was a feudal nation with midevil technology that had little contact with the outside world. In less than 50 years, it somehow managed to completely indusrialize itself and become a great power in the region!

Russia took 20 years, and it is far greater in size.

[Grandmaster001]

Slizor, you are trying to argue for a debunk system. It's like trying to argue for spontaneous generation (the modern kind, not prehistory). There is no basis that communism could ever exist without a corrupt leadership. On the other hand, capitalism has been doing quite well for the last 200 years in the US. Sure there were a few setbacks, but we've done all right, considering we are the world's only major superpower. In communism there are only two types of people, the opressors, and the opressed. It doesn't matter if they know it or not. At least in the U.S. we have the power to criticize our key officials. Try doing that in a communist based government.

[Grandmaster001]

And yes, I know that communism is an economic system. However, communism leads to totalitarianism. If you want to speak of some kind of utopia, you'd better figure out a way to turn humans into progammable blanks or else that will never happen. Besides, life would be a hell of a lot less interesting.

[Slizor]

There is no basis that communism could ever exist without a corrupt leadership.

There is no basis that it couldn't

On the other hand, capitalism has been doing quite well for the last 200 years in the US. Sure there were a few setbacks, but we've done all right, considering we are the world's only major superpower.

Yeah but you've only got that far by fucking other countries.

In communism there are only two types of people, the opressors, and the opressed. It doesn't matter if they know it or not. At least in the U.S. we have the power to criticize our key officials. Try doing that in a communist based government.

Communism is not totalitarian in it's nature.

[dagger-happy]

At 9/8/02 06:11 PM, Slizor wrote:
Communism is not totalitarian in it's nature.

The theory may claim that it's not totalitarian, but every time someone's tried to create a Communist state, that is what it has become.

[Grandmaster001]

At 9/8/02 06:20 PM, dagger_happy wrote:

At 9/8/02 06:11 PM, Slizor wrote:
Communism is not totalitarian in it's nature.

The theory may claim that it's not totalitarian, but every time someone's tried to create a Communist state, that is what it has become.

So, it goes to say that there is no basis that it COULD work either. Knowing us humans, it probably wouldn't.

[Slizor]

The theory may claim that it's not totalitarian, but every time someone's tried to create a Communist state, that is what it has become.

That's not true, the only real attempt to have a democratic system was Russia, all the others followed Stalinism.