Marxist "Irony"

[Zeistro]

According to the Communist Manifesto, in order for the utopian society to be achieved, society has to go through transitional phases. Right now, marxists harp about free economies, claiming it must be eradicated in order for utopia to be achieved. Afterwards, capitalism will be proceeded by socialism, then communism will be replaced by communism, finally, anarchy is the system to replace them all.

The kicker, despite the lack of currency, laisses-faire capitalism will be the economic system in anarchy since there is no longer a central government to regulate trade or commerce among individuals.

[Mitok]

Well, there will also be no absolute money system and therefor no wealth or poverty.

[Zeistro]

At 1/5/08 03:06 PM, Mitok wrote: Well, there will also be no absolute money system and therefor no wealth or poverty.

This does not mean an equality in ownership. Supposedly, things are shared, but with no government who can stop whom from hoarding?

[Schmut]

Even if a utopia were achieved that way, there's no way it could be sustained. I'd be very much for anarchism is it weren't for all the idiots in the world.
In an anarchic state, the world would gradually start to spiral out of control. Because humans can rarely agree with one another, some form of regulatory body must be kept. Although, I don't think we've found the right way for regulating people, just yet.
I haven't personally done enough research to form a full opinion, but at the moment I think a socialist-democracy may be the way to go.

Anyways, though communism and anarchism may be attractive concepts I think turmoil would ensue whenever such things are applied to a nation. Especially with the current state of human arrogance, which I feel may be at an all time high.
Then again, I don't know a whole lot about this sort of thing.

[Maxben]

There is leftist anarchism and rightist anarchism.

The left claim that mankind is essentially good. As such, they believe that if we shatter this corrupt system (and go through the stages of communism for some), people will band together to help each other out of the goodness of their heart and the desire to see our society survive. It relies heavily on the unselfishness of people, something I am quite cynical about.

The right claim that a pure dog-eat-dog world is the proper course. We get rid of government and the people who are naturally superior will thrive. Be they capitalists, intellectuals, or bullies, they deserve what they receive because they are superior and worked for it. In this system, the belief is that nature reigns supreme, and is the most natural of systems. I dislike it, but that is probably because i would not be able to hold my own against constant competition.

Anarchism is a half-baked idea. Which might explains why Marxism never actually worked and we have current "communism" in its stead.

[enonymous420]

capitalism is a system designed by the white man in order to keep themselves in power.
think about it..

[plebmonk]

The idea of a utopia is that there is no such thing as ownership, that's the fundamental point. Our capitalist society makes it difficult for us to get our heads around the concept of no ownership, but it's perfectly reasonable when you put some thought into it.

[PirateAnneBonny]

At 1/7/08 07:29 AM, plebmonk wrote: The idea of a utopia is that there is no such thing as ownership, that's the fundamental point. Our capitalist society makes it difficult for us to get our heads around the concept of no ownership, but it's perfectly reasonable when you put some thought into it.

So you think it would be utopia if I can just come into your house, rob your refridgerator, get your TV and put it in your car and drive off since there's no such thing as ownership? I guess if I had an inkling, I could burn your house down too since no one owns it.

You might not like it very much and you might complain a little, but so what? You don't have a right to complain since I'm not "stealing" anything that you own anyways. If it's not me, it'll be the next guy. Eventually, one guy will come along carrying a weapon (even if he doesn't own the weapon, but just found it lying on the ground) and take your groceries and your dog, too, and couldn't care less how much you complain.

Also, why bother getting a job, since you'll only trade your wages in for something that someone else could take. No one's working, no one's eating -- a.k.a. the reason socialism never works.

If that's utopia, then count me out.

[SmilezRoyale]

I think probably the biggest of all marxist ironys is that Karl Marx died before the establishment of Trade unions [also called worker or labor unions] Which removed the need for a violent proletariat revolution, and with proper pressure, the people did manage to make the government WITHOUT A VIOLENT REVOLUTION to improve worker conditions, which marx said was impossible because the state was an institution meant to consolidate bourgeoisie power and authority.

Karl marx was witness to the absolute worst of the industrial revolution, yet his followers apply his logic and reasoning to a much more equitable society that still follows the idea that people can own property and manage their own affairs; though these rights are slowly being taken away since regular people as we know are children and must be treated as such by uncle sam.

[chi-master08]

I think the whole point is that nobody will steal your refrigerator or your tv because it will all be in one area for all of us to use. It won't be that your above someone else by having the refrigerator or tv, it will be the fact that we will all have only the essentials for survival and anything you don't really need will be available at a public place. Thats just what I think.

[PirateAnneBonny]

At 1/8/08 09:53 PM, chi-master08 wrote: I think the whole point is that nobody will steal your refrigerator or your tv because it will all be in one area for all of us to use. It won't be that your above someone else by having the refrigerator or tv, it will be the fact that we will all have only the essentials for survival and anything you don't really need will be available at a public place. Thats just what I think.

I know the concept. It's not a new concept by any means. What I am saying is how are you going to stop me if I want to take EVERYTHING and I don't care if everyone starves? Hahahaha!!!

[Maxben]

At 1/9/08 12:08 AM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:53 PM, chi-master08 wrote: I think the whole point is that nobody will steal your refrigerator or your tv because it will all be in one area for all of us to use. It won't be that your above someone else by having the refrigerator or tv, it will be the fact that we will all have only the essentials for survival and anything you don't really need will be available at a public place. Thats just what I think.

I know the concept. It's not a new concept by any means. What I am saying is how are you going to stop me if I want to take EVERYTHING and I don't care if everyone starves? Hahahaha!!!

Which is right-wing anarchism.
The communist says that, at the end of the day, we are basically good and honest folk. If we are no longer held down by the upper classes (bourgeoisie), and there is no longer a sense of ownership (false consciousness), and we identify with our society and the people in it like a family (class consciousness), they expect us to unselfishly help each other survive.

[PirateAnneBonny]

At 1/9/08 12:41 AM, Maxben wrote:

At 1/9/08 12:08 AM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:53 PM, chi-master08 wrote:

The communist says that, at the end of the day, we are basically good and honest folk.

Yea right!! Do you have any idea how many people have been shot or starved to death by communists in this past century? Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin; they were nothing but pure mass murderers. Communists are nothing more than socialists with guns.

Name me one example of communism/socialism that has worked in history and improved people's lives. BTW, do you know what Nazi stood for? It was the Nation Socialist Party of Germany.

[Maxben]

At 1/9/08 01:28 AM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:

At 1/9/08 12:41 AM, Maxben wrote:

At 1/9/08 12:08 AM, PirateAnneBonny wrote:

At 1/8/08 09:53 PM, chi-master08 wrote:

The communist says that, at the end of the day, we are basically good and honest folk.

Yea right!! Do you have any idea how many people have been shot or starved to death by communists in this past century? Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin; they were nothing but pure mass murderers. Communists are nothing more than socialists with guns.

Name me one example of communism/socialism that has worked in history and improved people's lives. BTW, do you know what Nazi stood for? It was the Nation Socialist Party of Germany.

haha, you are making a big mistake.
The discussion is about Marxism. Marxist's Communism was an idealistic political philosophy. Real communism as we see it is the failure and corruption of the system Marx wanted. There is a big difference between political
theory and political reality.

Socialism had worked for a long time in the Jewish communities in Israel, truly improving people's lives. By now, though, it is dead.

[enonymous420]

Yea right!! Do you have any idea how many people have been shot or starved to death by communists in this past century? Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin; they were nothing but pure mass murderers. Communists are nothing more than socialists with guns.

Name me one example of communism/socialism that has worked in history and improved people's lives. BTW, do you know what Nazi stood for? It was the Nation Socialist Party of Germany.

You are a fucking moron brainwashed by capitalist propaganda.

Joseph McCarthy was a lying piece of shit. As was Truman, his administration, and J. Edgar Hoover.
Check out COINTELPRO, this was a real FBI program.
The only threat that communism posed was to wealthy motherfuckers intent on keeping their money. So, they were going to do all they could to sway public opinion.
Stalin didn't run a TRUE communist society, he exploited that shit for his own selfish needs. You can't blame that on communism. Fuck Stalin. Fuck Hitler.
Lenin was a great leader. And no matter what you say, he was 1,000 times better than Bush ever was.
The only people that support capitalism are greedy people. Learn your shit before you speak.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Slizor]

At 1/8/08 09:51 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I think probably the biggest of all marxist ironys is that Karl Marx died before the establishment of Trade unions [also called worker or labor unions] Which removed the need for a violent proletariat revolution, and with proper pressure, the people did manage to make the government WITHOUT A VIOLENT REVOLUTION to improve worker conditions, which marx said was impossible because the state was an institution meant to consolidate bourgeoisie power and authority.

I disagree on two grounds. Firstly, Marx's reasoning was not that because people are being treated badly there will have to be a violent revolution. Instead Marx argued that the economic relationship between the classes was one of exploitation and when the proletariat realise this they will rise up for the final (from the view of historical materialism) bloody revolution that will end exploitation. Secondly, placating the proletariat with improvements in worker conditions hides the brutal face of capitalist exploitation and, in doing so, makes revolution less likely and thus consolidates bourgeios power and authority.

Karl marx was witness to the absolute worst of the industrial revolution, yet his followers apply his logic and reasoning to a much more equitable society that still follows the idea that people can own property and manage their own affairs; though these rights are slowly being taken away since regular people as we know are children and must be treated as such by uncle sam.

The US has very very few communists, socialists or a real left side of the political spectrum. I'm not sure what did it really, was it when they were made state enemies, was it the constant anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War or is it the constant pro-US propaganda that they put in schools? Meh.

[Slizor]

Name me one example of communism/socialism that has worked in history and improved people's lives.

The USSR, Cuba and China. Sure they may have been repressive regimes, but they improved the standard of living by a huge amount. Russia and China became superpowers for fuck's sake.

BTW, do you know what Nazi stood for? It was the Nation Socialist Party of Germany.

And do you know what economic system they promoted? Two -sided Corporatism, where the state and business co-operate....kinda the opposite of socialism.

[PirateAnneBonny]

What is so great about communism/socialism if it never works???

If Cuba is so great, why are people risking their lives to leave in craft that barely floats to get to Maimi?

China is only on the rise because they're painstakingly leaning about American capitalism. Their workers are cheap, they can underprice America's expensive workers, and then sell the stuff for plenty of American dollars. They've discovered capitalism, their government doesn't want them to embrace it completely. If they ever do, then look out, Asia won't need us anymore.

Why is everyone so taken in with what Marx said? Are you that easily duped by a person's words that you can't see the disasters that followed in his wake?

[PirateAnneBonny]

In fact, Karl Marx himself would be mortified by the failed economy of Cuba, the last remaining true communist country in the world and one of the poorest. He assumed that communism would surpass capitalism and prove to be more productive and produce greater wealth, not less. A socialism that simply perpetuated poverty would be worthless -- a return, indeed, to what Marx called "oriental" despotism and a slave economy.

Again, how can Marxism be so great when it has such a dismal track record? Why not read Adam Smith instead?

[Maxben]

Actually, Karl Marx would have been mortified to learn that it was RUSSIA and CHINA that became "communist" and, in particular, how they destroyed his theories. His theories were meant for industrialized countries where he saw and felt the pain of the workers (or at least his aide Engles did, and he wrote it down).

My problem with some statements about Marxism is that it was never tried. The dismal record is by Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism, etc etc, Marx book was never followed to the letter. I think people are unfair to Marx because they know so little about his theory but just assume that our real world "communism" is what he said.

Also, socialism is not communism. Marx was disgusted by socialists, that is why he created the word Communism, to separate his theories from them though they were leaning to the left (he was leaning farther). This is the same way Bakunin got disgusted with Communists and Socialists and created Collectivism.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/9/08 08:58 AM, Slizor wrote: I disagree on two grounds. Firstly, Marx's reasoning was not that because people are being treated badly there will have to be a violent revolution. Instead Marx argued that the economic relationship between the classes was one of exploitation and when the proletariat realise this they will rise up for the final (from the view of historical materialism) bloody revolution that will end exploitation. Secondly, placating the proletariat with improvements in worker conditions hides the brutal face of capitalist exploitation and, in doing so, makes revolution less likely and thus consolidates bourgeois power and authority.

Explotation; The act of utilizing something for any purpose. In this case, exploit is a synonym for use.

Unfortunately, this PRETTY much defines all labor service. When you work for someone, you use your abilities be they physical or academic in order to promote the interests of a company of some sort in exchange for physical compensation [usually in the form of money] In a social term, Exploitation doesn't traditionally apply to usage of an employee if their treatment in the work place is fair by the common standards of human living as well as the degree of work that they provide.

1) Poor Treatment [Low wages and bad housing and poor surroundings all reflect poor treatment] is what MADE the proletariat the exploiters. Communists and socialists were, historically influenced by the Stark differences in Wealth between capitalists and laborers partly due to the fact that Wages were so poor and conditions were so harsh; [Less money given to workers is more money kept in profit for capitalists] That is the root of the exploitation that Karl marx and Engels describe and cry out against. If you use the Dictionary definition of Explotation, all forms of employment are exploitation; unfortunately, even communist governments employ people and civilized society really can't advance without multiple people working in the same organization toward a same goal which require some body to organize and manage their affairs; including their wages. If you go by my definition of exploitation by adding the question of 'how fair is the exchange?' then it would make sense that Low wages and poor worker conditions were what made the exchange UNFAIR and thus, EXPLOITED. I really can't argue in any other way that the 2 things i mentioned were the ultimate testament to industrial exploitation of workers. If you can agree that this is correct, move on to point 2. if you don't agree this is correct, then please explain to me how the capitalists exploited the laborers in means other than the 2 i described [They also have to be things that the trade unions didn't push for]

2) With this knowledge in hand, we can now deduce the fact that the means of ending the exploitation as described by the communists and socialists as well as pro-labor individuals who did not beleive in taking the measures of socialism or communism involved one; raising wages, and 2, improving worker conditions. Trade unions are what [along with support of activists and the press] made these 2 things possible from a historical stand point. Karl marx beleived that the Proletariat would be incapable of getting these things without taking them by force because the government would not be willing to give these things to them because the government worked for the bourgeois. So... in an simpler manner of speaking;

If; Trade unions = Ended low wages and poor working conditions
And; low wages and poor working conditions = exploitation [as explained]
Then; Trade unions = Ended Exploitation.

However...

Trade unions ending exploitation = Done by Government Coercion [Asking the government to make changes]

But Karl Marx Said;

Government Coercion towards ending exploitation = Impossible.

Karl marx was never around to see trade unions gain popularity [They only did so towards the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century]

Karl marx was witness to the absolute worst of the industrial revolution, yet his followers apply his logic and reasoning to a much more equitable society that still follows the idea that people can own property and manage their own affairs; though these rights are slowly being taken away since regular people as we know are children and must be treated as such by uncle sam.

The US has very very few communists, socialists or a real left side of the political spectrum. I'm not sure what did it really, was it when they were made state enemies, was it the constant anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War or is it the constant pro-US propaganda that they put in schools? Meh.

BTW, you mean left side of the economic spectrum; but idc about details such as that. Communists and Capitalists became enemies with each other because of political reasons. The governments them selfs didn't like each other, but both sides were large in size and a direct conflict would have lead to WWIII; both governments wanted to avoid war but believed heavily that the other side would try to take over them if they had the potential. Communists distrusted the capitalists and capitalists distrusted the capitalists. As a result, propaganda was used to create a sense of fear against communists in the capitalists areas and visa versa; it not only benefited the leaders by hardening the populace against the enemy should war ever occur, but it also strengthened nationalism and a sense of self communist / capitalist pride. The expression goes, people are can be more united by hate then love in some cases.

[PirateAnneBonny]

Maxben, why do you think Marxism "wand never tried," as you put it? Let Lord Acton shed light on the reason why:

"All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Communism gives power to the people who run things -- the people who collect and distribute the goods that society produces. Corruption is endemic with this kind of power over the lives of others. I don't care how "nice" and "compassionate" the leaders might be at the beginning, eventually corruption sets in because that's human nature. People cannot be trusted with that kind of power. This is why "idealistic" communistic societies always degrade with the leaders getting all the perks and the vaulted workers getting zip. in the end.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

Regardless of people's strong feelings about these ideals, marxism and all it's followers (social, democratic social, national social, trotsky, lenin, mao, stalin, anarch, commun isms) follow the same logical fallacy which is to make a declaration and hand pick the facts which back them up. Scientific method, to accumulate as many facts as possible and find trends and patterns between them which can be used to make succesful predictions, is the mirror image of this so many people do not spot the problems with all these isms. Marxists of all types are not to only group to use this kind of reasonning as it is pretty prevalent throughout politics where people are arguing 1 viewpoint but for the objective analysis you will want scientific method.

Let's take that popular staple fact that has been used to base arguments here already.

Business owners try to pay their workers less so they can make more money.

If this were the only condition of things that could occur ever maybe these isms would be a good idea but this is not the case.

Workers can unionise to unite their negotiating power.

It may well be natural for the rich and powerful to corrupt the government and make them bear down on unions and consumer groups but by definition if the law is used to impede political freedom it also effects economic freedom and thus has nothing to do with a free market, the problem is a lack of safeguards against corruption.

[Slizor]

SmilezRoyale, there are three main elements to Marx's understanding of exploitation - alienation, the labour theory of value and, by extension, the idea of "surplus value". To understand his position on exploitation (and thus be able to understand where trade unions fit into his views) you need to research these parts of Marxism instead of using a dictionary definition of exploitation.

At 1/10/08 01:35 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Regardless of people's strong feelings about these ideals, marxism and all it's followers (social, democratic social, national social, trotsky, lenin, mao, stalin, anarch, commun isms) follow the same logical fallacy which is to make a declaration and hand pick the facts which back them up. Scientific method, to accumulate as many facts as possible and find trends and patterns between them which can be used to make succesful predictions, is the mirror image of this so many people do not spot the problems with all these isms. Marxists of all types are not to only group to use this kind of reasonning as it is pretty prevalent throughout politics where people are arguing 1 viewpoint but for the objective analysis you will want scientific method.

Use of the scientific method in politics should be limited to the areas of politics where it is useful - those being mostly studies on voters and voting patterns. The scientific method is absolutely useless in most other areas of politics for two main reasons. Firstly, you can not do political experiments - you can not repeat procedures and remove variables. Secondly, human behaviour on the level of the individual is generally hard to predict. Human behaviour on the mass scale - the study of which is politics - is impossible to predict because of the huge number of interactions and variables.

One further, more specific, reason is also worth mentioning. In the realm of political theory - looking at ideologies - scientific method has never been used. There is no ideology that is based upon a scientific view of the big elements of an ideology - human nature, the meaning of freedom, etc. How could you possibly quantifiably study them?

[PirateAnneBonny]

One further, more specific, reason is also worth mentioning. In the realm of political theory - looking at ideologies - scientific method has never been used. There is no ideology that is based upon a scientific view of the big elements of an ideology - human nature, the meaning of freedom, etc. How could you possibly quantifiably study them?

I'd say there's a couple ways you could do it. First, you could do polls asking people things like, "Are you happerier this year then last? Do you feel more secure about your retirement than you felt last year? Do you feel safer? etc." You could also track how much time and money is spent on "leisure activities," vacations, and hobbies compared to time spend working for money to pay bills and taxes and buy necessities. It's a no brainer that people are happier spending money on fun things then spending money on taxes. Then compare the results to countries with different economic systems and see which method produces the happiest people.

[PirateAnneBonny]

In fact, it reminds me of a joke I read:

A wise old Indian Chief sat in his hut, smoking a Ceremonial Pipe and eying two U.S. Government officials sent to interview him.
"Chief Two Eagles," stated one official, "You have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done."
The Chief nodded in agreement.
The Official continued, "Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?"
The Chief stared at the Government Officials for over a minute and then calmly replied, "When white man found this land, Indians were running it."
"No taxes."
"No debt."
"Plenty buffalo."
"Plenty beaver."
"Women did all the work."
"Medicine man free."
"Indian man spent all day hunting and fishing."
"All night having sex."
Then the Chief leaned back and smiled, "Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that."

[Kenzu]

wrong

Marxists dont say capitalism must be destroyed, they say it will be destroyed.

communism wont be replaced by anarchy.
communism is anarchy as well!

There will be no trade in communism!
Everything will be free!

[Slizor]

One further, more specific, reason is also worth mentioning. In the realm of political theory - looking at ideologies - scientific method has never been used. There is no ideology that is based upon a scientific view of the big elements of an ideology - human nature, the meaning of freedom, etc. How could you possibly quantifiably study them?

I'd say there's a couple ways you could do it. First, you could do polls asking people things like, "Are you happerier this year then last? Do you feel more secure about your retirement than you felt last year? Do you feel safer? etc." You could also track how much time and money is spent on "leisure activities," vacations, and hobbies compared to time spend working for money to pay bills and taxes and buy necessities. It's a no brainer that people are happier spending money on fun things then spending money on taxes. Then compare the results to countries with different economic systems and see which method produces the happiest people.

How would you manage to isolate the variables though? Happiness could be down to the climate, a national view on life (which would make the french, the miserable bastards, lose) the political system, etc. Plus, people's perceptions (which polls measure) are never static and can easily be swayed be current events. For example, do you not think that Americans would answer very differently about how safe they felt on Sept 10, 2001 then on Sept 12, 2001?

[PirateAnneBonny]

Slizor, you're absolutely righ about the variables. A person could say they're happy on a sunny day and miserable on a rainy one no matter what form of government or economic system is in place. It would all have to be taken into consideration and the results would have to be studied annually and across all season, all areas of the country, and with all people at every tax bracket and every age and every racial group. It would be a huge undertaking, but I think you would see trends. Probably, the better way would be to look at money and time spent on leisure activities, vacations, hobbies, and other fun activities.

The thing I don't know about is how could you help people separate their feelings about their own personal situation from their feelings about the larger society, their country? One peculiar thing about Americans is that we think every personal problem should be a political one -- Prohibition and the War on Drugs are two examples.

[PirateAnneBonny]

I've been getting way off topic. This thread is on Marxist irony and I think Zeistro was on the right track. If we ever got anarchy, an absence of a central government, then what would it look like and would anyone think of it as a "utopia"?

I suspect we would see several micro-economies and mini-societies formed around different principles among a larger "country," if you can call it that anymore, that is basically free and laisses-faire. Some would be religious communities like the Amish and the Menonites and others could be like a group of Star Trekies or pot heads pooling their resources. On a micro-economic level, just about anything works and individuals are free to leave the group if they decide they don't like the group's policies anymore. I think people are happiest if their country is free and without a strong central government creating one-size-fits-all legislation, but are allowed to form small societies where they can set their own rules and will be able to try different economic experiments to see which one works best for them.

A homesteading family is like a happy communistic society where the father brings in grain from the fields, the mother gets vegetables, the little ones pick berries, the older kids fetch the eggs and milk the cow and they all put it together into a big meal that they share in common. There's a commune that exists between Brevard and Asheville in N.C. which has been in existance since the 60's or 70's that seems to work, so communism can work on a small scale with like-minded individuals where everyone knows everybody and can expell people who get too abusive and where people are free to leave if they choose.

However, on a large scale, it's vastly different. A communist country needs a bureaucracy and elite leaders who have all the power for the purpose of collecting and distributing the resources and the goods that society produces and that people need. At that scale, corruption is endemic.

So anarchy on a large scale with small, unique, ordered societies on a small scale is probably the closest thing there can be to "utopia." I would add that for the larger anarchist society, it would likely work best for trade between the smaller societies to be conducted in a hard currency, but within the small communities, barter would prevail in different forms. Of course the groups would learn that they need to be armed, maybe even walled, because predatory groups would be out there. Basically, like post-apocalyptic "The Postman" movie.