A question about Socialism/Communism
- Thread starter pete rose
- Start date
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
"Socialism is the sermon on the mount, applied."
-James kier Hardie
-James kier Hardie
Which system had more corruption--America's Democracy or the old USSR? Is America's form of "free elections"--aka, the candidate with the most money buys the win months before election day--all that different than the "chosen one" approach of Mother Russia?
Is it true that today--America's form of corporate capitalism does not work without cheap labor provided by Mother China (recalls and product safety be damned)?
Just askin...
Is it true that today--America's form of corporate capitalism does not work without cheap labor provided by Mother China (recalls and product safety be damned)?
Just askin...
HE1FiNEARTiST
Banned
the secret to Capitalism working is, you have to share the wealth. but nobody gets that yet. its all about me, me, me, me.
I'm honestly just curious of the rationale.
It's also never worked because humans are douchbags by nature.
ForumModeregulator
Believer In GregCentauro
http://damienmanier.com/essays/flaws-of-marxism/
I think this explanation kicks ass:
Marx’s communism appears quite logical if his assumptions are correct. However, many of his basic assumptions are in doubt and by his own standards of praxis determining the validity of philosophy communism has failed the test of historical application. This at best proves that the world or mankind is not in the right state for communist revolution or at worst proves his assessments of capitalism and the belief that there is “no such thing as a ‘human nature’” are wrong.
In “Human Action” Ludwig Von Mises explains human nature or human action as being the result of social evolution that began with the very basic need of survival. Modern society is also the result of the evolutionary process beginning with the most primitive forms of the division of labor which even Marx appears to recognize. “In every society…we find a particular mode of cooperation, corresponding to a particular level of echnological development, in which different productive tasks are relegated to different people. The most basic form of the division of labor…is that manifested in the sexual act. It takes two people each performing a unique role to produce a third. Almost as basic is what Marx calls the “spontaneous” division of labor found in very technologically primitive societies. Here different tasks are assigned on the basis of natural or biological attributes. The stronger will become the hunters, the weaker food gatherers, and so forth.” However, this seems to imply that society created the division of labor instead of the division creating society. This is why Marx is apt to conclude that society and “for the benefit” of society are and should be the primary motivators of men. The truth, however, is that men formed societies out of self-interest, a motivation evolved from the very basic instinct of survival. If this is in fact true the idea of communism nearly crumbles from this false assumption alone.
Another fatal flaw to communism is Marx’s misperception of economics. Marx posits a theory that “asserts that the market or exchange value of any commodity is the amount of labor embodied in it.” However, history and modern economics have proved that labor is not necessarily what determines the value of a good or service but rather supply and demand. Demand being the subjective value placed on a good or service by those who would purchase it, the price they are willing to pay, as well as the number who wish to receive said product or service. Supply is simply the availability of the product or service. Supply and demand are what determine price which is what determines the allocation of property, not necessarily the amount of labor. Value has always been subjective to the individual and so is hard to incorporate into a general philosophy. The text also makes the following claim in reference to objections to Marxism or communism: One “objection implicitly assumes a condition of scarcity in which well-being, even survival, depends upon the ceaseless struggle to acquire more. Such a condition will not exist in a communist society.” The very nature of economics is the assumption of a “condition of scarcity” based on finite resources. If communism somehow provides infinite resources and eliminates the concept of “scarcity” then it may very well work. A third economic problem with Marxism is the doing away with “specializations”, which are generally recognized as drastically increasing the efficiency, in a communist society. “In Marx’s words, communism ‘makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.’” Without experts or specialists progress will be much more difficult to obtain and quality and innovation will almost certainly suffer. More advanced fields that take years of extensive training to master will all but fade away. For this the suggestion appears to keep some specialists but with the following caveat: “The specialist need not acquire more than others simply because he or she performs a highly skilled function.” However, if a man could receive the same benefits from doing a task that can be learned in a day and requires significantly less effort to perform why would he spend much of his life studying and expend vast amounts of energy to perform a more specialized task. Marx claims the man would because it would benefit society and he would have no desire to receive more for his increased efforts. This, however, defies common sense and the burden of proof that such a consciousness can be achieved is on those who defy common sense with their theories and speculations.
Marx recognized that his ideas were contradictory to common sense or what he called consciousness so he claimed that the current consciousness was based on false perceptions and that his ideas would both require and cause “the transformation of social consciousness.” While it may true that reality both forms the consciousness and is formed by it or that the actions of man are determined both by nature or the environment as well as man himself; the transformation of social consciousness is not likely to occur abruptly through revolution but gradually through evolution. That is why even if it were some day possible for leadership to lead solely “at the behest of the whole community” and that their “relations with others will be cooperative rather than conflictual” it is not according to the current consciousness and that will not change through any sort of revolution.
The evidence that Marx’s philosophy is incompatible with today’s social consciousness is through his own standard of praxis or practical application of his theories. Those who have claimed to be Marxists have failed to achieve anything remotely similar to that posited by Marx and “the failure of the proletariat…may be interpreted as a failure of Marx’s theoretical analysis of capitalism and, by extension, of the whole philosophy of historical materialism upon which it rests.” Some may claim it is because the principles were never properly applied but the reason they were never properly applied is because they are incompatible with the nature of man in his current state of evolution. I can not say whether or not the nature of man will ever be compatible with communism or if it will ever be a viable philosophy. However, if it is in our future of social evolution it is more likely to occur as the Marxists who hold the classical view of Marxism insist…after capitalism has “become a worldwide phenomenon.” Even then it will happen gradually and not through revolution.
I think this explanation kicks ass:
Marx’s communism appears quite logical if his assumptions are correct. However, many of his basic assumptions are in doubt and by his own standards of praxis determining the validity of philosophy communism has failed the test of historical application. This at best proves that the world or mankind is not in the right state for communist revolution or at worst proves his assessments of capitalism and the belief that there is “no such thing as a ‘human nature’” are wrong.
In “Human Action” Ludwig Von Mises explains human nature or human action as being the result of social evolution that began with the very basic need of survival. Modern society is also the result of the evolutionary process beginning with the most primitive forms of the division of labor which even Marx appears to recognize. “In every society…we find a particular mode of cooperation, corresponding to a particular level of echnological development, in which different productive tasks are relegated to different people. The most basic form of the division of labor…is that manifested in the sexual act. It takes two people each performing a unique role to produce a third. Almost as basic is what Marx calls the “spontaneous” division of labor found in very technologically primitive societies. Here different tasks are assigned on the basis of natural or biological attributes. The stronger will become the hunters, the weaker food gatherers, and so forth.” However, this seems to imply that society created the division of labor instead of the division creating society. This is why Marx is apt to conclude that society and “for the benefit” of society are and should be the primary motivators of men. The truth, however, is that men formed societies out of self-interest, a motivation evolved from the very basic instinct of survival. If this is in fact true the idea of communism nearly crumbles from this false assumption alone.
Another fatal flaw to communism is Marx’s misperception of economics. Marx posits a theory that “asserts that the market or exchange value of any commodity is the amount of labor embodied in it.” However, history and modern economics have proved that labor is not necessarily what determines the value of a good or service but rather supply and demand. Demand being the subjective value placed on a good or service by those who would purchase it, the price they are willing to pay, as well as the number who wish to receive said product or service. Supply is simply the availability of the product or service. Supply and demand are what determine price which is what determines the allocation of property, not necessarily the amount of labor. Value has always been subjective to the individual and so is hard to incorporate into a general philosophy. The text also makes the following claim in reference to objections to Marxism or communism: One “objection implicitly assumes a condition of scarcity in which well-being, even survival, depends upon the ceaseless struggle to acquire more. Such a condition will not exist in a communist society.” The very nature of economics is the assumption of a “condition of scarcity” based on finite resources. If communism somehow provides infinite resources and eliminates the concept of “scarcity” then it may very well work. A third economic problem with Marxism is the doing away with “specializations”, which are generally recognized as drastically increasing the efficiency, in a communist society. “In Marx’s words, communism ‘makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.’” Without experts or specialists progress will be much more difficult to obtain and quality and innovation will almost certainly suffer. More advanced fields that take years of extensive training to master will all but fade away. For this the suggestion appears to keep some specialists but with the following caveat: “The specialist need not acquire more than others simply because he or she performs a highly skilled function.” However, if a man could receive the same benefits from doing a task that can be learned in a day and requires significantly less effort to perform why would he spend much of his life studying and expend vast amounts of energy to perform a more specialized task. Marx claims the man would because it would benefit society and he would have no desire to receive more for his increased efforts. This, however, defies common sense and the burden of proof that such a consciousness can be achieved is on those who defy common sense with their theories and speculations.
Marx recognized that his ideas were contradictory to common sense or what he called consciousness so he claimed that the current consciousness was based on false perceptions and that his ideas would both require and cause “the transformation of social consciousness.” While it may true that reality both forms the consciousness and is formed by it or that the actions of man are determined both by nature or the environment as well as man himself; the transformation of social consciousness is not likely to occur abruptly through revolution but gradually through evolution. That is why even if it were some day possible for leadership to lead solely “at the behest of the whole community” and that their “relations with others will be cooperative rather than conflictual” it is not according to the current consciousness and that will not change through any sort of revolution.
The evidence that Marx’s philosophy is incompatible with today’s social consciousness is through his own standard of praxis or practical application of his theories. Those who have claimed to be Marxists have failed to achieve anything remotely similar to that posited by Marx and “the failure of the proletariat…may be interpreted as a failure of Marx’s theoretical analysis of capitalism and, by extension, of the whole philosophy of historical materialism upon which it rests.” Some may claim it is because the principles were never properly applied but the reason they were never properly applied is because they are incompatible with the nature of man in his current state of evolution. I can not say whether or not the nature of man will ever be compatible with communism or if it will ever be a viable philosophy. However, if it is in our future of social evolution it is more likely to occur as the Marxists who hold the classical view of Marxism insist…after capitalism has “become a worldwide phenomenon.” Even then it will happen gradually and not through revolution.
To me the most striking things about Communism are 1) its unrelenting ability to create paranoia and 2) the staggering price in human life and treasure we've paid to indulge that paranoia.
The McCarthy hearings - a complete witch hunt that destroyed the lives of many innocents.
The Vietnam War - 55,000 fine young Americans died in what was supposed to be a battle to contain communism. We lost and yet communism didn't engulf us, or the rest of the world. On the contrary, Nam is a popular tourist spot now. The Domino Theory - what a complete crock.
The Cold War - Reagan's pitched spending battle with the soviets helped turn us from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in just a few short years. The impact of that economic flip flop echoes down to today.
Obama's election - ushered in a form of neo-McCarthyism targeting the president that would be stunning in its fervent stupidity if it weren't such a tried and true, dependable right wing gambit. Because sure enough, like Pavlovian dogs a sizable % of americans are lapping it up all over again
Clearly we americans ain't exactly fast learners
The McCarthy hearings - a complete witch hunt that destroyed the lives of many innocents.
The Vietnam War - 55,000 fine young Americans died in what was supposed to be a battle to contain communism. We lost and yet communism didn't engulf us, or the rest of the world. On the contrary, Nam is a popular tourist spot now. The Domino Theory - what a complete crock.
The Cold War - Reagan's pitched spending battle with the soviets helped turn us from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in just a few short years. The impact of that economic flip flop echoes down to today.
Obama's election - ushered in a form of neo-McCarthyism targeting the president that would be stunning in its fervent stupidity if it weren't such a tried and true, dependable right wing gambit. Because sure enough, like Pavlovian dogs a sizable % of americans are lapping it up all over again
Clearly we americans ain't exactly fast learners
Supafly
Retired Mod
That sentence contradicts itself.
Socializm is exaclty about everybody being equal, while capitalism is the 'Masters of the Universe', the top 5% owning around half of the wealth and buying the politicians they favor so that only gets worse.
GregCentauro
Banned
It is supposed to. Silly, n'est-ce pas?
I maybe be wrong, but I think Greg was making a joke. Or at least being satirical.
Anyway, is everybody equal? I don't mean under our "capitalist system" (true capitalism hasn't existed in America for nearly a hundred years). I mean do people in this thread believe that people truly are equal? Don't confuse that with being born equal, I mean are we really all equal? Regardless of what we become with our own free will.
Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
That wasn't directed at you Pete, It's a legitimate question. I just know how people are here.
"When I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist."
-Dom Helder Camara-
I think most of communism's bad name is just an artifact if it being twisted by people like Stalin among others for it's own use, who like others have said didn't actually use real communism. It was more of a tyrannical oligarchy in disguise to keep themselves in power. Even then it can be argued it failed more because the U.S. was engaging in active economic warfare with them and not because it failed organically. There hasn't been anybody to seriously try communism. There are a lot of places that practice socialism and it has worked out better than capitalism, better than it has in the U.S at least.
It's not like I think communism as detailed by Marx is without flaws, but that doesn't mean the entire philosophy should be scraped because of it or those flaws can't be fixed. Likewise capitalism has it's strengths, but also has very deep flaws that most of it's supporters fail to acknowledge. I think if those flaws can be fixed and we could operate under and ethical and caring capitalistic system it might be best of all. Capitalism as we practice it now has failed. All those things that it was said to deliver it has fallen far short. It has done nothing but to concentrate most of the wealth into the hands of the relative few and given them vastly more economic and political power than everybody else. Just like in a communistic system everybody doesn't have to be the same, in a capitalistic system doesn't have to be where some people are richer than a god while they live next to masses of the poor. I think people that believe in capitalism have to start thinking it's alright to have a level that we won't let people fall under and that we need to take care of our whole populace.
While a janitor shouldn't make as much as a doctor (even under most communistic systems that never happened anyhow) the janitor should still be guaranteed a living wage where he can easily live a decent live off the money he makes. If that means other people somewhere only make a good amount of money well above average instead of richer than god type money then so be it.
What also needs to be stated is the benefits of capitalism, competition and innovation, for the most part is very heavily overrated. Again I have never seen those benefits live up to what they are supposed to. It's not like if people where denied access to becoming rich that new and important discoveries wouldn't happen. If they had massive funds from the government instead of some business if would even help more in the fact it would be for everybody and couldn't be lorded over people. Think of all the greatest scientist, engineers, physicians, mathematicians, philosophers, inventers and other people like that throughout history. How many of them did the things they did because they wanted to get rich off of it instead of because they loved what they did and the pursuit of knowledge. It wasn't very many of them. Thinking if capitalism isn't around the advance of humanity would come to a screeching halt is pretty foolish. As far as competition, for the most part from what I've observed the bad points have equaled if not exceeded the good points of it. While in theory it supposed to force people to get better so they don't get beat out in the modern economic world it has just made it so people compete to be the cheapest and to cut corners the most to get ahead. It has made it so the people at the top can get as much money as possible while the people at the bottom get the least amount as possible and are subject to exploitation. In a sense it doesn't even always do an adequate job of one corporation keeping another one in check. It seems as often than not an tacit understanding, purposeful or not, develops where two or more of them just settle on what they have and keep up the status quo. Another point is that sometimes things are important or maybe even desperate enough that they need to be put into place even if it won’t bring in a profit. An example, is alternative energy. Wouldn’t it have been nice if decades ago people started working on it and saved the world a lot of misery and likely catastrophe or at least made the situation now much less serious than it is. Of course without profit in a capitalistic system there is no incentive to do it even when it‘s absolutely needed, so nobody with the resources does. Sometimes things need to be done for reasons other than profit that can be had from it. Capitalism makes sure it either doesn’t get done, waits until the absolute last second, or is don’t half-ass while being as cheap as possible.
If I had a choice in a system it would be a semi-capitalistic one, but it would also have major ethical restraints, would take care of people unless they absolutely didn't want to be a productive member of society and didn't deserve it, and would function for the fairness of everybody than the benefit of a small percentage of people. People would be able to get rich, but only after everybody was taken care of and only if they where skilled enough and did enough work to actually deserve it, not operate under the system where either they or some mechanism that gives them wealth is the master of exploitation.
-Dom Helder Camara-
I think most of communism's bad name is just an artifact if it being twisted by people like Stalin among others for it's own use, who like others have said didn't actually use real communism. It was more of a tyrannical oligarchy in disguise to keep themselves in power. Even then it can be argued it failed more because the U.S. was engaging in active economic warfare with them and not because it failed organically. There hasn't been anybody to seriously try communism. There are a lot of places that practice socialism and it has worked out better than capitalism, better than it has in the U.S at least.
It's not like I think communism as detailed by Marx is without flaws, but that doesn't mean the entire philosophy should be scraped because of it or those flaws can't be fixed. Likewise capitalism has it's strengths, but also has very deep flaws that most of it's supporters fail to acknowledge. I think if those flaws can be fixed and we could operate under and ethical and caring capitalistic system it might be best of all. Capitalism as we practice it now has failed. All those things that it was said to deliver it has fallen far short. It has done nothing but to concentrate most of the wealth into the hands of the relative few and given them vastly more economic and political power than everybody else. Just like in a communistic system everybody doesn't have to be the same, in a capitalistic system doesn't have to be where some people are richer than a god while they live next to masses of the poor. I think people that believe in capitalism have to start thinking it's alright to have a level that we won't let people fall under and that we need to take care of our whole populace.
While a janitor shouldn't make as much as a doctor (even under most communistic systems that never happened anyhow) the janitor should still be guaranteed a living wage where he can easily live a decent live off the money he makes. If that means other people somewhere only make a good amount of money well above average instead of richer than god type money then so be it.
What also needs to be stated is the benefits of capitalism, competition and innovation, for the most part is very heavily overrated. Again I have never seen those benefits live up to what they are supposed to. It's not like if people where denied access to becoming rich that new and important discoveries wouldn't happen. If they had massive funds from the government instead of some business if would even help more in the fact it would be for everybody and couldn't be lorded over people. Think of all the greatest scientist, engineers, physicians, mathematicians, philosophers, inventers and other people like that throughout history. How many of them did the things they did because they wanted to get rich off of it instead of because they loved what they did and the pursuit of knowledge. It wasn't very many of them. Thinking if capitalism isn't around the advance of humanity would come to a screeching halt is pretty foolish. As far as competition, for the most part from what I've observed the bad points have equaled if not exceeded the good points of it. While in theory it supposed to force people to get better so they don't get beat out in the modern economic world it has just made it so people compete to be the cheapest and to cut corners the most to get ahead. It has made it so the people at the top can get as much money as possible while the people at the bottom get the least amount as possible and are subject to exploitation. In a sense it doesn't even always do an adequate job of one corporation keeping another one in check. It seems as often than not an tacit understanding, purposeful or not, develops where two or more of them just settle on what they have and keep up the status quo. Another point is that sometimes things are important or maybe even desperate enough that they need to be put into place even if it won’t bring in a profit. An example, is alternative energy. Wouldn’t it have been nice if decades ago people started working on it and saved the world a lot of misery and likely catastrophe or at least made the situation now much less serious than it is. Of course without profit in a capitalistic system there is no incentive to do it even when it‘s absolutely needed, so nobody with the resources does. Sometimes things need to be done for reasons other than profit that can be had from it. Capitalism makes sure it either doesn’t get done, waits until the absolute last second, or is don’t half-ass while being as cheap as possible.
If I had a choice in a system it would be a semi-capitalistic one, but it would also have major ethical restraints, would take care of people unless they absolutely didn't want to be a productive member of society and didn't deserve it, and would function for the fairness of everybody than the benefit of a small percentage of people. People would be able to get rich, but only after everybody was taken care of and only if they where skilled enough and did enough work to actually deserve it, not operate under the system where either they or some mechanism that gives them wealth is the master of exploitation.
Is it so hard for you liberal idealists to understand that in a communist system there has to be some person or group controlling it? Communism is not equality or freedom, it is the opposite. It is forfeiting all control and freedom in your life to a leader, who in return promises to take care of you and relieve you of all your concerns. If we call it a cult perhaps it won't sound so appealing...
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
What you may not realise is that america is actually a Socialist state... it's just a big conspiracy to keep it a secret from the masses...
Facetious
Moderated
I have some questions for you:
Did you believe your teachers?
What are the virtues of communism / socialism in a modern society?
How many innocent Russians were murdered during the Russian Revolution?
Were those murders justified?
Do you enjoy the freedom to criticize your government?
Did you have a responsible, hard working family supporting father involved in your life from conception to 18 years old?
My feelings exactly. We are all equally "human," sure, but beyond the concept that we are all "equally" sharing in the human condition, we as individuals, are anything but. In our motivation, desire, determination, intelligence, abilities, self-resilience, attitdues, proclivity towards or aversion to hard work, etc... we are very, very different.
Americans see communism/socialism as minimizing those traits in all of us. We, as a country, can't possibly fathom the concept of living under the rule of this style of governance, namely beacuse most of us have only seen the way that communism/socialism has historically played out in the most high-profile scenarios. So we, as Americans, deem the USSR, China, Cuba etc... to be the difinitive application of said system in its "true" form. Also, America was built on, and up to as little as 4 decades ago still believed in, individualism and reliance on "self", and we inevitably view (rightfully so, or otherwise) communism/socialism as systematically detracting from that, bringing us all closer to a sense of "sameness," which is a concept that we in America a)don't understand, and b)aren't willing to accept.
Facetious
Moderated
Furthermore, did you realize that in societies ruled by communism, only a select few members of society actually become members of the elite communist party? The remainder majority of the *not so lucky* non communist party populous (essentially serfs) must then be subject to live in conditions far worse than any poor American citizen could imagine.
JayJohn85
Banned
Your absolutely right....
BUT
American corporate imperialist capitalist supremacy system is no better.......Half the wars you fought weren't about freedom and all that other shit, It was about maintaining your interests usually the interests of the corporate fat cat.
WW2= The Japanese started this cause you had a conflict of interests*. Pearl harbor was allowed to happen you had radar and a shit load of intel(I would draw parallels with sept 11)
The race to Berlin wasn't to save jewish people or to do in evil Adolph Hitler. It was to get there before the real enemy did(Russia) Before this Stalin was begging the US to open another front but they held off for a long time because quite frankly they didn't want to help Russia.(don't quote the aid shit either, That was a stalling tactic cant have the whole thing collapse needed the gerry's to be bogged down while you cleaned up your pacific mess)
Vietnam= Yet again south east asia trading interests and shit, Kennedy loathe as I am to admit it wasn't interested in it for ideological reasons "cornorstone of southeast asia" Domino effect blah blah.
Current shit= Oil
Socialism isn't communism btw its more about social responsibility and incorporating some elements of communism. Communism is way farther down the left on the spectrum.
Alas the west needs to find some third way or else the common working class man will be getting shot the fuck up by charlie and jihad joes(this decade) every time some corporate asses feel their interests threatened.
*Japan had really no choice and partially was america's fault....Long history of mum-fuckery, its easy to see watch last samurai for example.
Similar threads
- Locked
