PDA

View Full Version : Why Marxist Theory Yields Failure



Odysseus
10-18-2010, 11:51 AM
In the North Korea unveils heir, Kim Jong-un, and its military might thread, Wei did his usual drive by routine, demanding an answer to a question and then ditching the thread when he got an ahswer that he couldn't handle. The question came after he had been repeatedly spanked on the failures of Marxism in practice. Wei declared that "If the failures of Really Existing Communism are a result of the inherent nature of Marxist thought, then why are all of your arguments against nations, rather than the principles or arguments of Marxist thought themselves?" Of course, the failures of the practical applications of the theory ought to settle the issue, but Wei is retreating to the old Marxist trope about how Marx's theories have never been "done right" and therefore cannot be judged against the failures that claimed to have followed him. Thus, while Soviet (Marxist-Leninism), Chinese (Maoist-Marxism), Cambodian (Genocidal loon-Marxism), North Korean (Juche-Marxism), Cuban (Castro-Marxism) or Fredonian (Groucho Marxism) appications of Marx have failed, this cannot be blamed on Marx, but on his interpreters. To this, I say "Bull." Here is my response again. Maybe this time, Wei will respond, although I highly doubt it.


Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
If the failures of Really Existing Communism are a result of the inherent nature of Marxist thought, then why are all of your arguments against nations, rather than the principles or arguments of Marxist thought themselves?
Because the proof of a theory is the result of its application. If it is viable, it works in practice. If not, it fails. The record of universal failure of Marxism in application should demonstrate to any rational person that it is unworkable.


Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
I can say that the problem is with the failed interpretations of Marxist thought, manifested in the USSR and elsewhere, but you say that the problem is with Marxist thought itself, if that is truly the case, you should be presenting arguments against Marxist thought, not the nations which tried and failed to implement it. I can always say they weren't truly Marxist enough, so your job is to explain why Marxist thought itself is the problem, instead of arguing against the "bad apples" that failed at bringing Marxist theory to fruition.
Actually, my "job" is to build PowerPoint briefings that our CG uses to beat our nation's enemies into submission, but I can play. But remember, you asked for it.

Let's start with the most basic Marxist maxim, "From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need." Sounds peachy, right? But how do you determine someone's ability? You can sometimes measure potential, but ultimately, that doesn't tell you what someone's output will be on a given day, nor does it take into account the effects of education, physical fitness, motivation, personality, or even just transitory moods (depression can severely impact ability). In short, ability is too vague a criteria to determine output expectations.

Need is also a problematical concept. First, let's remember that there are two ways to motivate people, reward and punishment. If the compensation is restricted to need, then there is no reward for harder or more innovative work, thus there is no reason for someone to work except avoiding punishment. How do we determine how much compensation you need vs. how much I need? Does the kind of work that I do determine how much food I need? If I pursue a physically intensive hobby, do I have a greater need for calories than a sedentary lump? How does a state determine that? It can't. So, we cannot measure need accurately.

The result is that Marxists expect people to put out maximum effort, but without any improvement in their material condition unless their "needs" increase (an odd position for a materialist philosophy, when you think about it). A worker's only motivation to work is therefore to avoid punishment, while his output is expected to be... what, exactly? You end up with a system of work quotas that treats every profession the same way, with people doing just enough work to avoid punishment. Naturally, nothing gets accomplished under such a system, and the owners of the means of production, the proletariat, or their representatives in the revolutionary vanguard, end up having to impose more draconian punishments in order to get results. A system in which people work as hard as they can in order to avoid increasingly vicious punishments, with no reward or potential of reward, is slavery.

So, on a fundamental level, Marx's most basic theory runs contrary to human nature. QED


Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
So tell me, what do you consider the flaws in Marx's theory? What do you consider the flaws in contemporary Neo-Marxist theory?
You've cited a doozy below.


Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
Do not confuse your initial assumptions with the intention of the Author. Marx predicted proletarian revolution, which would, eventually lead to classless society. However, how people would go about doing it, including their failures and lessons learned, were not able to be predicted by Marx.
So, Marx could predict an endstate, which contradicted every other social and economic organization in human history, but the means by which that endstate occurred were not predictable to him? My six-year-old believes that she will grow up to marry a prince and live happily ever after, and when questioned, she has lots of interesting theories on how this will occur. But, when those predictions are measured against objective reality, it seems far more likely that she's going to need some marketable job skills. Marx's utopian predictions are based on similar magical thinking. He wanted a classless society (one in which people who spent their lives in squalor while resenting the successes of others, i.e., people like him, would be on top), so he predicted it. But the devil is in the details, and the implementation of Marx's unworkable, grandiose theories has ruined more lives and nations than any force in history, including disco.




No, but Marx promised a classless society. Didn't happen, did it?
Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
Not yet, but I cannot imagine how this should NOT be the ideal of every person.
So, you don't believe that a person should be able to improve their material situation through their own efforts? That they should be able to move from poverty to success or, if they squander their inheritance, move from success to poverty? A classless society is a static society, in which achievers are seen by the state the same way that nails are seen by a hammer. The goal of any person who seeks a just society should be the mobility of people from one class to another by their own efforts, something that will happen anyway, because some people will be smarter than others or better looking. Some will be happy and content, while some will be curious and restless. A society that demands equality of result suprresses initiative and destroys creativity. People have different talents. If they didn't, there'd be no point in dividing labor. Some people are going to be artists, some will be writers, some will be mechanics.

That concludes what was said in the other thread. If Wei wants to discuss the reasons that Marx was wrong, I look forward to the discussion. If not, I will not be surprised.

NJCardFan
10-18-2010, 06:24 PM
Fredonian (Groucho Marxism)

That, my friend, is hilarious. I hope someone other than me gets the joke.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-18-2010, 06:41 PM
That, my friend, is hilarious. I hope someone other than me gets the joke.



I nearly spit up my coffee when I read that. THEN he added this Gem :

He wanted a classless society (one in which people who spent their lives in squalor while resenting the successes of others, i.e., people like him, would be on top), so he predicted it. But the devil is in the details, and the implementation of Marx's unworkable, grandiose theories has ruined more lives and nations than any force in history, including disco.


Superb post. Out of the ball park home run.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-18-2010, 06:42 PM
The best REAL-LIFE description of Marxism is "it is the economic theory where the goal is to make everyone equally miserable."

FlaGator
10-18-2010, 06:47 PM
The best REAL-LIFE description of Marxism is "it is the economic theory where the goal is to make everyone equally miserable."

And if you think about it, that seems to be precisely what the libs want. They've taken that "misery loves company" adage to the extreme.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-18-2010, 06:47 PM
And if you think about it, that seems to be precisely what the libs want. They've taken that "misery loves company" adage to the extreme.

Company loves misery.

Odysseus
10-19-2010, 10:11 AM
That, my friend, is hilarious. I hope someone other than me gets the joke.
Thanks. Once I thought of that, I ended up writing the whole paragraph around it.

But, it's not the first time I've connected the Marxes.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs050.snc3/13758_1173069926890_1232285306_30419599_2411154_n. jpg

I nearly spit up my coffee when I read that. THEN he added this Gem :

Superb post. Out of the ball park home run.
Thanks. Now, if only the intended audience would Wei in, so to speak...

Company loves misery.
You may want to elaborate on that. It's nice a pithy, but I'm not sure that I get your meaning.

Nubs
10-19-2010, 03:01 PM
Why Marxism fails???

Marxism does nothing to advance the human condition.

Odysseus
10-19-2010, 05:07 PM
Why Marxism fails???

Marxism does nothing to advance the human condition.

Sure it does. The human condition is life followed by death. Marxism accelerates the process. :D

KhrushchevsShoe
10-20-2010, 06:27 AM
Sorry it took me so long to respond to you Ody, but my work gets in the way of things. I'll try to recall our conversation a little bit here.

You cited the dictionary as a viable source for defining communism. I had an issue with that then and I still do now. Case in point: the word liberal.

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

I have seen liberals described in a lot of ways on this site, and I dont think any of them have been anywhere near the dictionary definition. That's because the word liberal doesn't necessarily mean what it says in the dictionary. Communism is the exact same way. If an alien from a far off galaxy asked you what a liberal is and what a communist is, its pretty clear you wouldn't use a consistent source for both your answers. In a world where sanity was valued this would be the end of this part of our argument, but CU is definitely not that world so I anticipate having to repeat this same paragraph with different wording for the next week or so.


Because the proof of a theory is the result of its application. If it is viable, it works in practice. If not, it fails. The record of universal failure of Marxism in application should demonstrate to any rational person that it is unworkable.

I'm so glad you said this. It didn't work when they tried it, so it wont work when anybody tries it. Then ISI, consociationalism and interventionalist wars to POUND OUR ENEMIES INTO SUBMISSION shouldn't be happening anymore then, right?


Let's start with the most basic Marxist maxim, "From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need." Sounds peachy, right? But how do you determine someone's ability? You can sometimes measure potential, but ultimately, that doesn't tell you what someone's output will be on a given day, nor does it take into account the effects of education, physical fitness, motivation, personality, or even just transitory moods (depression can severely impact ability). In short, ability is too vague a criteria to determine output expectations.

I'm not speaking for anyone here, but the way I've always read the "From each, according to his ability" was referring more to aggregate production by a firm. Not how Walter the riveter performed last Monday.


Need is also a problematical concept. First, let's remember that there are two ways to motivate people, reward and punishment. If the compensation is restricted to need, then there is no reward for harder or more innovative work, thus there is no reason for someone to work except avoiding punishment. How do we determine how much compensation you need vs. how much I need? Does the kind of work that I do determine how much food I need? If I pursue a physically intensive hobby, do I have a greater need for calories than a sedentary lump? How does a state determine that? It can't. So, we cannot measure need accurately.
That's a pretty big assumption there big shot (bolded). Humans are more complicated than fucking dogs.

Some people like doing a good job without a profit motive. A friend of mine from school owns a business and does pretty well because he's good at it. But you ask him if its the profit that drives him and he'll say no. There's more to it than being John Galt. Also there has been no state-socialist country that has ever directly told people what they could eat, the USSR even allowed private farms. You're right, it is impossible for any government to micromanage people like that. Nobody is arguing for that other than your phantom left-wing boogeyman you've concocted for yourself.


So, Marx could predict an endstate, which contradicted every other social and economic organization in human history, but the means by which that endstate occurred were not predictable to him? My six-year-old believes that she will grow up to marry a prince and live happily ever after, and when questioned, she has lots of interesting theories on how this will occur. But, when those predictions are measured against objective reality, it seems far more likely that she's going to need some marketable job skills. Marx's utopian predictions are based on similar magical thinking. He wanted a classless society (one in which people who spent their lives in squalor while resenting the successes of others, i.e., people like him, would be on top), so he predicted it. But the devil is in the details, and the implementation of Marx's unworkable, grandiose theories has ruined more lives and nations than any force in history, including disco.
All political philosophy has this, including the work of the guys who founded the USA. Your argument is straying away from being about the specifics of Karl Marx and more towards "all political philosophy is bullshit cause I dont understand how it works." This paragraph almost implies that you agree a classless society is a good thing, just unrealistic.

All due respect to your six year old daughter, I'm sure she's a sweetheart, but you cannot analogize what she thinks to what Marx wrote. They're saying these things in completely different contexts.


So, you don't believe that a person should be able to improve their material situation through their own efforts? That they should be able to move from poverty to success or, if they squander their inheritance, move from success to poverty? A classless society is a static society, in which achievers are seen by the state the same way that nails are seen by a hammer. The goal of any person who seeks a just society should be the mobility of people from one class to another by their own efforts, something that will happen anyway, because some people will be smarter than others or better looking. Some will be happy and content, while some will be curious and restless. A society that demands equality of result suprresses initiative and destroys creativity. People have different talents. If they didn't, there'd be no point in dividing labor. Some people are going to be artists, some will be writers, some will be mechanics.


This is complete and total bullshit.

For everything you say the government can prevent people from doing business can in the same way. What if your own efforts are put in a supposedly safe stock market that is in reality a high stakes poker game between poker elites? Bahhh shouldn't have squandered your inheritance to those thieves. Elites are elites whether they are in the USSR, USA or anywhere in between. They will screw from government and from outside of government because that's what they do. You just act like there's a difference between the two.

malloc
10-20-2010, 08:13 AM
K's Shoe can work on ad-hominem distraction techniques all he wants, the fact remains, the worst shitholes of human poverty exist where representative government does not. Where warlords and anarchy reigns, people suffer miserably. The second worst shitholes on this planet are those that live under some flavor of Marxism. North Korea to China to the former Soviet Union, human suffering, poverty and practical slavery are rampant. The only societies in which the common man has been able to elevate himself above such levels of poverty and subjugation, have been societies where free markets and individual freedom are valued. This has a gold record in history, and you aren't going to be able to come up with a historical record to refute it. You do realize that the poor and homeless in Santa Barbara are better off and better cared for than the laborers in Rawanda, or the peons in North Korea don't you? The historical evidence is irrefutable, central planning of the life and death of people has only ended in disaster, and you can't refute that, because it's historical fact.



If the failures of Really Existing Communism are a result of the inherent nature of Marxist thought, then why are all of your arguments against nations, rather than the principles or arguments of Marxist thought themselves?

I think this is the third or fourth thread I've presented this argument in, but you haven't ever been able to successfully refute it. Actually, you've never even acknowledged it, so I suppose it hurts your brain pan. This is an argument that stabs at the heart of Marxist thought, is backed by science and mathematics, and breaks any theory which requires a centrally planned economy in two.

The nail in the coffin of Marxist theory is mathematical in nature, and since Ludwig Von Misses postulated the scenario in the 1920's , and F.A. Hayek expanded upon this hypothesis in the 50's through the 70's, no one in the world of economic science has been able to refute it or counter this argument. This argument is the Economic Calculation Problem, a problem the free market evolved to conquer, and centrally planned economies cannot work around because they didn't evolve specifically to deal with this problem.

Now if you want to understand the problem, you have to understand the reason an economy of some sort exists in the first place. Furthermore, you have to understand human nature. An economy exists to bring the resources of nature, in a usable form, to the people who have use for those resources in the most efficient, meaning lowest cost, manner possible. When a lioness stalks a herd of gazelle on the plains of Africa, she doesn't choose the biggest, strongest, alpha male in the herd to be her meal. The lioness balances efficiency on calories expended versus calories earned, and that is how lowest cost is determined, and highest profit is calculated.

However, economics isn't about profit and loss, that's business. Economics is about the distribution of resources. After all, when you go to work, if you worked, you wouldn't work for the dollar, it's just a means of exchange. You work for what that means of exchange can provide for you. In other words, you aren't working a week for $600, you are working for that new T.V. or down payment on that car the $600 can provide. From the T.V. to the dinner table your dollars represent usable, material goods, and nothing more.


From the raw ore, petroleum, organics and geology required to make one T.V., a group of people free to make their own decisions based on the prices of these raw materials decide which glass and plastics and components enter the plant and leave the plant in the form of a T.V. You have hundred of thousands of independent actors deciding how to make the best product for the lowest labor cost in order to compete. The decisions are made based on price signals. When the price of ore, or glass, or labor increases, these hundreds of thousands of market actors, from Samsung to Visio make decisions all the way from switching purchases from a different glass wholesaler, to moving plants to a more labor friendly environment all in the name of bringing a competitive product at a competitive price to store shelves. It takes literally thousands of people making decisions based on price signals to bring a single 52" Flat Screen T.V. to market for the competitive price of $650. This design of individual actors creates a fault tolerant, neural network of buyers and sellers that can deal with most resource shortages locally, and supplement consumer value with import goods when scarcity demands price increases. Under this system, maximum production is utilized based on net purchase of raw materials. This is how we employ fully, and consume what we earn.

Contrast that to a centrally planned economy, which is a requirement of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". After all, there must exist some sort of planning agency able to assess needs and abilities in order for this scheme to work. Think about that single T.V. which is manufactured. From the raw materials required for copper, and plastics and glass, to the intermediate components, not manufactured for retail sale, but manufactured to be used as components in T.V.'s. Now imagine a congressional committee debating, once every few months which resources, from those mined and welled, to the transport required to bring them to manufacturing, to the intermediate plants pressing out silicon chips. How much debate and decision would that sort of planning require in committee, and more importantly, how many experts from each field (i.e. manufacturing, mining, geological survey, chemical engineering, smelting, etc) would be required in this committee?

The sum and substance is this: In order to accommodate the demand for T.V.'s these resources, under centrally planned Marxist ideology, must be divvied up, by committee, amongst the manufactures of T.V.'s, cars, trains, planes, paper plates, automobiles, laptops, and every single other industry in the correct amounts. In order to accomplish this feat, this committee must include as many experts as required to accomplish this feat under a free market. However, since this committee will be a competition for resources amongst several industries, the debate won't end and there will be too many people within the committee to reach a quorum.


So, there you have it, the economic calculation problem, which free market actors have been solving for centuries, brings the Marxist theory of labor and production to its knees, and insures that a planned economy of any sort is doomed to failure. No economist since the 20's has been able to work around this problem with a government or centrally planned theory, ever.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-20-2010, 10:03 AM
K's Shoe can work on ad-hominem distraction techniques all he wants, the fact remains, the worst shitholes of human poverty exist where representative government does not. Where warlords and anarchy reigns, people suffer miserably. The second worst shitholes on this planet are those that live under some flavor of Marxism. North Korea to China to the former Soviet Union, human suffering, poverty and practical slavery are rampant. The only societies in which the common man has been able to elevate himself above such levels of poverty and subjugation, have been societies where free markets and individual freedom are valued. This has a gold record in history, and you aren't going to be able to come up with a historical record to refute it. You do realize that the poor and homeless in Santa Barbara are better off and better cared for than the laborers in Rawanda, or the peons in North Korea don't you? The historical evidence is irrefutable, central planning of the life and death of people has only ended in disaster, and you can't refute that, because it's historical fact.
I could just as easily say that states that were involved in colonizing have fared much better in the postwar environment than those who were (non-Anglo) colonized. Only Brazil is the one who is really shaking that reality of 20th century so far in the 21st century.

I think this is the third or fourth thread I've presented this argument in, but you haven't ever been able to successfully refute it. Actually, you've never even acknowledged it, so I suppose it hurts your brain pan. This is an argument that stabs at the heart of Marxist thought, is backed by science and mathematics, and breaks any theory which requires a centrally planned economy in two.
Usually when I see the claim that a theory is backed principally by science and economics I'm an immediate skeptic. Its those assumptions about human nature and social behavior.

The nail in the coffin of Marxist theory is mathematical in nature, and since Ludwig Von Misses postulated the scenario in the 1920's , and F.A. Hayek expanded upon this hypothesis in the 50's through the 70's, no one in the world of economic science has been able to refute it or counter this argument. This argument is the Economic Calculation Problem, a problem the free market evolved to conquer, and centrally planned economies cannot work around because they didn't evolve specifically to deal with this problem.
The 20's, 50's and 70's were three of the peaks in communist paranoia in the USA. Dont leave out that context.

Now if you want to understand the problem, you have to understand the reason an economy of some sort exists in the first place. Furthermore, you have to understand human nature. An economy exists to bring the resources of nature, in a usable form, to the people who have use for those resources in the most efficient, meaning lowest cost, manner possible. When a lioness stalks a herd of gazelle on the plains of Africa, she doesn't choose the biggest, strongest, alpha male in the herd to be her meal. The lioness balances efficiency on calories expended versus calories earned, and that is how lowest cost is determined, and highest profit is calculated.
What you described as human nature is not human nature. It is Lion nature. This is by your own admission, you're citing the deliberations of a giant cat as evidence of human behavior. Many humans will go for the big, strong alpha male because we have egos. Lions are more concerned with eating than recognition, there are reams of psychological evidence that suggest humans are not so pragmatic.

However, economics isn't about profit and loss, that's business. Economics is about the distribution of resources. After all, when you go to work, if you worked, you wouldn't work for the dollar, it's just a means of exchange. You work for what that means of exchange can provide for you. In other words, you aren't working a week for $600, you are working for that new T.V. or down payment on that car the $600 can provide. From the T.V. to the dinner table your dollars represent usable, material goods, and nothing more.
Or to invest in what is marketed as something safe and long term. Differing immediate fruits of your labor for the guarantee of a greater payoff down the road. Bigger TV, faster car, etc. etc. Americans love to save and invest money.

From the raw ore, petroleum, organics and geology required to make one T.V., a group of people free to make their own decisions based on the prices of these raw materials decide which glass and plastics and components enter the plant and leave the plant in the form of a T.V. You have hundred of thousands of independent actors deciding how to make the best product for the lowest labor cost in order to compete. The decisions are made based on price signals. When the price of ore, or glass, or labor increases, these hundreds of thousands of market actors, from Samsung to Visio make decisions all the way from switching purchases from a different glass wholesaler, to moving plants to a more labor friendly environment all in the name of bringing a competitive product at a competitive price to store shelves. It takes literally thousands of people making decisions based on price signals to bring a single 52" Flat Screen T.V. to market for the competitive price of $650. This design of individual actors creates a fault tolerant, neural network of buyers and sellers that can deal with most resource shortages locally, and supplement consumer value with import goods when scarcity demands price increases. Under this system, maximum production is utilized based on net purchase of raw materials. This is how we employ fully, and consume what we earn.
This assumes the point is to make your TV as frugally as possible so you can sell it for the lowest price. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way. Oftentimes goods that have no outstanding amounts of demand are artificially priced at a considerable markup. Large companies like Samsung know they can get away with this because making TV's is not a cheap business to get into. Besides, you have lots of brand loyalty that people will pay extra for. Competitors are locked out, either you've been making TV's for decades or you're not making TV's at all.
Consumers dont always behave rationally out of laziness or loyalty and producers are often ruthless and unethical in their pursuit to minimize input while maximizing output.

Contrast that to a centrally planned economy, which is a requirement of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". After all, there must exist some sort of planning agency able to assess needs and abilities in order for this scheme to work. Think about that single T.V. which is manufactured. From the raw materials required for copper, and plastics and glass, to the intermediate components, not manufactured for retail sale, but manufactured to be used as components in T.V.'s. Now imagine a congressional committee debating, once every few months which resources, from those mined and welled, to the transport required to bring them to manufacturing, to the intermediate plants pressing out silicon chips. How much debate and decision would that sort of planning require in committee, and more importantly, how many experts from each field (i.e. manufacturing, mining, geological survey, chemical engineering, smelting, etc) would be required in this committee?
The sum and substance is this: In order to accommodate the demand for T.V.'s these resources, under centrally planned Marxist ideology, must be divvied up, by committee, amongst the manufactures of T.V.'s, cars, trains, planes, paper plates, automobiles, laptops, and every single other industry in the correct amounts. In order to accomplish this feat, this committee must include as many experts as required to accomplish this feat under a free market. However, since this committee will be a competition for resources amongst several industries, the debate won't end and there will be too many people within the committee to reach a quorum.
Not exactly how it worked. In the USSR a factory manager would go through a regional bureaucracy in a republic (example: Estonia) to negotiate a quota and receive vouchers for the primary goods required to make whatever he was making. These vouchers were handed down to the republics from Moscow, because Estonia needed its Iron from Siberia and its oil from the Caucasus. So the central government would assign those resources to Estonia. Still, it was the request by the regional government in Estonia operating off a request by a factory manager that dictated what was going where. It was a very bottoms-up approach, not top-down.
Note: I have to reiterate again that the Soviet system was broken from the beginning and was very instrumental in the fall. Still, there was a way things worked there and you cant just make shit up.

So, there you have it, the economic calculation problem, which free market actors have been solving for centuries, brings the Marxist theory of labor and production to its knees, and insures that a planned economy of any sort is doomed to failure. No economist since the 20's has been able to work around this problem with a government or centrally planned theory, ever.
Really, all you have here is over-simplification of human behavior with no regards to cultural or political realities that are very diverse from state to state. It assumes all people behave identically and our motivations are uniform through both space and time. You know that isn't true, I know that isn't true.

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 11:54 AM
Sorry it took me so long to respond to you Ody, but my work gets in the way of things. I'll try to recall our conversation a little bit here.

Actually, it was Wei who demanded that I delve into Marx's theories, on the supposed idea that the repeated failure of the application of those theories didn't necessarily reflect on them, but on the implementers. But, it's okay. You can be my scratching post until Wei deigns to respond.


You cited the dictionary as a viable source for defining communism. I had an issue with that then and I still do now. Case in point: the word liberal.

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

I have seen liberals described in a lot of ways on this site, and I dont think any of them have been anywhere near the dictionary definition. That's because the word liberal doesn't necessarily mean what it says in the dictionary. Communism is the exact same way. If an alien from a far off galaxy asked you what a liberal is and what a communist is, its pretty clear you wouldn't use a consistent source for both your answers. In a world where sanity was valued this would be the end of this part of our argument, but CU is definitely not that world so I anticipate having to repeat this same paragraph with different wording for the next week or so.
The reason that the dictionary definition of liberal doesn't match the current mode of liberals is because of the actions of Marxists. During the 1930s, when Stalin was imposing his "economic reforms" (i.e., famine)
on the Soviet Union, Americans begand to wise up to the nature of Marxism, and the various terms for it, from communism, socialism, progressivism, etc., had become toxic in public debate, so the leftists began referring to themselves as "liberals in a hurry." By the 1960s, they dropped the "in a hurry" part and just co-opted the term. It was an Orwellian debasement of the language, and as a result, the term has acquired additional meanings, which is why a good dictionary provides more than one. Also, the use of liberal as a perjorative synonym for leftists is a uniquely American definition. In other countries, the liberals are what you've presented.

However, your issue is noted. What is also noted is that you didn't take issue with the actual defintion, just the source. Nice sleight of hand there, but you haven't disproved my point.


I'm so glad you said this. It didn't work when they tried it, so it wont work when anybody tries it. Then ISI, consociationalism and interventionalist wars to POUND OUR ENEMIES INTO SUBMISSION shouldn't be happening anymore then, right?
Wrong. First, Marxism didn't just fail once, it has failed every time it has been applied, which means that in every laboratory condition, every experiment, every attempt by every group, no matter how high or low minded, no matter how educated or ignorant, the result has been the same: Famine, poverty, economic collapse, tyranny and erosion of social order. Not once, not twice, but every time. OTOH, pounding enemies into submission works. Don't believe me? Ask the Japanese. Ask the Germans. Ask the Moro tribesmen in the Philippines. Ask the Barbary Pirates. What doesn't work is PC restraint, political posturing and saber rattling that doesn't produce results on the battlefied. As Napoleon said, if you move to take Vienna, take Vienna. Pretending that we are waging a war, when all we are really doing is playing terrorist whack-a-mole doesn't validate your theory, it just demonstrates that you can't produce an effective counter argumment.


I'm not speaking for anyone here, but the way I've always read the "From each, according to his ability" was referring more to aggregate production by a firm. Not how Walter the riveter performed last Monday.
Okay, so let's assume that it refers to aggregate production by a firm. Who works for the firm? Why, it's Walter the riveter, and a whole bunch of other riveters. So, how do we measure the aggregate output of the People's Riveting Collective? We add Walter's output to Hamilton's, Joe's, Frank's and Reynolds' (who also had a hit with "Don't Pull Your Love Out" but I digress). The aggregate is a quota, and the quota is a collection of individual quotas, so Walter, Hamilton, Joe, Frank and Reynolds better get their act together, because they each have one fifth of the aggregate output to generate.


That's a pretty big assumption there big shot (bolded). Humans are more complicated than fucking dogs.
Then perhaps Communists should stop treating people like dogs.


Some people like doing a good job without a profit motive. A friend of mine from school owns a business and does pretty well because he's good at it. But you ask him if its the profit that drives him and he'll say no. There's more to it than being John Galt. Also there has been no state-socialist country that has ever directly told people what they could eat, the USSR even allowed private farms. You're right, it is impossible for any government to micromanage people like that. Nobody is arguing for that other than your phantom left-wing boogeyman you've concocted for yourself.

Actually, the Soviets did just that in the gulags. Every prisoner got so many kilos of meat (rancid, maggoty meat, mind you), so many kilos of bread (including the sawdust) and so many kilos of every other commodity, as determined by the bureaucracy. And they didn't allow individual farms until they had ruined the economy, and even then, the farms were under constraints that made the ownership all but notional. For example, the "owner" couldn't sell the farm, buy equipment or set his own price for his output. In short, it was the perfect Marxist farming system, but Marx, never having been a farmer, wouldn't have known how screwed up his theory was when applied to farming.

Now, let's talk about your friend, the entrepreneur. He has a business that he enjoys, and he makes good money at it because he enjoys it and is good at it. That's how capitalism works. But, it isn't how Marx would treat him. Iif you take the rewards out of the equation, how long would he enjoy it? If he was constantly constrained by state planners in how he did business, how much he could charge, what tools he could use or what innovations he could employ, how long would he be able to stay in business, and if his business began to fail because of the constraints placed upon him by ignorant bureaucracies, how long would he love it?

Let's go back to our hypothetical riveter, Walter. Let's say that, among the People's Riveting Collective, Walter is a star riveter, winner of the coveted Hero of the People's Collective Riveting and Joining" medal five times running and employee of the month for two-hundred straight months. Let's also say that Walter can rivet twenty joints in a day, but Hamilton, Joe, Frank and Reynolds can only rivet five each. Do you really think that Walter will enjoy taking home the same pittance as his slacker comrades, who spend most of their work day singing the chorus of their one hit and planning their reunion concert in the break room while Walter single-handedly fulfills half the quota? Why should Walter account for half of his section's work quota when he gets the same amount as the others? Shouldn't Walter be paid more? And if all of the means of production are owned collectively, then Walter can't go to work somewhere else for more money. Worse, Walter, being more productive and faster, will get bored and discouraged and eventually cut back. After all, he's made his quota in one quarter of the time it takes the other guys, so why should he knock himself out? Unlike your friend, whose love of his job is reinforced by the rewards that he gets, Walter's love of his job is eroded and destroyed by the perverse incentives of Marx.

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 11:56 AM
All political philosophy has this, including the work of the guys who founded the USA. Your argument is straying away from being about the specifics of Karl Marx and more towards "all political philosophy is bullshit cause I dont understand how it works." This paragraph almost implies that you agree a classless society is a good thing, just unrealistic.

I don't see where calling Marx's classless society a "utopian fantasy" "in which people who spent their lives in squalor while resenting the successes of others, i.e., people like him, would be on top" constitutes an endorsement, but I also don't see how someone could look at Marx's theories and miss the glaring contradictions. As for you comparison with the founders, you could not be more wrong. First, the political philosophy of the American founding was based in historical precedent in addition to theory, rather than theory alone. The separation and definition of powers was derived from Roman republican law, the limits on federal power versus state and local powers were derived from the Greek polises and the definitions of individual rights came from English common law, all of which were modified to suit the specific circumstances of the founding. Second, the founders did not specify an endstate. They weren't utopians who saw an end to human progress, but a constant tug of war between interests, in which a just government would act as referee. Their model was meant to provide stable government so that people could pursue their own interests, rather than a state that would define their interests and channel them accordingly. Finally, because the founders didn't have an endstate in mind for society, they left it open-ended. The Constitution can be amended as times change and laws need to be adjusted to reflect those changes, but the fundamental principles of limited government that is responsible to the people, rather than expansive government that takes responsibility for the people (and thus takes responsibility away from them) remains valid. Marx, OTOH, visualized a specific endstate which had never existed before, and because of this, his plans for achieving it were, at best, vague, and at worst, catastrophic. Millions upon millions of lives have been wasted in attempting to implement this absurd fantasy, and Marxist dictatorships of the proletariat (Marx's term, not Lenin's) have no amendment process beyond the whim of the thug-in-chief to change failing policies. Thus, they fail, fail and fail again, and every time, a new generation comes along and says, "what if we only kill the kulaks if they actually rebel?" or "What if we have ten-year plans instead of five-year plans?" But ultimately, they are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the iceberg, the laws of economics, loom ahead.


All due respect to your six year old daughter, I'm sure she's a sweetheart, but you cannot analogize what she thinks to what Marx wrote. They're saying these things in completely different contexts.

On the contrary. Both my daughter and Marx created fantasy endstates. The difference is that my daughter is six years old and can be expected to believe that she can someday marry a prince, or that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or Dialectical Materialism or some other improbable entity or philosophy will fullfill all of her wants until she grows out of it. What's your excuse?


This is complete and total bullshit.

For everything you say the government can prevent people from doing business can in the same way. What if your own efforts are put in a supposedly safe stock market that is in reality a high stakes poker game between poker elites? Bahhh shouldn't have squandered your inheritance to those thieves. Elites are elites whether they are in the USSR, USA or anywhere in between. They will screw from government and from outside of government because that's what they do. You just act like there's a difference between the two.

There are many differences between the two. First, in a free market, the failure of thieves is more obvious, and more limited. True, you get an Enron of a Bernie Madoff periodically, but they do fail, and when they do, the bad guys usually end up in jail, or at least out of business and discredited. Compare that with the USSR (which, BTW, you said we shouldn't reference, because we're only talking theory, or at least we shouldn't talk about it unless the discussion point favors your argument, but since you brought it up...), in which state-run agencies failed for decades without consequence, except to those who depended on them for goods and services. A Bernie Madoff who cooked the books in the USSR would have been kept in power as long as he continued to keep the party elite in the money. A Soviet Diamond mine might not be making a profit, but they could always find one big stone to cut, polish and mount in a gold setting so that Mrs. Brezhnev got a lovely gift when Leonid came back from his inspection tour. And, since the government maintains a monopoly (remember, the workers, through the dictatorship of the proletariat, own all of the means of production), failure in one company equals failure in an entire industry. Even during the worst period of the dustbowl, American food production never reached the point of collapse, while during perfectly normal times, the Soviets couldn't feed themselves, even though they had some of the most fertile arable land in the world.

Second, you cite the worst excesses of capitalism as if they are the norm, and cite the norms of communism as if they are comparable. It's a lovely bait and switch, but the fact is that for every Enron, there's an Exxon; For every Bernie Madoff, there's a Warrne Buffett; For every Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, there's a Chase, a Bank of America or a host of other lenders that are solvent. Even when Chrysler and GM were taking government handouts and submitting to Obamaism, Ford bit the bullet and restructured and is now in better shape, and Toyota, Honda, Porsce-Audi and other car-makers are still making good, dependable cars that people want to buy, and they are making money and returns on investments. Meanwhile, when Gazprom was the only state-controlled energy company, the Soviets couldn't even produce enough lightbulbs to light their own homes, there was no private investment (and no incentive to divest of unproductive investments or back productive ones) and the various auto manufacturers in the eastern bloc managed to produce only one car that met western standards (if barely), and that was the Yugo.

Finally, you claim that investment is a poker game between plutocrats. It's not. Unless the investment is a complete sham (as it was with Enron and Madoff), investment creates assets. Those assets don't disappear, even during the most hostile takeovers, they are either sold off or reapportioned under new management. If you hold stock in company A, and company B takes over, your stock doesn't disappear, it becomes part of the stock of company B. Thus, if you bought stock in, say, National Periodical Publications in 1960 (otherwise known as DC Comics), and kept the stock, today you own stock in AOL-Time-Warner.

I'd call this game, set and match, but I'd really like to see Wei stick his nose in.

Bailey
10-20-2010, 12:05 PM
I don't see where calling Marx's classless society a "utopian fantasy" "in which people who spent their lives in squalor while resenting the successes of others, i.e., people like him, would be on top" constitutes an endorsement, but I also don't see how someone could look at Marx's theories and miss the glaring contradictions. As for you comparison with the founders, you could not be more wrong. First, the political philosophy of the American founding was based in historical precedent in addition to theory, rather than theory alone. The separation and definition of powers was derived from Roman republican law, the limits on federal power versus state and local powers were derived from the Greek polises and the definitions of individual rights came from English common law, all of which were modified to suit the specific circumstances of the founding. Second, the founders did not specify an endstate. They weren't utopians who saw an end to human progress, but a constant tug of war between interests, in which a just government would act as referee. Their model was meant to provide stable government so that people could pursue their own interests, rather than a state that would define their interests and channel them accordingly. Finally, because the founders didn't have an endstate in mind for society, they left it open-ended. The Constitution can be amended as times change and laws need to be adjusted to reflect those changes, but the fundamental principles of limited government that is responsible to the people, rather than expansive government that takes responsibility for the people (and thus takes responsibility away from them) remains valid. Marx, OTOH, visualized a specific endstate which had never existed before, and because of this, his plans for achieving it were, at best, vague, and at worst, catastrophic. Millions upon millions of lives have been wasted in attempting to implement this absurd fantasy, and Marxist dictatorships of the proletariat (Marx's term, not Lenin's) have no amendment process beyond the whim of the thug-in-chief to change failing policies. Thus, they fail, fail and fail again, and every time, a new generation comes along and says, "what if we only kill the kulaks if they actually rebel?" or "What if we have ten-year plans instead of five-year plans?" But ultimately, they are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the iceberg, the laws of economics, loom ahead.



On the contrary. Both my daughter and Marx created fantasy endstates. The difference is that my daughter is six years old and can be expected to believe that she can someday marry a prince, or that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or Dialectical Materialism or some other improbable entity or philosophy will fullfill all of her wants until she grows out of it. What's your excuse?



There are many differences between the two. First, in a free market, the failure of thieves is more obvious, and more limited. True, you get an Enron of a Bernie Madoff periodically, but they do fail, and when they do, the bad guys usually end up in jail, or at least out of business and discredited. Compare that with the USSR (which, BTW, you said we shouldn't reference, because we're only talking theory, or at least we shouldn't talk about it unless the discussion point favors your argument, but since you brought it up...), in which state-run agencies failed for decades without consequence, except to those who depended on them for goods and services. A Bernie Madoff who cooked the books in the USSR would have been kept in power as long as he continued to keep the party elite in the money. A Soviet Diamond mine might not be making a profit, but they could always find one big stone to cut, polish and mount in a gold setting so that Mrs. Brezhnev got a lovely gift when Leonid came back from his inspection tour. And, since the government maintains a monopoly (remember, the workers, through the dictatorship of the proletariat, own all of the means of production), failure in one company equals failure in an entire industry. Even during the worst period of the dustbowl, American food production never reached the point of collapse, while during perfectly normal times, the Soviets couldn't feed themselves, even though they had some of the most fertile arable land in the world.

Second, you cite the worst excesses of capitalism as if they are the norm, and cite the norms of communism as if they are comparable. It's a lovely bait and switch, but the fact is that for every Enron, there's an Exxon; For every Bernie Madoff, there's a Warrne Buffett; For every Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, there's a Chase, a Bank of America or a host of other lenders that are solvent. Even when Chrysler and GM were taking government handouts and submitting to Obamaism, Ford bit the bullet and restructured and is now in better shape, and Toyota, Honda, Porsce-Audi and other car-makers are still making good, dependable cars that people want to buy, and they are making money and returns on investments. Meanwhile, when Gazprom was the only state-controlled energy company, the Soviets couldn't even produce enough lightbulbs to light their own homes, there was no private investment (and no incentive to divest of unproductive investments or back productive ones) and the various auto manufacturers in the eastern bloc managed to produce only one car that met western standards (if barely), and that was the Yugo.

Finally, you claim that investment is a poker game between plutocrats. It's not. Unless the investment is a complete sham (as it was with Enron and Madoff), investment creates assets. Those assets don't disappear, even during the most hostile takeovers, they are either sold off or reapportioned under new management. If you hold stock in company A, and company B takes over, your stock doesn't disappear, it becomes part of the stock of company B. Thus, if you bought stock in, say, National Periodical Publications in 1960 (otherwise known as DC Comics), and kept the stock, today you own stock in AOL-Time-Warner.

I'd call this game, set and match, but I'd really like to see Wei stick his nose in.


I love to see his face rubbed in shit, it never gets old THANKS MAJOR. :D

NJCardFan
10-20-2010, 12:32 PM
Even when Chrysler and GM were taking government handouts and submitting to Obamaism, Ford bit the bullet and restructured and is now in better shape,
This reminds me of the problems the airlines were having after 9/11. Even though the bailouts they received were a rare occurrence that had to be done(having 1 airline fail would have been bad enough but to have all fail would have been devastating to the economy). However, even after that, Delta, United, USAir, and Continental were all struggling and some started filing for bankruptcy while the company I worked for, American Airlines, restructured and worked with all of we employees to save the necessary $1 billion to remain solvent. After that, AA because a profitable airline again.

As for Malloc's TV analogy, had the television industry been run by a Marxist or some other communist/socialist ideology, this would be the pinnacle of television technology today:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ncar80yS9cs/SrsskzNOACI/AAAAAAAAARc/0GuHSshlzJ0/s320/Picture+8.png

Capitalism breeds innovation. I can guarantee that if you listed the pros and cons of capitalism, the pros would outweigh the cons at least 50-1. On the other hand, there are no pros to socialism.

Wei Wu Wei
10-20-2010, 12:43 PM
Alright it seems the one and only lifeline you guys are clinging onto is the "SOCIALISM HAS LITERALLY NEVER WORKED" argument.

Let's just put that to rest shall we?

Belarus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus

100% employment,
fantastic architecture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belarus-Minsk-New_National_Library-1.jpg
90% of the population has cell phones

isn't exactly the soviet wasteland you seem to think necessarily comes from non-capitalist modes of production

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 01:00 PM
I love to see his face rubbed in shit, it never gets old THANKS MAJOR. :D
No prob. It's my pleasure. Now, where's Wei?

This reminds me of the problems the airlines were having after 9/11. Even though the bailouts they received were a rare occurrence that had to be done(having 1 airline fail would have been bad enough but to have all fail would have been devastating to the economy). However, even after that, Delta, United, USAir, and Continental were all struggling and some started filing for bankruptcy while the company I worked for, American Airlines, restructured and worked with all of we employees to save the necessary $1 billion to remain solvent. After that, AA because a profitable airline again.

As for Malloc's TV analogy, had the television industry been run by a Marxist or some other communist/socialist ideology, this would be the pinnacle of television technology today:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ncar80yS9cs/SrsskzNOACI/AAAAAAAAARc/0GuHSshlzJ0/s320/Picture+8.png

Capitalism breeds innovation. I can guarantee that if you listed the pros and cons of capitalism, the pros would outweigh the cons at least 50-1. On the other hand, there are no pros to socialism.
No, there are some pros to Socialism, they just aren't very significant. This, of course, leads me to list them...:D

Top Ten Benefits of Socialism:


Snazzy red tee-shirts with bearded clown on them.
Low obesity rates among proletariat due to recurring famines
High-minded rhetoric allows spoiled Hollywood moguls and plutocrats to sound like they care about "the little guy."
Provides thesis subjects for otherwise unemployable perpetual academics seeking tenure.
Long waiting list for Trabants and other crappy eastern bloc cars kept highway mortality rates low.
Guarantees of employment without standards mean that even when you're working, you're not really working.
Really hot Russian mail order brides will do just about anything to get away from the legacy of socialism.
Cheap surplus AK-47s.
Chronic shortages of basic staples means that kids don't have to eat broccoli, asparagus or any other yucky vegetables.

And the number one benefit of Socialism:
Economic failure is excused because "they didn't do it right" and then they get to try again. And again. And again...

noonwitch
10-20-2010, 01:32 PM
One of the problems with Marxism is that it serves well as a critique of the faults of capitalism, but it really doesn't offer any type of reasonable alternative that can work in the real world. It's an intellectual argument, not a real-world solution. Every time Marxist theory has been used to replace capitalism, it's been mostly a failure because the ideas behind it seem great until they are put into practice.

Who doesn't want equality? Who doesn't want to see poverty reduced or even ended? We all would love to see a society where the poor can move ahead and the rich are benevolent and philanthropic. Marxism doesn't make that happen, it just makes more people poor.

Wei Wu Wei
10-20-2010, 03:48 PM
Alright it seems the one and only lifeline you guys are clinging onto is the "SOCIALISM HAS LITERALLY NEVER WORKED" argument.

Let's just put that to rest shall we?

Belarus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus

100% employment,
fantastic architecture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belarus-Minsk-New_National_Library-1.jpg
90% of the population has cell phones

isn't exactly the soviet wasteland you seem to think necessarily comes from non-capitalist modes of production

Since the OP might have missed it.

This is the basis of every argument "socialism never worked therefore it cannot work".

First of all, noonwitch is sort of right that Marxism provides a perspective to critique capitalism but the solution isn't spelled out for us.

Second, don't even try to pretend that socialist countries existed in a neutral space, the United States was actively doing everything it could short of blowing up the whole fucking Earth for the sake of preventing, at ANY COST, the spread of this ideology. So to be fair, socialism has had one or two obstacles working against it's fruition.

Finally, BELARUS.

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 05:44 PM
Since the OP might have missed it.

This is the basis of every argument "socialism never worked therefore it cannot work".

No, in fact, the opening of this thread is a detailed critique of Marx's theories, not their application, as you demanded. Did you even read it?


First of all, noonwitch is sort of right that Marxism provides a perspective to critique capitalism but the solution isn't spelled out for us.

Except that it isn't. It's a critique of capitalism in Europe in 1848, as seen by a man who had failed in life and was bitterly critiquing the system that he failed in. It's the equivalent of a high school dropout critiquing a university curriculum.


Second, don't even try to pretend that socialist countries existed in a neutral space, the United States was actively doing everything it could short of blowing up the whole fucking Earth for the sake of preventing, at ANY COST, the spread of this ideology. So to be fair, socialism has had one or two obstacles working against it's fruition.

Oh, please...! LOL The US is the reason that communism failed in Russia? We caused the Ukrainian famine? We built the gulags? This is pathetic, even for you.


Finally, BELARUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus

100% employment,
fantastic architecture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Be..._Library-1.jpg
90% of the population has cell phones

isn't exactly the soviet wasteland you seem to think necessarily comes from non-capitalist modes of production

BELARUS??? ROFLOL!!! 100 million dead, hundreds of millions enslaved, trillions of dollars wasted on decades of corrupt, incompetent, murderous regimes, and your justification of all of that misery, waste and destruction is Belarus? ROFLOL! Tell me you're kidding! Oh, I can't wait to debunk this idiocy. Where to begin...?

Okay, first, let's take a cursory glance at that claim of 100% employment. The Soviets used to make the same claim, and with the same credibility, which is nil. But, let's be kind and accept the statistics of a Marxist central planning committee as accurate. What is the effect of that 100% employment? For example, do they have a lower percentage of people below the poverty line than we do? Nope. 27.1% of the population is below the poverty line, and given that per capita GDP is $12,500, that's pretty sad, especially with an inflation rate of 13%. That GDP puts it at one of the lowest in Europe, above such econonomic powerhouses as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Albania and Romania, or to put it another way, it is being outperformed by every former Eastern bloc nation except two, and two fractions of one, and none of those other countries claims 100% employment. In terms of life expectancy, things are equally dismal, with Belarus placing 141st in the world, between Tonga and Honduras.

And the architecture! That's a very nice ball of glass. Really. I'm sure that they are very proud of it. It's right up there with the Sistene Chapel, the US Capitol and the Chrysler Building. :rolleyes: You must tell me, do they surgically remove any semblance of architectural taste when you become a Socialist?

I also love how the Belarussians claim that 90% of the population has cell phones. Why, every toddler and geezer must be tied in. In fact, with those numbers, they'd have to be.

So, Belarus is your example of the workers' paradise? Too funny. If I were you, I'd be very embarrassed by this thread, but then, if I were you, I'd be embarrassed by many things...

Molon Labe
10-20-2010, 06:33 PM
Since the OP might have missed it.

This is the basis of every argument "socialism never worked therefore it cannot work".

You don't even have to go that far.

The essence of Marxism's is coercion. There is little need to argue beyond this principle.

Marxism is "Fail" because it is threat of violence to achieve compliance.


You guys are working way too hard in this thread.;)

Odysseus
10-20-2010, 09:40 PM
You don't even have to go that far.

The essence of Marxism's is coercion. There is little need to argue beyond this principle.

Marxism is "Fail" because it is threat of violence to achieve compliance.


You guys are working way too hard in this thread.;)

I agree, but since Marxists consider the threat of (and the use of, for that matter) violence to be justified if it brings about the workers' paradise, they have to be schooled in why the workers' paradise will be hell on earth, otherwise they will just keep investing time and effort in this horrifically destructive fantasy. And, sometimes, they wise up. David Horowitz started out as a red diaper baby, was a student radical and professional leftist, and ended up becoming a conservative. If somebody that far gone can come back from the dark side, then there's hope for Wei, Shoe and Arroyo.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-21-2010, 10:24 AM
The few people who are robbing Americans blind who do get arrested face that consequence because they are breaking the law. The rest of them are smart enough to pay off lawmakers and keep common-sense laws that would get them imprisoned from being enacted. The really smart ones create a fake grassroots movement sponsored by 24 hour cable news networks so the middle-class, like lambs to the slaughter, vehemently oppose any sort of legislation that would benefit them and hurt their corporate overlords. Turn the only people who have the power to overthrow their monopoly over our government into a personal army.

The rest of Ody's epic novel is the same thing he's said in every post before, just three times as long.

Arroyo_Doble
10-21-2010, 10:27 AM
The few people who are robbing Americans blind who do get arrested face that consequence because they are breaking the law. The rest of them are smart enough to pay off lawmakers and keep common-sense laws that would get them imprisoned from being enacted. The really smart ones create a fake grassroots movement sponsored by 24 hour cable news networks so the middle-class, like lambs to the slaughter, vehemently oppose any sort of legislation that would benefit them and hurt their corporate overlords. Turn the only people who have the power to overthrow their monopoly over our government into a personal army.

The rest of Ody's epic novel is the same thing he's said in every post before, just three times as long.

The new "useful idiots."

KhrushchevsShoe
10-21-2010, 10:31 AM
I agree, but since Marxists consider the threat of (and the use of, for that matter) violence to be justified if it brings about the workers' paradise, they have to be schooled in why the workers' paradise will be hell on earth, otherwise they will just keep investing time and effort in this horrifically destructive fantasy. And, sometimes, they wise up. David Horowitz started out as a red diaper baby, was a student radical and professional leftist, and ended up becoming a conservative. If somebody that far gone can come back from the dark side, then there's hope for Wei, Shoe and Arroyo.

I'm getting really, really, tired of this line that there must be something genetically wrong with anybody who disagrees with you. Your pretentiousness is really infuriating from the stupid Marx Brothers joke (repeated ad nauseum) to some weird list based on stereotype and hyperbole.

If only everybody were as smart as you, Ody. To just parrot FOXNEWS is such a complicated and difficult conceptual challenge, its a miracle you can tow their line with no deviation over such a wide breadth of issues. You are true genius Ody, how graced us philistines are with your holy presence.

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 11:45 AM
The few people who are robbing Americans blind who do get arrested face that consequence because they are breaking the law. The rest of them are smart enough to pay off lawmakers and keep common-sense laws that would get them imprisoned from being enacted. The really smart ones create a fake grassroots movement sponsored by 24 hour cable news networks so the middle-class, like lambs to the slaughter, vehemently oppose any sort of legislation that would benefit them and hurt their corporate overlords. Turn the only people who have the power to overthrow their monopoly over our government into a personal army.

The rest of Ody's epic novel is the same thing he's said in every post before, just three times as long.
Way to try to change the subject, and the "fake grassroots movement sponsored by 24 hour cable news networks" talking point was DOA, and if it wasn't, the failure of the One Nation rally, which was bankrolled by unions and front groups, but which barely managed to bring in 1/3 of the numbers of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, should have been the final nail in the coffin of this canard. It's the left that uses astroturf fronts like the "Coffe Party" and "Organizing for America" to funnel money from elitist tools like George Soros, not the right.
But, once again, you fail to make your case that any of your allegations are true. You simply libel all business owners as thieves and then wonder why you aren't taken seriously.


The new "useful idiots."
We don't need new "Useful idiots." You guys are still the gold standard.

I'm getting really, really, tired of this line that there must be something genetically wrong with anybody who disagrees with you. Your pretentiousness is really infuriating from the stupid Marx Brothers joke (repeated ad nauseum) to some weird list based on stereotype and hyperbole.

If only everybody were as smart as you, Ody. To just parrot FOXNEWS is such a complicated and difficult conceptual challenge, its a miracle you can tow their line with no deviation over such a wide breadth of issues. You are true genius Ody, how graced us philistines are with your holy presence.

I don't think that you're genetically wrong. If I did, I wouldn't bother with you. As Mark Twain said, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." I just think that you've bought into ideas that don't work, and have never really examined them. I made it a point to respond to every one of your arguments with counter arguments. If you feel that you can't respond without whining that I think less of you because you are clinging to discredited dogma like a crack addict clings to a pipe, then perhaps you ought to go to another forum, where you'll be appreciated for your vast knowledge of Marxist theories and your half-vast knowledge of their application in the real world, and the ensuing chaos and tragedy that they entail. DU can always use another Marxist, and you won't ever have to have your ideas challenged again by the likes of me.

Or, you can man up, read what I wrote, and either fight for what you believe in, or open your mind and admit that Marx was wrong and his ideas have been a source of human misery since he first proposed them.

Either way, I'll still be here.

Molon Labe
10-21-2010, 12:00 PM
I'm still waiting for some Marxist to splain how violence is a fundamental and necessary feature the system and how they morally justify it.

Arroyo_Doble
10-21-2010, 12:54 PM
We don't need new "Useful idiots." You guys are still the gold standard.

I'll bet Lorne Greene I vote for candidates from more parties this election than you will.

Edit: Which town America has bee taken over by Sharia law this week? I certainly want to be vigilant and not a "useful idiot."

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 12:55 PM
I'm still waiting for some Marxist to splain how violence is a fundamental and necessary feature the system and how they morally justify it.

It's the old "Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" thing. I personally find it funny that people who scream about how it's better that ten guilty men go free rather than punish one innocent man are willing to destroy innocent people in order to achieve a political/economic system that ends up punishing everyone.

malloc
10-21-2010, 04:15 PM
Considering that the rest of your post were simply more ad-hominems, Appeals to Emotion, and Confusing Cause and Effect, any fifth grader could see there's no reason to reply to any of that crap since you broke your own argument with all those fallacies.



Note: I have to reiterate again that the Soviet system was broken from the beginning and was very instrumental in the fall. Still, there was a way things worked there and you cant just make shit up.


"Yeah, centralized control of the economy only failed and mass murdered millions every single time it was tried because it just wasn't implemented correctly." :rolleyes: I've never heard this argument before. History has it's very own crystal clear record of how the USSR, Cuba and North Korea operated, and if you don't believe that record, your simply a willfully ignorant fool.




Really, all you have here is over-simplification of human behavior with no regards to cultural or political realities that are very diverse from state to state. It assumes all people behave identically and our motivations are uniform through both space and time. You know that isn't true, I know that isn't true.

No "it" doesn't assume all people behave identically, what it does assume is that millions of independent actors, using price signals as a feed back mechanism will always move resources from areas of supply to areas of demand much more efficiently than any governmental structure or committee. Individuals acting uniformly is not a requirement of this assumption, quite the opposite actually, but that would have taken critical thinking which you just don't posses to figure out wouldn't it? This isn't my theory, it's the theory of some very famous Austrian economists who are widely published, and one is even a Nobel Laureate. To this very day, not a single Marxist or socialist think tank has come up with a solution to the economic calculation problem. To this very day, you get blank stares and deer in the headlights driveling nonsense, similar to the retardation you spewed in this forum, whenever you ask a socialist about how they would solve the economic calculation problem.

So try this retard:

1.) Describe to me a system in which public ownership and governmental control of resource allocation is more efficient, economically, than the free market system.

or,

2.) Explain why the economic calculation problem doesn't exist, and is a figment of economists' imaginations.

I can't wait to see what lunacy you come up with, I'm sure it will be very amusing.

Molon Labe
10-21-2010, 04:31 PM
It's the old "Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" thing. I personally find it funny that people who scream about how it's better that ten guilty men go free rather than punish one innocent man are willing to destroy innocent people in order to achieve a political/economic system that ends up punishing everyone.

Marxists avoid this like the plague. Once you establish that they do support violence against you to force "society" into the 10 tenets of Marxism they fail.

They fail at the the two biggest foundations of liberty

1. Life (Do not Murder)

2. Property (Do not Steal)


http://conservativeamericanvet.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/socialism-gun-to-head.jpg?w=332&h=332


Fail!

Odysseus
10-21-2010, 05:41 PM
I'll bet Lorne Greene I vote for candidates from more parties this election than you will.

Voting for the Democrats, Greens, Socialists and CPUSA doesn't make you politically diverse.

Edit: Which town America has bee taken over by Sharia law this week? I certainly want to be vigilant and not a "useful idiot."

Oh, you don't every have to worry about being useful.

Arroyo_Doble
10-22-2010, 09:18 AM
Voting for the Democrats, Greens, Socialists and CPUSA doesn't make you politically diverse.

You really need to get out more. Turn off the Fox, turn off the radio, put down the mouse and discover that wide wide political world where there is a broad range opinion between Ayn Rand and Karl Marx.


Oh, you don't every have to worry about being useful.

The Sharia is taking over America! Be vigilant!

Sonnabend
10-22-2010, 10:44 AM
You really need to get out more. Turn off the Fox, turn off the radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_off_the_radio), put down the mouse and discover that wide wide political world where there is a broad range opinion between Ayn Rand and Karl

Back to the old Fox meme, huh Doblo? Then how, pray tell, do you explain ME? I dont watch Fox, never have.

If I were you? I'd turn off Slobberman and NPR. That stuff will rot your brain

Arroyo_Doble
10-22-2010, 10:47 AM
Back to the old Fox meme, huh Doblo? Then how, pray tell, do you explain ME? I dont watch Fox, never have.

If I were you? I'd turn off Slobberman and NPR. That stuff will rot your brain

I don't watch Slobberman.

And I can understand the aversion to NPR; they actually inform.

Sonnabend
10-22-2010, 10:52 AM
And I can understand the aversion to NPR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npr); they actually inform.

Yeah they do inform....you that the Left are raving nutters.

Wei Wu Wei
10-22-2010, 10:54 AM
Sonna, care to give some insight into your news sources? Perhaps what books or magazines you enjoy reading? :D lol

Sonnabend
10-22-2010, 11:06 AM
Sonna, care to give some insight into your news sources? Perhaps what books or magazines you enjoy readingCNN,ABC, CBS, News.com.au, smh.com.au, Newsweek (yes I read it) , Time, the Washington Post, the NY Times, the NY Post, the Australian, about a dozen or so blogs, about a dozen or so bloggers, several military and ex military with service in field in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Hansard, conservative blogs, I've downloaded and listened to Slobberman, Malloy and a host of others.

Canadian newspapers, ones from Greece (translated), Pravda (translated), TASS, Izvestia (translated), the foreign news services we get here (about ten or so, again translated, or with subtitles)

Plus the thousands or so of books, magazines, TV news, internet news, and related articles I have read or seen over the last twenty years, way too many to list here.

That includes live broadcasts, the Moon landings, the fall of Saigon (yes it was televised and yes I am old enough to have seen them ), the Vietnam War, newsreels and books on all the major wars including WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Missile Crisis, Malaysia, books and articles on the Pacific Rim nations, I have an autographed copy of Ilario Pantano's book Warlord, another one I remember was Thunder Run (about the assault on Baghdad)..my library has been somewhat abbreviated as I have had to move once or twice and many had to be jettisoned..(wasnt happy about that)

Paris Match (In French for practise), I have a Koran, three different Bibles (Incl Good News version), Sun Myung Moons "Divine Principle", books on North Korea, have spoken to people who were AT Hiroshima on the day of the bomb, met and listened to soldiers who were at Khe Sanh and Long Tan, spent one incredible night with an Aussie soldier who had just returned from his second tour in Iraq, over dinner he told us everything that he had seen, and done, (what he had to say about the media could have been written on asbestos paper)...and a lot more besides.

My history education began in high school and continues to this day. I have a copy of Cary's tome on Rome, read Reiterman's book on Jim Jones, and have read, and still have, copies of Foote's series on the US Civil War.

At one time my library was about 1000 books and magazines on every subject you could name, from economics to the utter garbage that was Marx, I even had a copy of "Silent Spring" some years back.

My interests are wide and ranging..the only reason i dont have more books of my own is there isn't any room for them here. I borrow the ones I want to read from a library or from friends.

Wei Wu Wei
10-22-2010, 11:11 AM
Do you enjoy foreign-based news organizations like Al Jazeera English? How about Leftist news sources such as Democracy Now! or socialist blogs?

Personally, for television, I love Fox News I watch it as much as I can. I can't really stand to watch CNN or MSNBC they are god-awful. All of the standard corporate networks are sort of the same, except for Fox, which is far more straight-forward in it's intentions.

Sonnabend
10-22-2010, 11:20 AM
By the way.

Nice try at a gotcha question, shithead. You blew that one.

Odysseus
10-22-2010, 11:21 AM
You really need to get out more. Turn off the Fox, turn off the radio, put down the mouse and discover that wide wide political world where there is a broad range opinion between Ayn Rand and Karl Marx.
Tell you what, you do a couple of tours in Iraq, spend some time in Panama, run an organization of almost 400 people as a commander and then you can tell me to get out a bit more. Until then, you just keep defending a century of Marxist failure and rest assured that you won't have to worry about actually living under it as long as I and people like me draw breath.


The Sharia is taking over America! Be vigilant!
You can afford to be snarky about it because people like me are vigilant. If we ever stop, you'll know why we were opposed to it.

Odysseus
10-22-2010, 11:58 AM
I don't watch Slobberman.

And I can understand the aversion to NPR; they actually inform.

If you consider shilling for a corrupt leftist plutocrat who is trying to undermine our political systems (George Soros) to be "inform[ing]": http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/all_the_news_that_fits_soros_a.html