Views of Marxism

[Ghost213]

After seeing a thread on reveolution, I have decided to start my own, based on the Russian revolution, and the Ideals of Karl Marx and Socialisim.

Socialisim in its self seems a good idea. There are benefits to certian non-capitalist beliefs such as a restriction on enterprise. This would mean insurance in itself would be regulated by the goverment and thus fairly cheap(as seen in Canada). Also it would make monopolys much harder to form and ultimately make every company have to follow more specific standards. But also as seen in the Soviet Republic, Communisim does not work because of the simple fact people are too greedy by nature to allow for total equality. Also Capitalisim was required for the advent of the Russian Revolution, because of the need of money and a way to arm troops, thus in the early stages contradicting itself. More importantly, Socialisim has the slight issue of being a goverment ruled in a Dictorial fashion (The Former Soviet Public was led by a small congress-type faction with one person over all).

I would like to hear others viewpoints on the effectiveness of Karl Marx's views of Socialisim and how it could be improved.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

as a general rule of thumb, my take on marxism and communism works well on paper but in practical application seems to fail because of inherent human greed and such.

If you have ever read Thomas More's Utopia, his proposal for society is nearly identical to a communist state but, like communism, would not work if implemented now...

to lighten the mood, here's my rendition of Marxism :P
http://uncyclopedia.org/images/6/67/Marxalottrotsky.jpg

[Ghost213]

I once had to do a report in school on the Russian Revolution, and read a book called The Red Revolution. It talks very little of Karl Marx, aside from his influence on Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin. They both were large players in the revolution, each leading seperate parties. Lenin is actually a hero of mine, because in my opinion, had he not died, he may have led the Soviet Republic in a far better way than Joseph Stalin.

[sweet8D]

I think the problem with communism is not a matter of greed. It is more a matter of motivation.

Put yourself in this situation. You are a textile worker. You make a set wage, and no overtime bonuses. You work hard, in fact because of you the factory you work in produces much more than competing factories simply because of your own motivation and your motivation of others.
You take public transit home each night on a bus that stops at several other textile factories along the way. Each night you ride next to Gus, a man with the same job as you but at another factory. Each night it is the same. You tell Gus how productive your day was and Gus downs another swig of pure Russian Vodka. He tells you about how he did practically no work-in fact only enought to not get punished.
Is it fair that he makes exactly as much money as you do?

Another scenario: You are a doctor-you make the same amount as the fence painter next door. Did you get all that education for nothing? Now you are compelled to do a crappy job. When people are not motivated, the wheels of the economy stop spinning. This results in the fall of a nation.

Aside from this reason, world wide communism would simply not work because of one simple word: Scarcity. If everyone in the world had exactly the same amount of resources, noone would live up to the standard of life that you and I come to expect. There is simply not enough resources. So, I'm sorry for crushing your Utopian dreams, but simply put under a global communism, neither you or I would have access to computers, and would likely would have little to no education-you can kiss that social paper goodbye, and we would be hungry more often than not.

I would love to be wrong, but realistically I doubt that I am.

[Modred]

Is it fair that he makes exactly as much money as you do?
Certainly. He'll end up in Gulag long before you.

You are a doctor-you make the same amount as the fence painter next door. Did you get all that education for nothing?
First, you cannot substantiate the "equal" pay argument without data. Second, you assume the only motivation for the doctor is money, as opposed to say, healing the sick.

Now you are compelled to do a crappy job.
If you are compelled, you have motivation. So with this motivation, you throw away all of your expertise intentionally and do a poor job. You throw away your entire life for the sole sake of money? I fail to follow why this occurs.

If everyone in the world had exactly the same amount of resources, noone would live up to the standard of life that you and I come to expect. There is simply not enough resources. So, I'm sorry for crushing your Utopian dreams, but simply put under a global communism, neither you or I would have access to computers, and would likely would have little to no education-you can kiss that social paper goodbye, and we would be hungry more often than not.
Aside from the complete lack of logic in your conclusions, I must point out that no one, so far, has argued that global communism would work. And I want to know: how would communism prevent us from having computers, education, and "social paper" (whatever that may be)?

Anyway, communal living can only be successful on a small scale, with no more than a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred, people at most. Any larger society or community would be almost impossible to keep organized without a central authority. Once this central authority is created, the basic premise of communal life has been negated because this government tells the people what to do instead of the people sharing in their duties.

[sweet8D]

Anyway, communal living can only be successful on a small scale, with no more than a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred, people at most. Any larger society or community would be almost impossible to keep organized without a central authority. Once this central authority is created, the basic premise of communal life has been negated because this government tells the people what to do instead of the people sharing in their duties.

Very "The Village." I agree with you in that my logic definately has holes but I think you get my point.

Thanks for your input, it has definately made me think.

[kongurous]

Lenin is actually a hero of mine, because in my opinion, had he not died, he may have led the Soviet Republic in a far better way than Joseph Stalin.

Ok, so you value the ability to lead over the ability to keep your people alive? Under Lenin, nearly 4 million people died. Four million. 4,000,000. That's a lot of people. That's a relatively good sized city right there. There are two things to being a leader: knowing how to lead, and making sure you have people to lead. Both are interdependent, you cannot lead without something to lead, and there must be someone who knows how to lead to do the leading. Lenin's rule lasted 7 years. That's 571,428 people a year. I know 5 times as many people died under Stalin, but guess what? He lasted longer. 29 years, actually. Per year... Lenin's rule was deadlier.

But off the death toll for a bit. Stalin made the USSR into a world power. Lenin just got people killed and overthrew the czars. True, the czarist government was corrupt... but was it worth the roughly 570,000 people who died every year under him?

[frazz]

Modred, you got what sweet was trying to say didnt you? Stop just picking at his posts for no reason.
And yes, everyone DOES get equal payment in most communistic societies, unless they are soldiers(but then you likely die) or leaders(you really can't get to this from a peasent position).
And the reason you are compelled to not work hard is not motivation, rather the lack thereof. What it means is why bother doing a good job if you just get payed the same. Now, if you're a doctor you might not want to kill your patient, but the principle is true in most situations.
And most small communist societies show that people are not motivated for the greater good. They are motivated by reward for their hard efforts.
I think I'll go with the original english setller's protestant work ethic(which this nation was founded on)
If you do not work you do not eat.

[Magmaniac]

But also as seen in the Soviet Republic, Communisim does not work because of the simple fact people are too greedy by nature to allow for total equality.

Marx beleived that when society transitioned from its fourth stage (capitalism) to its fifth stage (socialism), people would change People would stop being so individualist and start being more collectivist in nature. People would stop being greedy when society converted to socialism.

The problem is, if a society were to transition to socialism, individuals from other societies which are still in stage four would take advantage of the socialist system, leading to its demise.

The only way a socialist society would work in our world today would be if every part of the world went to socialism simultaneously.

[Ghost213]

To defend myself on Lenin being my hero:
A) They were at war. Most of the pesants were seriously undertrained and there also happened to be a famine at that time.
B) The same people you said died under Lenin died because they had faith in his ability to lead. Yes, four million people is a large city, but all the same, they were in a state of total warfare between the Czar and his followers and Lenin and his followers.
C)And besides, before Lenin could truly prove his merit, he died in 1922 following two strokes.

So as you can see, my faith in Lenin is actually fairly well placed.

Also to refer to one of the other posts about equality causing a lack of motivation. If this doctor were making a set wage, he would still be getting paid more than the Fence Painter. The pay amount is not universal, just the same across the board in a specific trade.

[sweet8D]

Modred, you got what sweet was trying to say didnt you?
Thanks Frazz, you definately grasped what I was trying to say.

Also, I agree with Ghost about Lenin. The world only gets a few great leaders and to deprive Lenin of that title would be wrong. His untimely rule resulted in many deaths, but I think when any society is overturned you can expect casualties. Russia was experiencing a revolution! Not a tickle fight.

[kongurous]

That's still a lot of people under him. By the way, I'm not talking about the Revolution, I'm talking about after he became the leader of Russia.

[Ghost213]

He was only leader for five years (1917 to 1922) and they were suffering economic downturn. Death is enevitable in such conditions, even after the goverment had settled in.

[sweet8D]

Not only that but revolution is going to have a lingering effect, I don't care what kind of genious leader you are. People had had their families die, people were starving-It didn't matter what leader was in power, people were going to die.

Lenin offered the general population- what was it? Peace, Land, Bread! Now, granted this wasn't completely delivered but he was trying to change his world here. He truly believed in Marx's ideals and tried to run his country by them. I think given a longer time as leader he could have made great strides.

That being said, where would the world have been without a Lenin?

[Ghost213]

The world, without Lenin. This would mean either no Soviet Republic or one much later. This would mean no arms race, no cold war, just a Bunch of people who wouldn't lift a finger to change life around them. I think the world would be a far worse place, because devolpments came around that wouldn't have with out the Soviet Union posing an unrealistic threat against the United States and the Western Hemisphere

[sweet8D]

Exactly what I'm trying to say, Ghost. In fact, if it weren't for the arms race I think it's arguable that we would have no cell phones-no home computers-no ON Star GPS in our cars.

Forget about space travel! By that logic, one can say that the true inventor of technology was Lenin's mom. Okay with that I'm off to bed.

[Ghost213]

THAT ALL MAKES SENSE, SWEET!!. Without a reason for devolpment, the world would not be a better place, and we would still be fighting Polio with rest and the hope you don't recieve life long parlysis.

[sweet8D]

Cheers! I guess I didn't go to bed after all.
Did anyone see the movie 13 days? It is about the cuban Missile crisis. That movie sums up the entire Cold War for me.

Being as young as I am (16) I can hardly imagine what it must have felt like for the Cold War to be over. I mean this is a "war" that was going on for what, 55 years? And for all it gave to society there wasn't really any one battle... People just sweat it out in fear for almost a generation. Can you imagine not knowing when or if someone would make the first deadly move? I guess the only paralell I can draw is September 11 and the ensuing war against terror.

Perhaps 55 years from today our sons and daughters will be debating the necessity of the war against terror for their own lives. It makes you think.

[Ghost213]

Every Generation questions the motives of the previous one. The flower children, for example questioned their predecessors, and found it nesscary for their generation to take a different route. Now they didn't all get together and say "how can we improve over our parents" but that is the idea. Every generation will do it, and we can almost 100 percent count on in 55 years, people will be questioning the reasoning behind the war on terror, and wondering how they would deal with such an event.

[Pisces]

I've been questioning the war on terror before it started (officially).

Problems with Communism: The people who implemented didn't have Marxist values, just used the ideals to gain power and wealth, without modivation inefficiences exist.

Problems with Capitialism: The people who implemented it didn't believe in better life values, just used the ideals to gain power and wealth, without modivation inefficiences exist. The development of underdevelopment.

To explain the inefficiences in capatialism, once someone is earning 400x more than his employees he stops doing 400x the work. Monetary gains outway doing the job properally and for the profit of society, eg. London train crashs, when London train system was state owned it was extremely inefficient but it did the job properally, train system become privately owned, what happens, the company stops maintaining the tracks because it is inefficient and the trains crashed.

Communism depends on the fact that people are responciable, not spiteful and understand karma; of course this doesn't happen.

[slightly offtopic rank]Now if I was to try to make an ideal state, I would start with China because China has the most skilled rulers in the world, sure they're corrupt as hell but they are so good at being corrupt they make Moses look like bad at leading people; they've set up their systems perfectly for any change to happen.
First thing I'd do is make sure all my secret police are up-to-date.
Then I would ban slavery and take away all the money from the slave masters so they can't do shit about it.
Mininum wage to $9 US per hour, once economy stables will slowly be increased to $14US.
Confiscate several high earning buisnesses and give to ambisious young managers and pay them a set income but offer incentives for more work (and remind them of their replaciability).
Make a sizable dole, but still less
Start a buisness wherever there is space, preferably in primary sector but the idea is to keep people counting lamp posts to avoid depression, if they actaully add to society all the better.
Free education and advertise managerial training and training in robotics.
High tax rate, steadly increasing as you earn more money, so if you want an extra $1000 a year you better start working an extra $10000 a year. Obviously me (the government) can pay people working for the state more, so I can move around income depending in demand for that type of job (e.g. doctor)
Mechicalise as much as possible, making lots of jobs building these new electric powered factories and wind turbines but in the same way taking jobs away from those easily replacable by robots and computer systems.

Obviousily this will cost short term, have large opposition and have huge job shortages and demands because there is a lag time in which training people takes, and once I train people they are likely to jump ship to capilialist greed. But that is why I choice China, China has power to take the money and power away from the opposition to fund those short term costs. And better yet there is propaganda, I will just start an anti capitialist witch hunt and imprint a nonviolent socialist nationalism so when the people are poor they have "a society visiably helping them" to love and capitialists to hate; not to mention propaganda about how loving the government is and telling them if they want more money they need to work more. The capitialist west won't like the whole anti west thing but I think banning slavery and increasing mininum wage and dole to a point higher than in many countries in the capitialist west will keep them subdued or offbalance.

[Ubergopher]

I think the main problem with Communism in the USSR that no one has mentioned is population, and how far they were spread. I don't feel like lookig stats up right now since I'm tired, but I believe communism would be able to work if you get say 1000 people 100% dedicated to communism living in a compound, then yes communism could work, but for it to work in an entire country, then no it won't work, even if everyone was dedicated to communism.

[Ragnarox]

I think the main problem with Communism in the USSR that no one has mentioned is population, and how far they were spread. I don't feel like lookig stats up right now since I'm tired, but I believe communism would be able to work if you get say 1000 people 100% dedicated to communism living in a compound, then yes communism could work, but for it to work in an entire country, then no it won't work, even if everyone was dedicated to communism.

I don't think 'Communism' would be the right words to describe situation in the USSR because Communism in its purest form requires that a government not be present. Real Communism also emphasizes that the entire world must be under one power in order for it to work because a communist power cannot conduct outside trade. There was still a very solid government present in the USSR, with all industries under its sole control. This makes the USSR a Socialist Country, (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) not a communist one.

[Modred]

And yes, everyone DOES get equal payment in most communistic societies
And you know this how?

They are motivated by reward for their hard efforts.
I think I'll go with the original english setller's protestant work ethic(which this nation was founded on)
If you do not work you do not eat.
What happened to being the best you could be simply because it gives you pride to do something well? Working solely for money and nothing else is drab, dull, and sounds like a miserable life to me. If each person in a communist society could be assigned a duty which he or she truly enjoyed, are you suggesting they would not do something they like to do solely because of money? We can certainly say farewell to educators with that logic.

[GenocideAlive]

What happened to being the best you could be simply because it gives you pride to do something well? Working solely for money and nothing else is drab, dull, and sounds like a miserable life to me.
Yes, well, that's probably because you generally do what you love for not much money. This creates an interesting problem that's illustrated by your next remark...
If each person in a communist society could be assigned a duty which he or she truly enjoyed, are you suggesting they would not do something they like to do solely because of money? We can certainly say farewell to educators with that logic.
Who's going to scoop shit? You know, you have to have sewage workers. Who loves to be around feces and urine being the best they could be for their pride 9 hours a day? And let me tell you, brother, there are PLENTY of jobs to fill doing that. Let me let you in on a secret: next to nobody wants to do it, and the only incentive is money.

This little scenario plays itself out everywhere--tons of housewives would love to be teachers, others would love to be musicians, others would love to be painters, or wildlife rangers, etc.

Nobody wants to pick up trash, nobody wants to deal with scooping shit, nobody wants to change bedpans and be nursemaids for elderly strangers, nobody wants to file paperwork with rude people for hours on end, etc.

The world just has a lot of jobs that nobody particularly likes, and for good reason. They're just not fun, and they're not rewarding. You can clear 900 pages of paperwork in a day instead of the normal 650, but where's the "pride" in that?

The problem with Communism is that inevitably the fantasy breaks down somewhere--someone ends up having to do something they don't like, and there's no incentive for them to anything other than a total halfass shit-quality job. Then you have to hire two people to do one person's job, because both of them hate it and do a halfassed job. So two people are miserable doing shit they don't like, with no incentive.

Communism is a fantasy like D&D. Some people just don't want to let it go.

[Modred]

The problem with Communism is that inevitably the fantasy breaks down somewhere--someone ends up having to do something they don't like, and there's no incentive for them to anything other than a total halfass shit-quality job. Then you have to hire two people to do one person's job, because both of them hate it and do a halfassed job. So two people are miserable doing shit they don't like, with no incentive.
Of course...I really thought I had included some reference to the situation I described being "hypothetical" or "ideal," but upon reading it again I seem to have edited that out. Oh well.

Communism is a fantasy like D&D. Some people just don't want to let it go.
Quotage.

[frazz]

Just admit you lost Modred.
What happened to being the best you could be simply because it gives you pride to do something well? Working solely for money and nothing else is drab, dull, and sounds like a miserable life to me. If each person in a communist society could be assigned a duty which he or she truly enjoyed, are you suggesting they would not do something they like to do solely because of money? We can certainly say farewell to educators with that logic.
The problem is, people aren't that nice. Plus, what if someone wants to start their own business? No free enterprise in your government owned commy land.
And you know this how?
It's pretty much in the definition of communism.

[Sikawtic]

Communism, in itself, is an amazing idea and would work wonderfully if humans were capable of carrying it out correctly. However, power corrupts... so I don't see it ever happening.

[Modred]

Just admit you lost Modred.
Wow, admitting that I left out part of my argument and that this omission left me completely undefended against Genocide's post didn't get that across? Someone needs to learn to read between the lines.

[Ghost213]

There is no free enterprise in communisim, yes we know that. But there are various degrees to which people have control over how to work their business. You don't think China reached such a high level society from just being 100% Socialist. For success you need money, and money is made easiest by allowing people to run their business. Yes China has control over all their business, but simply, they got there by letting their people make money their way.

[frazz]

I didn't know that. But then think about US being commy. Bill gates might of done a little here and a little there, but he wouldn't have brought us the amazing computers and common internet we have today. That is unless the government recognized his genius. Seeing as most computer companies were focused more on hardware and less on software however, he would most likely be ignored. It's semi-free enterprise, but not in the absolute form that has allowed everything we have today.
It seems like China is a not-quite-so-communist-but-still-enough-to-blow kinda country.

[Neo]

I didn't know that. But then think about US being commy. Bill gates might of done a little here and a little there, but he wouldn't have brought us the amazing computers and common internet we have today. That is unless the government recognized his genius. Seeing as most computer companies were focused more on hardware and less on software however, he would most likely be ignored. It's semi-free enterprise, but not in the absolute form that has allowed everything we have today.
It seems like China is a not-quite-so-communist-but-still-enough-to-blow kinda country.
Microsoft is a software company. FFS is your going to make an arguement could you at least try to get your facts straight?

Bill Gates also did not "bring us the internet".

People like to pretend that communism will work, but its just like theorycraft, you can claim all you wish that "this will work here if" but thats not how things go.

That would be like me saying "if you mass hydras you'll always win" it just doesn't work.

The problem is not power corrupting its greed. Humans are motivated by greed in one way or another -- everyone of you has at one point in your life said "I want that" and you then work towards that goal; Whether you wish to stop drinking, or to buy a new big screen TV.

-Neo

[frazz]

Microsoft is a software company.
Isn't that what I said?

I meant the way we use the internet now is a result of Gates' software.(other factors contributed as well)

[Desert_Eagle]

Marxism when applied to large populaces like national governments is a bad philosophy.

Works well in small tight nit groups like the Kibbutz for instance.

[frazz]

Works well in small tight nit groups like the Kibbutz for instance.
Don't know what that is, but many small commy groups have failed horribly. I'll have to find the names of some. One I remember was that everyone was supposed to work in farms and relax and write books the rest of the time. There was no currency and no way to enforce the work. So nobody but the leader and a few others worked and it eventually collapsed.

[Desert_Eagle]

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

[lammas]

i dont want to get into real debate of marxism and all other systems there are but there is one point that should be kept in mind:
according to the black book of communism communism can be blaimed for ~100 000 000
deaths. According to indian researcher kapitalism has killed in India alone more than 100
000 000 peoples.

[frazz]

Gee where did you get that info? I can see the television adds now....
Capitalism Kills!
Capitalism contributes more deaths in India then all of communism! Unless that counts all the lives that were cut short by lack of health care in the USSR... But that doesn't matter. Vote Stahlin. Commy. Pro-choice. Right for America.

On a side note communism can be blamed for many deaths in wars, famine, disease, executions etc.
I don't know how you can blame capitalism for 100,000,000 deaths.

[Mtank]

i dont want to get into real debate of marxism and all other systems there are but there is one point that should be kept in mind:
according to the black book of communism communism can be blaimed for ~100 000 000
deaths. According to indian researcher kapitalism has killed in India alone more than 100
000 000 peoples.

Im from India and unless you can back up your sources, you should die. You're saying that Capitalism killed a hundred million people? How? When?

On a side note communism can be blamed for many deaths in wars, famine, disease, executions etc

Not really. Communism can't be blamed for that. The people who ordered and commited the executions and murders can. Nowhere in the Communist Manifesto does it say that anybody who disagrees with you should be shot.