Communism ~

[ComradeBadger]

Marxist theory simply can't be applied in this day and age, in fact it's doomed to failure.

Marx's worldview and plans were based on a 19th Century worldview where labour was a country's main source of income - nowadays and for a long time this has not been the case. The main source of income for a country is innovation if a country focusses simply on labouring, then it will stagnate.

Communism in it's pure form is far from an ideal society - why should a brain surgeon be payed the same as a road sweeper.. are they both as socially useful? Who can decide who is more socially useful?

 

[Lemonking]

yup it sucks that the only "good" Hitler tryed 2 do ,to keep away Bolschewism
he's still a crazy wacko/murderer

 

[Gray Fox]

Ok, this came out of the Blue.

Anyway, as far as Marx is concerned people should be payed by how much and how hard they work, if a roadsweeper works as much as a surgeon, they should get paid the same is his logic, weather you agree with it or not is up to you.

And I think this quote is in place

'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite' - JK Galbraith

 

[Solaris]

Oh, thanks for this

Well, the vast majority of jobs are nessacary, it doesnt matter how much skill or studying is needed, without these jobs our society would collapse. Refuse colectors, its a nessacary job.

Now at the moment, the wealth is still produced by the workers, but innovation is required to compete with the world market. The surplus wealth of the workers however currently goes to the rich, who do nothing, and contribute nothing to the economy.

Under marxism we would still have bosses, but they would be voted in by the workers, and would be paid the same as the workers. But I hear you say its not fair if a sewage cleaner gets paid the same as floor sweaper, sewage cleaning is alot harder. In cases where one job is very hard, and not enough workers want to do it, the hours you have to work would be reduced, so you get paid the same, but still do as hard work as a professional sitter downer. Only you do more hard work in less time, so you work for a shorter amount of time.

I bet youre thinking what incentive would there be to be a doctor, when you get just as much doing a job that doesnt require hours at University, I bet you think youve got me with that point, alot of people do. But if you ask doctors and scientists and mathematicians, why they do what they do the answer isn't that they want the money, its that they have a thirst for knowledge, and like helping people, or like maths and such.

Well Ive speant all day in the politics forum, I need a break. To the gym!



Solaris

 

[ComradeBadger]

It's a politics forum isn't it? Can I not discuss political theory?

Grey Fox - do you not see that this removes drive? Why study and be a brain surgeon, if you can bum around and then just be a road sweeper, and get paid the same?

Marxist theory is mainly concerned with the economic base concept and state control.


Oh, and Solaris - why did the Soviet Union suffer the brain drain then?

 

[Solaris]

It was in a economic crisis, you can't eat books.

And read what I said to explane the incentive.

 

[kirovman]

My avatar and Soviet Russia jokes want me to endorse it, but I say nay or noes!

True communism is unattainable, as is a true democracy.

However communism depends on a totalitarian regime to control every aspect of citizens lives, which I don't believe is a good thing.

Europe is probably the closest in the world to true communism, or some kind of socialism, with the free healthcare systems and welfare systems. There are still rich and poor here, but people are a lot more equal than in other parts of the world, however these societies are more dominated by the middle class, rather than the proletariat.

I wouldn't say force everyone to be equal, but I would say that governments should make an effort to make sure the rich-poor divide isn't stretched. Obviously you can't have true equality in that sense, because there'd be no motivation to achieve higher, since you're only going to have the same wage as the street cleaners.

It's all about balance and stability, neither of which communism provides.

Communism is too EXTREME!

 

[Gray Fox]

It's a politics forum isn't it? Can I not discuss political theory?

Grey Fox - do you not see that this removes drive? Why study and be a brain surgeon, if you can bum around and then just be a road sweeper, and get paid the same?

Marxist theory is mainly concerned with the economic base concept and state control.


Oh, and Solaris - why did the Soviet Union suffer the brain drain then?

I do, I'm just explaing why Marx thought they should get paid the same. Besides i would not IMO remove the drive completly, if I had to chose between getting paid 30.000 a year to work as lets say an actor, surgeon. VS 30.000 to clean shit for the rest of my live. i would still study hard for a couple of years so I can do what I want.

Oh and the reason I thought, it came out of the Blue is, well cause this has been dscusse a lot of time here and pretty much everywhere else, so I did not ex[ect it. It was kind of random seeing this thread amidst of all the others.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Precisely kirov.

Solaris. I'm currently studying History at university, am I doing it for the money? No, I'm doing it becuase I want to learn more about the past and how to interpret it.

However, being a Doctor or an accountant is a hell of a lot harder than sweeping the streets, and a lot more taxing on the mind.

 

[kirovman]

It was kind of random seeing this thread amidst of all the others.

I find it a nice change.

Also, in terms of economic systems, I think free market capitalist systems are better for growth on the national and individual level than the socialist systems.

 

[Solaris]

Precisely kirov.

Solaris. I'm currently studying History at university, am I doing it for the money? No, I'm doing it becuase I want to learn more about the past and how to interpret it.

However, being a Doctor or an accountant is a hell of a lot harder than sweeping the streets, and a lot more taxing on the mind.

Less work hours then.

Its a common myth that communism makes every one the same, it doesnt it promotes difference. It doesnt give anyone a head start becuase they were born rich, every one gets to life the same qualitie of life. They will however have more free time, be able to afford better things. They wont live in a shack becuase its cheap theyl live somehwere decent and be able to afford to decorate it.

 

[kirovman]

Less work hours then.

Its a common myth that communism makes every one the same, it doesnt it promotes difference. It doesnt give anyone a head start becuase they were born rich, every one gets to life the same qualitie of life. They will however have more free time, be able to afford better things. They wont live in a shack becuase its cheap theyl live somehwere decent and be able to afford to decorate it.

But then people say, hey I want a sports car. I want a bigger house. I want a holiday in the tropics. I want a widescreen TV.

But they can't, because they get a very small salary, they don't have any opportunity for growth.

So they quit their brain surgery, since they aren't advancing as an individual. So productivity of the nation goes down as everyone in high level jobs quit.

Communism is flawed as it fails to examine human psychology, and it presumes everyone will put the state before themselves.

 

[gick]

I think you are probably right about Marxism being doomed. The only way I can see his worldwide proletariat revolution happening is if we see a scenario similar to that in Jack London's 'Iron Heel', where corporate interests have essentially created an oligarchic regime throught the world (leading to a revoultion of the working class), and the only way that would happen is if the Free Market got a little too free.


As to whether or not marxism would work, that all depends on whether you believe that human beings are essentially selfish and greedy, or whether you think that they are only that way due to socialisation. I'm optimistic, so I believe in the latter.

And BTW, i'd recommend people to read Marx and Engels 'Communist Manifesto'. Its an interesting book, and it helped me realize just how tragically wrong they got things in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.

 

[ComradeBadger]

As I said before Marxist theory places far too much emphasis on labour - it also assumes that the economic base is the main factor in determining political leanings and actions.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I agree with everything Kirovman has said already basically - I believe the best system for a country to run on is a free market but with state support and decent policies making sure even the worst-off citizens are well-off enough.

I would also like to add that communism, due to human nature, requires a centralised regime to keep the system in place, which of course defeats the whole point of communism in the first place.

 

[gick]

However communism depends on a totalitarian regime to control every aspect of citizens lives, which I don't believe is a good thing.

Seriously, dude. Read the book. At the end of the day, Marx was essentially an Anarcho-Syndicalist. The idea of a communist society was that after a period of time to allow for collectivisation, the state would disappear entirely. Like I said, the USSR really, really ****ed up.

 

[kirovman]

Seriously, dude. Read the book. At the end of the day, Marx was essentially an Anarcho-Syndicalist. The idea of a communist society was that after a period of time to allow for collectivisation, the state would disappear entirely. Like I said, the USSR really, really ****ed up.

You assume that there is a government which would not be able to **** it up? Nice idea, no consideration for human psychology.

Also sulkdodds post above yours addresses this. And if the government mysteriously disappeared after the system had been set up, you think people would continue living in sunshine and lollipops land? Humans are self-serving essentially (basic survival instinct of nature), and they are going to want the best things for themselves.

 

[gick]

And IMO, the best possible system would be a Social Democracy, similar to what they have in Sweden. That way you get all of the benefits of Capitalism (innovation, competition etc) but none of the downfalls (Monopolization, exploitation) and all the benefits of Marxism (more equality, same standards of education/medicine for everybody) and none of its downfalls (lack of economic freedom, less of an incentive to work)

 

[Sulkdodds]

Sounds good to me. I want to live in Sweden damn't.

 

[kirovman]

And IMO, the best possible system would be a Social Democracy, similar to what they have in Sweden. That way you get all of the benefits of Capitalism (innovation, competition etc) but none of the downfalls (Monopolization, exploitation) and all the benefits of Marxism (more equality, same standards of education/medicine for everybody) and none of its downfalls (lack of economic freedom, less of an incentive to work)

I think that's fair enough. There's enough balance in the system to improve the lives of the majority.

 

[ríomhaire]

Capitalism won't work forever either. More and more things are being automated. There will be mass unemployment.

 

[gick]

You assume that there is a government which would not be able to **** it up? Nice idea, no consideration for human psychology.

Also sulkdodds post above yours addresses this. And if the government mysteriously disappeared after the system had been set up, you think people would continue living in sunshine and lollipops land? Humans are self-serving essentially (basic survival instinct of nature), and they are going to want the best things for themselves.

If humans are indeed essentially self serving, then it wouldnt work. But if that attitude is due to socialization, and not nature (and bear in mind early humans did live in herds/packs/troops/whatever and not on their own), then the period of state collectivisation would be all that is needed to make people think about society before themselves.

Im not saying 'of course it would work!', and im not entirely convinced it would, im just trying to explain the logic behind it.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, I understand what the logic behind it is, but I just think the analysis provided in Marx's paper is incomplete.

I don't think any pure system can work (ie pure capitalism, pure socialism etc) I think the systems need to be saturated with other necessary elements to provide the best practical solution.

Also another thing about applied communism is that they banned religion (the opiate of the masses) to replace it with belief in the state and a bright prosperous future, which essentially made communism a religion in itself and a new opiate of the masses.

 

[gick]

Capitalism won't work forever either. More and more things are being automated. There will be mass unemployment.

Indeed. But if there is one think we can learn from History it is that you can never predict what will happen in the future. Marx was sure that the working class would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie, and that hasnt happened (yet?). Hitler was convinced that the Aryan race and an 'Iron Will' would triumph, and that hasnt happened (yet?). Francis Fukayama proclaimed 'the end of history' after the fall of communism, saying that western Democracy had triumphed and mankind had reached the best possible political system. Im sure Bin Laden and co would have something to say about that.

 

[gick]

I don't think any pure system can work (ie pure capitalism, pure socialism etc) I think the systems need to be saturated with other necessary elements to provide the best practical solution.

Spot on.


Yay, 100 Posts!

 

[Flyingdebris]

Lets not forget that one of the basis' of communism is the idea that people are stupid and child-like and must be guided by the self titled communist elite who consider themselves to know what we need better than ourselves.

Silly peasant, you don't need that farm your family has been working on for generations, that is being greedy and selfish, come let us take that farm from you for your own good!

 

[Gray Fox]

Again,

'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite' - JK Galbraith

Socialism is not an extreme of ot's own like capitalism or communism, it is a system taking advantage of the best of capitalism and communism.

Capitalism like communism never worked, before you critisize commusim try to first answer the question why it was invented in the first place if everything under capitalism was OK.
The anwser is offcourse that it wasn't.

 

[kirovman]

I'm pretty sure capitalism and socialism are opposing economic principles.
(Capitalism where everything is privately owned, Socialism where everything is state owned)

Whereas Communism adapts socialism a bit, adds totalitarianism to the mix and some more extremeness. It's effectively a brach of socialism.
Democracy tends to adapt to capitalism and free market economies, but you can indeed get socialist democracies.

There's a lot of variety in the systems, you can get a moderation between socialism and capitalism.

 

[The Monkey]

Communism, like every other ideology, changes. To today's communists, communism means equals rights and opportunities, solidarity and justice. I do not agree with communism, but I would by far live in a (democratic) communist country than a conservatist one.

 

[Gray Fox]

I'm pretty sure capitalism and socialism are opposing economic principles.
(Capitalism where everything is privately owned, Socialism where everything is state owned)

Whereas Communism adapts socialism a bit, adds totalitarianism to the mix and some more extremeness. It's effectively a brach of socialism.
Democracy tends to adapt to capitalism and free market economies, but you can indeed get socialist democracies.

There's a lot of variety in the systems, you can get a moderation between socialism and capitalism.

No communism is where everything is state owqed, like I said socialism is a mix between kapitalism and communism. And there are as much, if not more kapitalist totalitarian regimes as there are communist, and socialist.

 

[Maxi]

Odd thread.


-Maxi

 

[jverne]

Precisely kirov.

Solaris. I'm currently studying History at university, am I doing it for the money? No, I'm doing it becuase I want to learn more about the past and how to interpret it.

However, being a Doctor or an accountant is a hell of a lot harder than sweeping the streets, and a lot more taxing on the mind.

don't want to discourage you but you'll soon find out that the past is a waste of time! i'm not saying that its not interesting...but it's quite pointless!
nobody really cares about the past altough they should! you'll see, you'll see!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[jverne]

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

emmm...you're talking to me?

 

[kirovman]

No communism is where everything is state owqed, like I said socialism is a mix between kapitalism and communism. And there are as much, if not more kapitalist totalitarian regimes as there are communist, and socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

don't want to discourage you but you'll soon find out that the past is a waste of time! i'm not saying that its not interesting...but it's quite pointless!
nobody really cares about the past altough they should! you'll see, you'll see!

Learning from history helps you avoid the same mistakes in the future. As a physicist I should be vehemently against history students, but actually, I recognise the studying of history's importance.