Marxism

You know why this ideal has never been reached? Because it's so far removed from human reality that it can't be reached. That's the problem with Marx, he lived in his head in some kind of economic neverneverland, and that's why his theories spawned such evil in the world and will continue to wherever people try to implement his ideas. That's the fate of all utopian fantasies. They ARE fantasies. Marx had foolish notions about human nature based on pure theory, pure fantasy, and that can only create monsters.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith, It shouldn't even be in the discussion if I know the person the money goes to or not. As a christian, I simply give because it is the godly thing to do.Christians do not know the homeless at the corner of the street, yet willfully give him money, because they are called to be a imitator of christ. Why then, are they reluctant to give to anyone else, anywhere ? Are you saying that you would like more socialism inside christian communities, but are against such structures inside a country ? What I'm trying to say is that the christian right in america, of all the cultural/religious groups in the entire US, should be the very first to be ready to give their money to people in need. I mean, they basically do it all the time, everywhere. Yet when it is asked of them by the government, they resist it, cry out against it. This is both inconsistent with their own attitudes in other situations, but also inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible. Socialism inhibits nothing in all this. Here in quebec, the same motivations drives every person in their work. In fact we have a reputation of being amongst the most imaginative people in the world. People invent, people create, people create goods and services and make profits.Yet at the same time, these very same people, they pay to support social systems for the weak and the feeble, for the orphan and the widow. For the sick and the poor.This is because the economics system is still capitalists. This gives the people the motivations to thrive in their work and pursue excellence. I once heard a quote from an economics teacher saying ''capitalism works because people are greedy, and communism doesn't work because ... people are greedy''.The fact is not what the greed of people does in each system. Greed, in any economic system, will produce bad results. The question is to ask which system encourages a greedy behavior.I prefer doing the wrong thing by given, then by not giving.If the government is asking the population to give more money to heal the sick, and the people refuse to do so. THe problem is with the population, not the government.

Man, the ways of being misunderstood continue to astonish me. The context was a voluntary society among Christians. The emphasis was not meant to be on the WHO one gives to, the emphasis is on the VOLUNTARY aspect of it. We give to strangers all the time, but we GIVE to them, it shouldn't be stolen from us to give to strangers. Good grief. I give to people I see rummaging in the trash cans or standing with signs for help. All Christians do. {abe: The point about giving to strangers should be clarified -- the point is that you don't know WHAT you are supporting when your money is taken from you for some national program. We know we are going to be forced to pay for abortion in this new health care program for instance. Many things we would regard as immoral we may be required to finance. That is a violation of the individual conscience to do that to us.) I'm saying such an organization should be VOLUNTARY. Anyone who wants to can organize that way, I'm saying nothing against it, but it should be VOLUNTARY. The first Christians organized that way out of mutual love for the brethren. The first Christians were also prodigious givers and helpers to unbelievers. There is no merit in a "giving" taht is simply taken from you without the invovlement of your will. I think you misunderstand. They are crying out against the concept of government COERCION, which is NOT giving. They are crying out against the CORRUPTION AND DISTORTION of giving, turning it into an obligation, and one that will so separate people from the object of the "gift" that it will not be a gift at all. It will be a theft that people won't even think about after a while. Fine, you don't have very stringent socialism there. Right, and all of them do it from Christian love, right? Give me a break. Most of them do it just becauase it's required by the government and they don't even think about who gets it. It's taken from them without any participation of their own minds in the process. They are deprived of the engagement of their will and sympathy in the act of giving. They are being stolen from. But they too benefit from the government programs and that's probably where their minds are really, on self, not on the poor weak and feeble. Fine, sometimes a degree of socialism doesn't kill the human spirit. Nevertheless if the point is to be sure that the needy are taken care of it DOES deprive the giver of the actual act of giving and turns it into an impersonal mechanical thing.I've heard that saying about greed and capitalism and communism (the quote disappeared in my edits somehow) and there is a bit of truth in it, but I don't think the basic function of capitalism has anything to do with greed at all. People work hard to make money under capitalism. Greed wants to win the lottery while lying around all day. In fact, there's more greed in people wanting government to take care of them than there is in capitalism where people expect to work hard to make their living. Capitalism doesn't promote greedy behavior. It promotes hard work, ambition and creative solutions to problems. Greed can misuse any political or economic system. Any. If "the government" want to encourage us to give to heal the sick, let them encourage us to do it by other means than sending it to the government. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith claims: Faith, what percentage of the poor that receive benefits in the US do you think are greedy in the sense of just wanting to lie around and take the money? It's been overwhelmingly my experience that poor people want to work, they do want to have a dignified life. Sure there are a few bad apples in the barrel, but in my experience, the poor are incredibly bereft of the tools and connections to advance out of their position. They want a hand up, not a hand out.As for the "filthy" rich not having a greediness rating as high as the "lottery-ticket lazy-ass" poor, where are you getting your numbers? From personal experience like me?Anecdotal evidence is just that. Neither side has much of a leg to stand on.Do you have a study by some objective source? What would be an objective source on these matters? Oh, Bernie Madoff,
What are you made of,
That you went and made off
With all their money?If you want to see Greed Unchained, I invite you to visit the New York Stock Exchange some day. What a filthy mess. Condoned Organized Gambling. No wonder Jesus turned the tables over back then - only now, it's even worse!

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Except one comes out of charity and the other is mandatory. There is a distinct difference between charitable donations directly going to the poor versus having no say in where the money goes and it goes towards something that doesn't feed the poor. That is a complete fabrication of how things work. Capitalism is consistent with human nature and the concept of reciprocity. You have something I want (your product), and I have something you want (my money). It is an exchange system and nothing more.Marxism is not about the "empathy of people." A more accurate description is that it is about the collective of people, operating as a cohesive unit where terms of private property and class statuses don't exist. Of course, it doesn't take long to see the cracks. Its bloody self-destruction is told and retold countless times, making it one of the biggest abject failures in history.Marxism doesn't work because it is inconsistent with human nature, much less a workable economic system.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Sigh. Speaking from your arse again? Name one communist country. Hint: Cuba, Russia, China are not / have never been communist (decisions are not made collectively, and there are certainly upper classes that "have" versus lower classes that "have not"). Their are hundreds (thousands?) of tribes in Africa STILL living in communist societies. Since pre-history. Massively successful.Tribalism has also sometimes been called "primitive communism".
Tribalism - WikipediaThe San Tribe
it is estimated that they have been living here for the last 30,000 years.
The San population have a relative lack of a leadership institution, they therefore have no chiefs or system of leadership and individual decision making is part of their culture.
Bushmen / San Tribe | First People of Africa | Namibia

Really? So anyone can just call themselves anything? Ok. So then you would consider the Ku Klux Klan a Christian organization, right?I'm not spliting hairs with ICANT. He claimed that Devils Advocate was buying into government propoganda and that he wasn't. My point was that he too was buying into propaganda by calling the movement in the US Marxism and Communism, when in fact they are not. It was Russian propaganda (Leninism) and believing something different means you believe the propaganda.One thing would be if a few details were slightly different. Ok. I could see your point then. But Leninism was completely against true Marxist values, to the point where it goes directly against it's fundamental ideologies. In the same way that the KKK goes against fundamental Christian ideals.Believing Leninism is Marxism would be the same as believing the KKK is Christian just because they call themselves that.How would it sit with you if I argued that Christianity was garbage because the KKK represents it so poorly? Wouldn't you point out to me that, just because the KKK calls themselves Christian, doesn't mean the are real Christians. And in fact, Christianity has a lot of great values that the KKK doesn't practice and goes directly against. You would also point out that true Christianity was a good thing when followed properly. Right? That would be your position, am I correct?Well, here I am doing the same with Marxism. See my point?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Why do you think no nation has ever implemented Marxism as I think you and I would largely agree it to be?

True Marxism is the end result of getting rid of the classes and the state, so a "nation" would still hold power. Therefore it literally cannot be Marxist. That's why it's frustrating to hear Marx's name equated with Lenin, he would have been against Lenin and his version of communism.Just to point out, Leninism and capitalism are not that different. People in the US were against the Russian lead "communist" movement but really, US politics closely resembled it.- Oni

(formerly LindaLou)
Hi to everyone, I've been reading here and there but not posting because I am going to night school -- lots and lots of reading to do. But some of the comments in this topic truly beggar belief.Faith, there's a book I've taught many times called Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck. (He also wrote The Grapes of Wrath.) Steinbeck was in California during the Great Depression and saw how people were living. In 1930s America there were few welfare programmes. If you didn't find work, you lost your home and faced starvation. Migrant workers like George and Lennie in the book had no friends, no family, and moved from place to place in order to do back-breaking physical labour for very little money. Candy, an old man on the ranch, had been maimed in an accident and was working as a cleaner, but his ability to do even the smallest job in the ranch was fading with age. His biggest fear was that he would be fired any day, and would then be begging on the streets. These may be characters in a fictional book, but they were based on the social reality of that time.No rich Americans were giving to the poor in the sense you seem to wistfully wish they would, nor are they doing so now, nor will they. With the exception of a few philanthropists, people who get wealthy in our society do not tend to be kind-hearted, empathic people who have the benefit of their fellow humans at heart. More of a general (though not universal) rule is that the higher up the boss, the more of a greedy, hard-hearted b*stard he or she is. Socialism exists to force people like this to contribute to society because they won't do it willingly.I would also question this statement, Are you telling me that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett work harder than the person with a day job at Wal-mart and a cleaning job at night who struggles to support their family on minimum wage? Which of these has earned all their money "fairly and squarely"? And what sort of support do you think there should be for someone who has lost their job through no fault of their own and cannot find another one -- is that just their tough luck, because to help them through tax money is "stealing" from people who work?Like others here, I am also wondering if you will say anything about the quotations presented by Horowitz. He's clearly racist, yet you seem to be holding him up as a shining example of . . . something. Do you condone his beliefs?

What good is it to give to Peter Popoff or to shady person standing on the street corner claiming the money is going to a charity when really they are nefarious people? Rather than where it is alleged to be going, to the poor, it goes to themselves. It defeats the purpose of giving to the poor and gives to the greedy bastard who, under the pretense of giving to the poor, really just steals your money. An imiatator of Christ wouldn't deliberately be a co-conspirator in someone's misery, I would think. If you give money away, just so you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done, all the while knowing that money will be spent on drugs or alcohol, that would make you complicit. I think a sensible Christian would give wisely to those in actual need, versus feeding the flesh (addiction). They certainly should, but lets be honest. Many of them are nothing more than crooks who found a way to extort gullible people out of their money -- kind people who just want to help others. These people just help themselves. Look at how much gold is in the Vatican or in the pockets of the TBN network. It's disgusting! I say, screw the middle man, because there is an excellent chance the middle man wants to screw you. If you want to feed the homeless, donate your time and money at a homeless shelter. Why would we need a mediator to do that? What you've stated about innovation, inventiveness, and people creating goods and services for profit is descriptive of a capitalist system. Socialism, figuring out the failure of a total communist system, took elements capitalism and elements of communism and merged them in an attempt to take the best of both worlds.I notice you are shifting goals here. You go from defending Marxism as being a "biblical principle" to discussing socialism. What is the topic of this thread? Smart professor. This is a fact: The wealthiest nation on earth, the United States, which is the poster child for a capitalist system is the most giving nation on the planet by private donation. That is a fact, not hearsay. More to the point, the parts of the nation that are the most "blue" states (Democrats who prefer the redistribution of wealth) are the most ungenerous. The #1 most giving state is also one of the most poor. Mississippi. The least generous? My state, New Hampshire. In fact 7 blue states in a row account for the least amount of donation. -- SourceThe two most chariatble people in the world, who happen to both be the richest in the world, is Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Two men who embody capitalist ideals are the world's most generous. That is completely inconsistent with your comment that capitalism "promotes greed."There no connection. Greed is greed, seems to me.I prefer doing the wrong thing by given, then by not giving. The problem is with both, seems to me.I do find it interesting that you are equating Marxism with Socialism. I think that is a startling admission. So now I am curious where you are going with this.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Precisely my point, Dronester, thank you. A true communist society is a fantasy that is inconsistent with reality. Are you comparing communal living with the economic/political scope and scale of the USSR or the PRC? You do understand that as populations grow, technologies increase, the market expands, that you have now shifted away from a "tribe" to a nation, right?To compare one to the other is ridiculous.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

You sidestepped/backpeddled/obfuscated/strawmanned/moved goalposts. In other words, typical Hyro: You SPECIFICALLY asserted above that communism's self-destruction is told COUNTLESS times. One of the BIGGEST failures. When I asked for just one example, just ONE, you pull the ol' No true Scotsman falacy: Huh?I think this translates to: "I was/am talking out of my arse". (Hyro, I really need to limit my time debating with you. I could be doing something much more rewarding like checking the tension on my clothes-pin springs) Wow, uber strawman! No, I am not comparing communal living wiith the scale of NON-COMMUNIST countries like USSR or PRC. USSR and PRC are NOT communist countries, perhaps you missed my first post. Here it is again: Please pay attention, SPECIFICALLY, I contested AND SHOWED examples that your SPECIFIC assertion "Marxism is inconsistent with human nature" is very, very wrong.

Maybe my question is better phrased as follows:1) Are there any examples of sizeable populations having successfully implemented Marxism?
2) If not why not?By sizeable population I mean one of national rather than family or tribal scales. I would agree that they are less different than people think. Additionally the notion of a supreme leader of the Stalin type (and associated state hierachy) would seem totally at odds with the very idea of communism in the sense of more bottom up communal decision making and self governance of the people for the people by the people (or something like that).Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That's because no attempt at creating the communist society has ever worked. But lets not play dumb, Dronester, and pretend that no one has tried to implement it, even if it is was and continues to be a lesson in futility. Are you really going to deny that East Germany or the USSR didn't attempt to implement communism, referred to it as communism, and failed under the banner of communism? Why don't you just debate the points instead of acting infantile? Oh, then do tell, what are (were) they?This must be your version: If communism proves to be a disaster, those who implemented it must have been doing something wrong, in which case, it couldn't possibly be attributed to communism as an ideal. Hint: Many have tried to implement the marxist ideals and ALL have failed. The reason they failed is because it couldn't possibly work, and lo and behold, has proven that it can't work over and over again. By pointing to African tribes? First of all, what is your measure of "success" and secondly, could such a success be attributed on a massive scale with millions of people? If so, why has it not been accomplished?I realize that the failure of communism is a very sensitive subject for communist and communist sympathizers, but honestly you don't need to be upset with the messenger. If the recipient of the message can't look at history and come to such an inescapable conclusion, that's no deficiency on the part of the messegner.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston