Marxism

No, there has never been a nation that has achieved this. Why? There are many reasons.First, Marx's original theory has been re-written by ever single movement that has tried to implement it. So that's one reason, the true ideology behind Marxism has been lost. You can't implement something that doesn't exist, or exists in a completely different form. I don't know of any true Marxist movement.Another reason was that capitalism is the approved method by the wealthy class, or the class with power, in the US and most of the Western World - winning the war favored capitalism. Since then, there have been many measures used to indoctrinate societies into this form of economical/social system.The only thing that comes close to resembling Marxism are unions. If you consider them "a sizable population" then this would be an example of it working.- Oni

I would suggest that history shows us that would-be authoritarian dictatorships either play the tribal nationalist card or the "power to the people" card to dupe the populace into letting them take control. The end results bear little sembleance to Marxism as I understand it to be conceptually.Now the question as to whether a large (i.e. nation sized) population could implement a genuinely Marxist system is I think an interesting one. What I do know is that it is not in the interests of those who do hold the power and wealth under any present (or past) system to let that happen so I think it desperately unlikely to be genuinely atempted anytime soon.As for the human nature argument - People do operate under the influence of greed. But they equally operate under the influence of a strong community spirit where there exists a community that one genuinely associates oneself with. People regularly give up their time and money to help others. Just saying people are greedy ignores the other half of the equation. It is how effectively you can harness and organise that community spirit without it seeming to the individual that their resources are being taken from them to be redistributed to a faceless machine with no obvious benefit to anyone that can be identified as one of their own community. And I suspect that this probelm increases as the size of the population of the community increases.But maybe in this communication and global age that population size issue is not as insurmountable as we might first think. Power to the people.................

This depends on who's definition of communism you go with.If it's Marx's version of communism then no, the USSR and EG didn't attempt to implement it.If it's Lenin's or Stalin's version then yes, obviously these have been tried before and have not succeeded.But that's just it: one is the original form of communism created by Marx and Engel, the other is a re-written version (still with the same name) but completely different so it can't mean the same thing.The versions of communism that haven't worked are not true Marxism/Communism. Now, will Marx's real version of communism work? Who knows. It has never been tried, and the only example one can point to are tribes. Maybe unions (at least in principle).- Oni

I would be interested in what you think of my response to Hyro above on my own thoughts on this. I think unions can be sizeable populations. But that they are limited in other ways. They tend to group like-minded people together on a few obvious issues. I suspect that the unity found in such circumstances would rapidly disintegrate if the remit of that grouping was necessarily wider and where there was more conflict of group and individual interests.All members of a union will be united in gaining better general pay and conditions for all members of the union from the employers. But how long with that cohesion last if the question of distributing limited resources fairly to all members based on contribution to the community comes up? Who decides the criteria of fairness and contribution? It is a different ball game running a society by distributing fixed limited resources to campaigning for more resources for all members from an outisde source.

Hyro, Wow, damn funny stuff Hyro. If I was drinking milk, it would surely be snorted outward. U R a funny guy! A regular Billy Crystal.Seriously, I think Oni's concurrent replies are redundant to mine. Please re-read his recent posts, especially #48. But to iterate, there has never been a Marxist communist nation (REAL communism):The USSR and PRC was/is a parliamentary-dictatorship. Never, ever a Marxist communist nation (REAL communism).In message 233, WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment: Oni writes of NON-COMMUNIST Cuba. (sorry I don't know how to link.): If something has NEVER been tried, it cannot be deemed a failure.

Where you and I may differ is that dictatorships are the inevitable result. One could not argue that idealistically Marxism is inglorious, just completely unrealistic because it would require total agreement of the proletariats. "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." I think what is interesting is that if it is so marvelous, why no one can seem to pull it off. The obvious reason is that it is not rooted in reality. To me it is no different than the concept of utopia. The utopian dream inevitably dissolved in to a dystopian nightmare where the latter national condition is worse than the former. I agree. The question is what greed actually is, because I doubt there is a consensus. Greed in one instance could mean self-preservation. Like it is with all animals, self-preservation is one of the strongest instincts in nature. Greed could also mean an unhealthy obsession with the excess of wealth in such a way that it deprives others. No economic system creates greed, regardless. I absolutely could not agree more. You have succinctly summarized the condition of the problem. Regardless of how well intended it may be, the application of such a system is not realistic.What is realistic is that each person works towards self-interest. All animals, even herding animals, do this. At the same time that same instinct tells them that reciprocity is more advantageous to their survival. Altruism is then born. It wasn't forced, it wasn't demanded, it is given of one's own volition.No system has more thouroughly extricated people from the mire of poverty than a simplistic form of capitalism. Communism is a ruinous and oppressive form of government that invariably leads to corruption, to rampant poverty (the redistribution of poverty, NOT wealth), and self-imploding system.

---

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

Ahh, yeah. Pity about those tribal societies in Africa. They have been imploding for over 30,000 years.

Well, let's look at it objectively. Marx and Engels essentially believed that the problem primarily is with "class struggle." This already is leading to self-refutation, but I am curious to see if anyone will pick up on it.The pertinent questions are, if it is so theoretically advantageous, and you say no one has actually tried it, why have they not tried it? And if it could work, how would it work? Is it compatible with reality?

---

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

Extrapolate a small tribe to the size and population of the United States. Do you have any sense of realism?

---

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

I'll extrapolate on my own way of giving. Usually when a homeless asks for money on the street, I ask what it is for. If they answer me food, I usually just find a nearby Mcdonalds or grocery store and buy them some food. In other cases, such as a guy asking money to be able to buy a metro ticket, I don't give. Because it is so blatantly obvious he's lying.These are probably the two most common examples I encounter. In the pasr I would never give, usually because I had heard these stories about ''homeless'' who begged on the street, but actually had houses and a car etc. Doing over 50k a year by begging. Because of stories like that, I didn't give for a long time. But then I realized what I said earlier: I prefer being wrong in giving, then being wrong in not giving. I try to never give actual money to a homeless that seems to have drug addictions (and usually it's pretty obvious). As I said earlier, I'll give them food usually. And it actually works. Come live here for two years and benefit from the health care system, and you would agree with me. It's because I'm not as much interested in Marxism than in socialism, since I live in a semi-socialist environment. Sorry about that it wasn't voluntary. I think this is caused by the christian mentality/background of america, much more then the economic system. See above.

Askth the man who refuses to use the true/REAL definition of communism.Edited by dronester, : clarity

You are right to a very large extent. Although I would not attribute it solely to a "Christian mentality," there is a definite correlation between sociology and giving. The other huge factor is the economic ability to give that the US has. The US, because of its strong capitalist market, has the capital in which to be generous in the first place. That cannot be over-stated or brushed aside as inconsequential.To further drive home the point, I offer economist Adam Smith's model over economist Karl Marx's model, in the same way I would hold Milton Friedman's over Paul Krug's. " The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.

​

On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

---

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

Why? Why in a system that is called communism must there be an elite who make all the decisions for the community regardless of the wishes of the community? Whether this is true or false it is indisputably in the interests of those who currently hold the majority of the wealth and power in the world (or indeed any given nation) to foster that belief. How indoctrinated are we by those who currently hold power and influence to believe that any other system whereby their power and influence is removed must be idiotic and unachievable? Who tells us this is the case? Why might they be saying that? Which is arguably (some might say blatantly factually) what we have now. Indeed. But altruism to who? Those with whom we have a shared social connection. Those who could be us but for different circumstance. I think the question is how far that social connection can be realistically establshed in a large population. Except that (arguably) the wealth of some comes at the expense of the poverty of many others. Those in the first/Western world would not enjoy the degree of material wealth that we do but for the low wages, poor conditions and exploitation of materials and natural resources of those in the more poverty stricken areas of the world. Capitalism does breed innovation and wealth. But it doesn't do this without cost. That cost should not be ignored. This was part of Marx's thesis as I understand it. Communism as it has been practised has been little more than an excuse for dictatorial rule in the false name of the people. Whether or not Marxism could be successfully applied to a large population remains a question that I don't think those with power, wealth and influence will ever let us truly discover. Because it might just work and for them that would be truly catastrophic.

You missed the point of me defining and telling you the difference between communism and Socialism.Taxes to fund government programs and regulating business in order to keep them from abusing and doing harm to other members of society IS NOT Marxist or communist it is socialist. Please learn the difference. These words have specific meanings. If you don't understand what they are then how are we to understand what you're trying to say?Communism is not socialism.Calling a socialist a communist is like calling a libertarian a Nazi. That's how big the difference is.(yes Nazi party ideas are to the "right" not the "left" but are a huge leap from libertarian)

Do you mean nobel laureate Paul Krugman? If it is Krugman you mean, what are your problems with Krugman?You might want to read some real world critiques of Friedman and the failings of his "philosophies".

quote:

---

But for the most part both public figures and the media bought Friedman's mythology, never stopping to look critically at the effect it had on America. Here are a just few things that have happened since America's elite swallowed the Friedman myth:

​

- Real income down
- Real manufacturing wages down
- Top one percent's share of wealth up
- Income gap between rich and poor up
- Family indebtedness up
- Bottom forty percent's share of wealth down
- CEO pay as a percent of average workers' pay up
- Workers covered by pensions down
- Workers covered by health plans down
- Age at which one can receive Social Security down
- Personal bankruptcies up
- Housing foreclosures up
- Median rent up

---

Source

quote:

---

Milton Friedman did win a Nobel Prize, however this was for his work on interest rates, not for his conservative and extreme views on society and regulation. This Nobel Prize victory has been trotted out as support for his ideas by people who are largely anti-intellectual and do not know how the Nobel Prize is awarded and don’t know why or for what he won the prize. ..

​

In his world markets are perfect, and the only thing that gets in the way of the perfection is the government and other non-market mechanisms like unions (that is monopoly power from the bottom rather than monopoly power from the top). Friedman viewed any restriction on corporate power as an interference in the market. While people are distancing themselves from this type of talk now (post financial crisis) for decades now MBAs and economists have been mindlessly quoting Friedman to promote all manner of deregulation. Now we have the deregulated financial markets that have been so desired by conservatives, and our system is melting down...

​

Large corporations are against anything that gets in the way of them maximizing their profits. Environmental laws, labor laws, government rules on competition do this. These checks on corporate power exist because of a long history of abuse on the part of corporations that operate in an unconstrained marketplace. Having to argue that regulation is important, that labor laws are important, that the environment is important should not really be necessary at this late date in human history. However, Milton Friedman used his academic perch and dogmatic writing to argue that these things had not place in a fully functioning economy.

---

Source

quote:

---

But very few of Friedman's most cherished proposals were ever put in to practice. Of those that where - such as monetarism - almost all turned into failure...
today no mainstream academic economist is a monetarist and Friedman left no lasting school of academic heirs. Even the "Chicago school" at the University of Chicago has waned in influence, eclipsed by the mighty MIT army of economists that followed Samuelson.

---

Source

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts