<p>
</p>
<p>Because I believe in economic equality 
</p>
<p>How can you say it never works within human societies? </p>
<p>“It just doesn’t” is not an explanation to be quite honest.</p>
<p>I think I was meaning to say communism/socialism, rather than Marxism.
I don’t know too much about Marxism (and therefore am uninformed).</p>
<p>Its ok, Marxism is a form of communism. Its a way to get there. Please go ahead and still explain under the context of communism/socialism :)</p>
<p>Okay then. We’ve seen from the examples of Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc that the communist/socialist idea, while good in theory, is awful in practice. It allows completely insane leaders to kill their own and other citizens (e.g. Stalin’s purges which killed 17 million RUSSIANS, his own people) as well as harm the economy. The Soviet Union became weak economically because of the command economy style of economic leadership. This simply does not work on a permanent basis. Yes, it did work for the US during World War II, but that was a temporary, necessary measure to get America out of the Depression and into better times. China under Mao was terrible! Chinese citizens suffered through the Cultural Revolution (a neurotic and ridiculous invention of insane leaders operating under the banner of communism and patriotism), and the “proletariat” never ended up benefitting.
Communist/socialist thought may look good on paper (and it does, equality and equity are wonderful things) but ultimately, the innate nature of the human condition does not allow people to sacrifice their own personal benefits for the benefit of society. Every single example that I know of has failed, and miserably at that.</p>
<p>Yes, Marx uses the word, but he doesn’t really define the state he’s talking about except in vague terms. His interest is in defining capitalism. Not only have I read it, but I teach it, and am this semester.</p>
<p>That’s because he believed in dialects which said that natural contradicateding forces; prolteriat and bourgoise would lead the change. He describied in detail the certain economic and political enviorments of the pre-revolution to allow for a revolution of the masses. He did describe what a fundamental stateless and claseless society will be. There was no need to envision the specific everyday things because he knew the post-revolutionary society would developed based off there own indviualist qualities.</p>
<p>And you teach this?</p>
<p>I am about to go out but I will have a proper critque when I get back.</p>
<p>Marx was interested in the dialectical evolution of a classless society but had little interest in exploring that society. His main interest was the manner in which capitalism created distortions in the relations between people and alienation and exploitation.</p>
<p>I am not suggesting that there are no general prescriptives of what would follow capitalism in the natural evolution of material culture, but this isn’t the bulk of Marx’s work.</p>
<p>That is obvious, of course the bulk was in the critque of capitalism. He was not into making claims about everyday society in post revolution because he was attempting to make a change in the world, hence the works on the german and English workers. </p>
<p>He knew that a revolutionary post society would be structured in part to the characterist of the masses who take the majority of the action. Marx was busy trying to advocate in his own time and addressing the struggle of capitalism because he wanted to just show the guidelines of communism such as classless, stateless etc. “from each according…” those ideals and then have their own deveolpoed ways in each induvial way.</p>
<p>Hence why there are so many spilts of communism with Marxist basis.</p>
<p>If there are no classes within society, then what is the structure? You can see that in a small, preindustrial commune, a socialist society might be possible-- certain people farm, others make food etc. And this has been known to work before! </p>
<p>However, think of the vast and multifaceted nature of a society such as the U.S. The issue is that it is simply too large to manage without creating an enormous bureaucracy. And when that bureaucracy controls the goings on of the socialist state, then the state is no longer classless. Instead, there is a divide between the laborers and the government. And, inevitably, that divide is exploited, often in a worse manner than it would be in a capatilist society-- because in a capatalist society the classes are not permanently defined but are at least free and changeable (to a given extent). </p>
<p>And that is why a large-scale ‘pure’ marxist society has never existed and never will, and why you got these 20th century tyrants that profited from marxist ideology.</p>
<p>This is officially the silliest thread I have ever read on CC. But I guess that doesn’t mean I’m going to throw in my two cents…</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t really care whether or not Marx articulated an actual solution to the problems of capitalism. I’m more perplexed by the idea that anybody actually still thinks that Marxism or Communism is actually a good idea even in THEORY. The practical problems aside, I think the very premise of these theories is absurd. Humans are driven by incentive. And unfortunate as it may be, the incentives that drive us are usually self-interested and often short-sighted. Yet in a “communist” society, the incentive to work and produce is curtailed severely, if not outright eliminated. What is the point of cultivating talents or trying hard if the state (or in a truly theoretical setting, the “stateless” community) takes care of things for you? Have you ever really studied Mao’s China? Ever heard of the “Iron Rice Bowl” problem? It’s a perfect example of you get in a so-called communist society.</p>
<p>Moreover, it’s not as though you can simply convince people to “work just as hard” under a communist system out of the notion that if they contribute to a bigger pie, then everybody gets a bigger slice. The classic free-rider effect will kick in every time. So unless you’re planning on literally reshaping human nature, good luck with that whole communism thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a valid point in arguing against communism because the USSR was not communist it was state run capitalism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for arguing my point, under the banner of communism. Throwing a red flag up above your government building and calling yourself communist does not equate to true communism. Once again, not a valid point because there has never been a true communist society in today’s age. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your evidence that there is some “innate nature” to humans? If it is true that the supposed “human condition” does not allow for people to sacrifice their own benefits for the society then that begs the question, what about tribal/primitive communist societies? What about Feral children? Children who for some reason were abandoned into different environments, mostly wolves or dogs, that end up showing absolutely no human traits past genetics? That in itself refutes the idea that there is any human nature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While Cuba is not an example of communism, I will address that with this excerpt from the Independent</p>
<p>“Despite its scant resources, Cuba has fashioned education and health care systems that would be the envy of far richer countries. Illiteracy has been eradicated, while life expectancy at birth in Cuba is about the same as in the US, despite healthcare spending per capita one 20th the size of that of its giant neighbour.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are analyzing everything from the view of people under a capitalist society, things will change, the environment of the world will change, society will change, peoples perspectives will change in a communist society. You cant simply say communism cant work because things are too crazy right now in a capitalist society, that is a fundamental blunder that makes your argument baseless. Lets place this in some historical perspective, say you were a slave working on a farm in Rome could you ever foresee this empire and slave system wash away? No you would think that it would be impossible because you are analyzing it from the current environment of complete rule. But it did change! There were major changes that lead to the formation of a feudalistic society. And then now place yourself in the shoes of a serf, do you think he ever foresaw the fall of the manor system and the end of the rule of kings? No he never did because once again he was analyzing it from the current society. But it did change! Feudalism transformed into Capitalism through many revolutions and counter revolutions.</p>
<p>Marxist believe that we need capitalism before true communism can come about. We recognize the origins of capitalism and the need to have it in place before communism can come about. We are materialists at heart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chandler, Pawn, and I are future Ephs, thus discussing these ideas are never silly to us (I don’t know where you’re going crnchy, I would include you here if you were going to Williams)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My last post above this one to, Pawn, answers these points.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no innate human nature so yes I believe the workers in the revolution and eventually the communist society will be reshaping human nature :)</p>
<p>Machiavelli, I am an alum of Williams, class of 2008. I’m heading to Harvard Law this fall.</p>
<p>Pointing out that earlier modes of production were eventually replaced by other modes of production is not in and of itself a validation of Marx’s theory. </p>
<p>More importantly, one of your premises is that there is no “innate” human nature. Yet there is empirical evidence to support such an idea. The free-rider effect to which I alluded earlier is perhaps the most pertinent. And it certainly does not arise because every human being in the world has somehow been duped into buying into capitalism. It has existed throughout history. The fact that it has affected historical events in realms not simply economic but also political, social, and cultural as well is further evidence that it is an inherent part of the human experience.</p>
<p>Adding to my point, I would take your defense of Marxism and flip it on its head. The USSR and China cannot be used as examples of the theory’s folly because they’re not really communist? Then I would contend that modern capitalism cannot be used to support Marx’s theory because it’s not really capitalism-- at least not as Marx understood it. Modern capitalism, in evolving into its current form as a partially socialist model, has
accomplished two things. First, it has succeeded in lifting billions of people out of poverty. Second, arising from the first point, it has successfully co-opted all major sectors of society. Workers today have as much of a stake in the current system as anybody else. So from where will the revolution come?</p>
<p>
What justification can you give for this? Do you expect society to devolve to such a point that the technologies that we have today are no longer used. Think, for example, about modern medicine. Under a capatilist system, drug companies have an incentive to research and develop their products. Under the “faux-communist” (as you somehow implied) USSR, those companies would be run by a huge bureaucracy. But what about in your future communist society? Would you forgo modern medicine for the sake of an ideal?</p>
<p>
How do you propose that they become less crazy?</p>
<p>
Of course, societies change… they do all the time- but that does not mean that capatilism will suddenly become communism. Now I don’t think that the serfs spent much time thinking about the past or the future, but if you took an educated person of that time and explained the principles of buying and selling goods, I would be pretty sure that they would understand it and recognize it as basically being a slight modification on their own system. </p>
<p>
I simply don’t understand the last line-- if humans are materialists, then communism will never work. </p>
<p>However, it pretty much comes down to this (and you have pretty much said it yourself): to move into your proposed communist society of complete equality we would be forced to downgrade science and technology and other large structures built up by capatilism so that they become essentially nonexistent. And do you think that men could actually live peacefully, equally, and happily in such a world-- would it really be better than today?</p>
<p>I don’t have time right now to read all of this, but your criticisms of my idea weren’t valid in and of themselves. The fact that these communist societies weren’t truly communist is exactly my point: theoretical communism that you rave about has never been able to be implemented in society. Thus, as great as it sounds, it’s simply unfeasible. </p>
<p>crnchycereal has a point: There are no Marxist-capitalist or Marxist-communist societies. Marx’s ideas, though revolutionary, are not the be-all and end-all of all political ideas. A pure form of capitalism or communism does not work, and that’s why societies around the globe have been modifying them both to suit their specific needs.</p>
<p>I haven’t read most of these posts, but the China & USSR aspect of the discussion caught my attention. China and the USSR were not ideal countries for communism. Marx wanted an industrialized nation, like Germany, rather than largely agricultural countries (especially at the time of his manifesto) such as China and the USSR. Though they certainly did become communist nations, Marx’s theories didn’t apply to them (though he did hope modified versions of communism could eventually be applied there, once he tried the true form of communism elsewhere), because they were not the ideal industrialized states in which he believed a communist government would be most successful. To date, Marx’s ideal form of communism has never been tried.
That said, communism wouldn’t work in any country, because it does not account for one major point: human nature.</p>
<p>^^ Yeah people tend to forget that.</p>