Originally posted by David TebbThis is about socialism:
I think your imaginary friend has been quite generous! How many kids get the chance to earn $10 for handing out a few glasses of lemonade?
On a more serious note, if you think it’s so easy to set up a business, run it at a vast profit, while paying your employee’s peanuts – go ahead and do it.
In your scenario, the friend seemed ...[text shortened]... can walk away- at worse losing their wages for the week.
So, why is this unfair?
😕
Dave
People are more important than profits.
Linda.
Originally posted by missleadTrue. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the point behind doing well is to provide a better life for the people, not just to make money.
This is about socialism:
People are more important than profits.
Linda.
But Communism didn't work out very well. It's a basic fact that unless a person has a drive he will not work hard. Drive to gain more is a lot more powerfull than a drive to succeed for the motherland & your fellow man.
Is it not true that, yes there may be big divides between the rich & the poor, the "poor" in the Western world are better off because of the system than they would have been in a socialist system where everyone would be worse off? This is a question, not a statement.
Originally posted by belgianfreakisn't that the thinking behind liberalism? it's better to make a bigger pie to share, rather than obsess about how equally the pie is divided, because even those with a small slice are better off than they would have been with a slice of the smaller pie. i think that works ok, but that there needs to be some sort of socialist 'safety net' to make sure even the smallest slices of the pie are big enough to sustain people. And maybe there should be limits on how large a slice people can have too. call it 'constrained liberalism'. sorry for mixing metaphors.
True. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the point behind doing well is to provide a better life for the people, not just to make money.
But Communism didn't work out very well. It's a basic fact that unless a person has a drive he will not work hard. Drive to gain more is a lot more powerfull than a drive to succeed for the motherland & your ...[text shortened]... n in a socialist system where everyone would be worse off? This is a question, not a statement.
Well, I can certainly see that a lot of people aren't going to see eye to eye with me on this one, and for that matter some people have missinterpreted what I meant to convey entirely (i.e. money has nothing to do with happiness). Bottom line folks: GREED HURTS! People will try to justify it in many ways, but it will always hurt. I've been on both ends of the financial spectrum in my life. I don't mind being poor. As Ghandi said, "Live simply so that others may simply live." 🙂
now you've intreaged me. Maybe we should play a game just so that we can discuss our views. I am certainly, compared to where my life started, on a peak of financial success (not that it'll last very long) but I'm tempted to throw it all in because I can affirm that it doesn't buy happiness (although hapiness doesn't buy your next meal either).
Do you have space for a game/chat?
Originally posted by belgianfreakYou claim that communism didn't work out very well. That may or may not be so. I think it would be necessary to define your terms in order to examine the veracity of that claim. What exactly do you mean by communism? Do you define communism as being analagous with the system they had in place in the Soviet Union? Or would you define communism as being the kind of system that Karl Marx and Friederich Engels had in mind when they collaborated on the Communist Manifesto? The two are not at all the same. It is true that the Soviet style, Stalinist system did fail. That is plain for all to see. But what most people don't realize is that system had little resemblance to the one that Marx and Engels strove for. In that sense, communism (or Marxism) has never been tried. For the remainder of this post I shall use the term "communism" to refer to a Soviet style Stalinist state, and "Marxism" to refer to a state based solely on the writings of Marx and Engels.
True. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the point behind doing well is to provide a better life for the people, not just to make money.
But Communism didn't work out very well. It's a basic fact that unless a person has a drive he will not work hard. Drive to gain more is a lot more powerfull than a drive to succeed for the motherland & your ...[text shortened]... n in a socialist system where everyone would be worse off? This is a question, not a statement.
First of all, the Soviet Union was never a Marxist state. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian police state that maintained the outer trappings of Marxism. But they violated the most basic tenet of Marxism, which is: The workers shall control the means of production. The Bolsheviks came to power with the slogan of, "All power to the soviets" (the soviets were workers councils), but instead of placing all power in the soviets, they placed it into the hands of the Communist Party. The workers did not run the state, or control the means of production, but rather the Communist Party (as the "vanguard" of the working class) did. If the workers do not control the means of production, you can call your system whatever you want, but it won't be Marxist.
Lenin and Stalin tried to rationalize this form of communism as being a necessary transitional phase between the fall of capitalism and the advent of pure Marxism. It was only necessary because they had violated Marxist theory once again by having their revolution in a state that had not allowed capitalism to perform its historic role in the building up of the means of production. Russia did not have the material means to support Marxism at that time. The Mensheviks thought the revolution should be postponed until capitalism in Russia had become more advanced, and the material preconditions for Marxism were in place. But the Bolsheviks seized power prematurely and instituted their communist transitional phase in which they theorized that they themselves would build up the means of production, which would in turn lead to Marxism. But of course it didn't work out that way. Their system became a means unto itself, until it collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
So what is the point of this turgid lecture? Merely to point out that your conception of what communism/Marxism should be is flawed. It does not mean submitting yourself to a totalitarian, centralized state. It does not mean implementing a system where everyone will be equal but poor. It does not mean building a system without incentive, where labor is divorced from capital, and everyone works solely for the good of the state.
It is false to assume that everyone would have less in a Marxist system. Bill Gates would have less, but most people would have far more. Also, the claim that capitalism is necessary to inspire people like Bill Gates to work hard and strive for more is also false. Marxism doesn't mean that everyone is equal down to the last penny. Brain surgeons would still make more than car wash attendants, but the disparity would be much less. Plus, if the people did directly control their own means of production, then an increase in the whole would necessarily translate into an increase for the individual. People will always have incentive to better themselves as long as they see that theirr hard work is rewarded in some way.
If you drive south along Lakeshore Drive here in Michigan, you will pass through the city of Grosse Pointe on your way to Detroit. Grosse Pointe is filled with the huge, ostentatious mansions of wealthy people (like William Clay Ford), situated on sprawling estates. But the instant you cross over to the south side of 8 mile, into Detroit, it's like you've been thrust into a war zone. Poverty, boarded up houses, garbage in the streets. The transition is that sudden. Opulent wealth right across the street from utter degradation. Every time I pass by there, I keep wondering how we can live in a system thats produces such a disparity in wealth. I can't help but thinking that there must be a better way.
Originally posted by rwingettExcellent post. Word.
You claim that communism didn't work out very well. That may or may not be so. I think it would be necessary to define your terms in order to examine the veracity of that claim. What exactly do you mean by communism? Do you define communism as being analagous with the system they had in place in the Soviet Union? Or would you define communism as being the ...[text shortened]... roduces such a disparity in wealth. I can't help but thinking that there must be a better way.
Originally posted by rwingettExcellent post Rob. For once I actually agree with you.
You claim that communism didn't work out very well. That may or may not be so. I think it would be necessary to define your terms in order to examine the veracity of that claim. What exactly do you mean by communism? Do you define communism as being analagous with the system they had in place in the Soviet Union? Or would you define communism as being the ...[text shortened]... roduces such a disparity in wealth. I can't help but thinking that there must be a better way.
-mike
Originally posted by rwingettThanks for the post. We probably agree on more than you think. I certainly agree tha communism & Marxism are two almost totally separate things. My point was more that every time a Marxist state has been tried it has become a communist state. Why, I dont have enough knowledge to be sure, but is it that the theory of Marxism is fine, but in realisty you will always get your Lenins & your Stalins creaping to the top and corrupting the system?
You claim that communism didn't work out very well. That may or may not be so. I think it would be necessary to define your terms in order to examine the veracity of that claim. What exactly do you mean by communism? Do you define communism as being analagous with the system they had in place in the Soviet Union? Or would you define communism as being the ...[text shortened]... roduces such a disparity in wealth. I can't help but thinking that there must be a better way.
If I'm reading you correctly you say that Marxism can only work if it follows capitalism; that you need capatalism to instill the economic strength in a regeime before it will support Marxist ideals. It's an interesting point, but what is flawed about Marxism that it cannot achieve the same level of strength of production? If it can build it then maybe it can't maintain it either?
I too don't agree with the split of wealth. But 90 years ago in England there were the Upper classes and the lower classes. The middle classes did not exist. But today they are becoming more like the majority. Is there not a natural evolution towards equality? Not total equality, but like you say a world where the brain surgeon earns more than the car wash guy. That's pretty much the world I live in - the brain surgeon earns more than me, the car wash guy earns less, but we can all afford to eat and cloth and house ourselves. I know it isn't perfect, and I am fully aware that there are people who are outside these brackets and it's not right. But it's better than it was and it's getting better with time. Maybe the problem is more pronounced in the US than it is in Europe? The system isn't perfect, but it works and it gets more equalised as we as a society move on. If someone shows me a better model that can actually work then I am ALL for it, but I haven't seen one yet
This was written freehand without stop, check or reference so please go easy on me. I have probably made many mistakes and have come accross as sounding horribly materialistic (which is far from the truth). If I'm wrong please show me where.
Jon
Originally posted by belgianfreakDue to the length of my reply, I will split my response into two seperate posts.
Thanks for the post. We probably agree on more than you think. I certainly agree tha communism & Marxism are two almost totally separate things. My point was more that every time a Marxist state has been tried it has become a communist state. Why, I dont have enough knowledge to be sure, but is it that the theory of Marxism is fine, but in realisty you ...[text shortened]... horribly materialistic (which is far from the truth). If I'm wrong please show me where.
Jon
Part 1:
Every communist state has failed to live up to its ideals because directly, or indirectly, they have all taken their inspiration from the Soviet Union. If you follow the lead of a failed experiment and try to graft a Marxist system onto an agrarian economy, you will fail in turn. The Soviet Union has probably done irreparable harm to the cause of Marxism worldwide. With the demise of the Soviet Union, it remains to be seen whether or not Marxism will be able to shake off the taint of Stalinist despotism.
You are correct in saying that capitalism is a prerequisite for the establishment of Marxism. All political systems prior to the advent of capitalism have been based on the distribution of inadequate material goods. As their societies were unable to produce sufficient wealth for everyone, a ruling class was necessary to distribute those goods as best suited it. Capitalism changed all that. The huge growth of productive capacity under capitalism made it possible for the first time in history to produce a superabundance of wealth.
We now have the capacity to adequately feed all the people of the Earth. But we do not. We have the productive capacity to produce sufficient clothing and shelter for all the world's people. But we do not. We have the ability to provide adequate medical care for everyone, but millions of people worldwide continue to die from diseases that would be easily treated elsewhere. A staggering percentage of the world's population continues to live in abject poverty despite the fact that we have the the material capability of lifting them out of misery. Why are these conditions allowed to persist, when we have the capacity to change them? It is because it can not be done at a profit.
The profit motive has made tha vast productive resources of the world the private playthings of the wealthy elite. We could easily feed all 6 billion people on this Earth a healthy diet, but there's no money to made doing that. So we pay farmers to let fields lie fallow to manipulate the price of grain on the world market while thousands of people starve elsewhere. Capitalism has played its historic role in the building up of the means of production. But as it now manages those resources in an anti-social manner, its time has passed.
1 edit
Interesting posts, Rob. Definitely food for thought. I would make the argument that Communism failed not only because the biggest examples of where it was tried (Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, for example) were not industrialized, but additionally because of the personalities of those involved in the initial revolution and subsequent leadership roles.
The basic notion of Communism (or Marxism, as you've been making the distinction, I'll continue) is that there is no titular head of state or dominant leader, that it is essentially a form of self-government. However, the Soviet Revolution had Lenin and Trotsky initially organizing and fomenting the revolution, and Stalin cementing the premier as a totalitarian head of state. Similarly, revolution in China began with the gang of four, and eventually became the dictatorship of Mao. The same with Kim Il-Sung in North Korea, and Castro in Cuba. I would argue that a significant component of the failure of Communism is the human nature that gives some people the desire to exert their own will and control over others. It would appear that this is a recurring theme throughout human history, that outside of small 'communes,' for lack of a better word (Israeli Kibbutzes (sp?) are an excellent example of successful marxist communities) when people organized to become larger societies they pretty much always had some sort of leader. Whether that leader stole power by sheer force of will, or placed themselves in a position to have the power by running for democratic election, the result is the same; the type of person who needs to dominate others inevitably ends up doing so.
I find it difficult in my mind to reconcile this apparently basic tenet of human behavior with the notion of everyone sharing power equally. While in theory I would love to see the implementation of a system like you described, I fear that our own genetic makeup may make that impossible (that's the philosopher in me speaking, that's not an official scientific proclamation). Until we can overcome our own natures, I don't think we will be able to have a truly Marxist society.
In a somewhat different sidenote, do you feel that even theoretical Marxism is possible in a post-Industrialized society? That's where the US and much of Europe is or is rapidly heading; the majority of the jobs in the US are now 'pink-collar' service sector positions.
-mike
Originally posted by legionnairePeople throughout history have been unable to envision the future as being significantly different from the era in which they live. When you ask people what the future might be like, they will say that we might have flying cars, or that we will probably have cured a few more diseases, but for the most part they think it will be more or less like it is now. The people who lived in the feudal period could scarcely imagine how capitalism would change their world. But that change occurred nonetheless. In the same fashion, people living in a capitalist society have a hard time imagining what a post-capitalist system might look like, whether it be Marxist or not. Given the poor examples of the systems we've had so far that have purported to be Marxist, coupled with the difficulty of conceptualizing such sweeping changes, most people in a capitalist society tend to dismiss Marxism as being unworkable. Or they say, "that sounds nice in theory, but it's a utopian pipe dream." But I think we are selling ourselves short, and that we are capable of doing a much better job of managing our affairs than we do now.
Interesting posts, Rob. Definitely food for thought. I would make the argument that Communism failed not only because the biggest examples of where it was tried (Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, for example) were not industrialized, but additionally because of the personalities of those involved in the initial revolution and subsequent leadership role ...[text shortened]... g; the majority of the jobs in the US are now 'pink-collar' service sector positions.
-mike
Your question of whether Marxism is possible in a post-industrial society answers itself. The very fact that we live in a post-industrial society demonstrates that Marxism is possible. The fact that a shrinking percentage of people are required to produce the amount of goods we have demonstrates that we have the capacity to build a society free from material want. What is it that most people do these days? Since their labor is no longer required to produce the material goods of society, they are instead engaged in the marketing of those goods. The bulk of the work force is engaged in advertising those products, or finding new markets for those products, or finagling new ways of making those products more profitable. But none of that labor really benefits society, nor is it necessary. That type of labor is only necessary within the confines of a capitalist system. Does it really matter what brand of toothpaste, or what brand of deodorant people use? No, it doesn't.
So for the first time in history, we have a system where only a small amount of our labor capacity is required to provide for the material sustenance of our society. With a system based upon production for use instead of profit, we are in a unique position of being able to largely free our workers from the tyranny of wage slavery. The amount of labor required from each individual could be significantly reduced, freeing each person from being a mere cog in the capitalist machine, and allow him to explore his full potential as a free human being.
Originally posted by belgianfreakThis is part 2 of the answer to your last post that I had started before:
Thanks for the post. We probably agree on more than you think. I certainly agree tha communism & Marxism are two almost totally separate things. My point was more that every time a Marxist state has been tried it has become a communist state. Why, I dont have enough knowledge to be sure, but is it that the theory of Marxism is fine, but in realisty you ...[text shortened]... horribly materialistic (which is far from the truth). If I'm wrong please show me where.
Jon
If capitalism has fulfilled its historic role in the building up of the means of production, and if capitalism now manages those resources to the detriment of society as a whole, then why (you may ask) haven't the workers in the industrial nations of the world risen up and overthrown capitalism themselves? Why have all the Marxist inspired revolutions taken place in predominantly agrarian societies that have not had the productive capacity to implement Marxism in the first place?
The answer (at least partly) is that capitalism has turned out to be a much more resourceful enemy than either Marx or Engels could have forseen in their time. In undeveloped societies, wealth, and political power, tends to be completely polarized. You have the wealthy elite, and you have the poor peasants, who have no hope of getting anything better by working through the system, so they resort to revolution. The key to the staying power of capitalism is that it has the ability to reform itself by the minimum amount necessary in order to keep the workers from rising up to destroy it.
With the avarice of the 19th century robber barons, and the horrific exploitation of the working class, the world looked as though a Marxist revolution would be imminent. In the early 20th century, in the US (and in England, I believe), there was a very sizable leftist community. There was the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.), and the Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs, each of which had a very sizable following at one time. The capitalists, however, were able to eventually undermine that support by granting some of the concessions those parties had sought, while maintaining the essence of the capitalist system.
So it is true that the economic divisions in the capitalist system are not strictly between the haves and the have nots anymore. Capitalism, in order to further its longevity, has introduced a modest hierarchy within the working class. By doing so the capitalists have almost completely blunted and diluted the revolutionary impulse of the working class. The result has been that the average worker today has his eyes fixed solely on rising up to the next rung of the corporate ladder, rather than doing away with the system altogether. If the capitalists feel threatened by the revolutionary impulse of the working class, they will allow a few more token concessions. If they feel they are in a position of power, they will take a few concessions away (as is happening today).
This may seem like capitalism is reforming itself and that it is advancing towards some nobler purpose. But it is not. The system remains inherently flawed. The workers have the false perception that their best interests are served by struggling to attain that next elusive rung in the corporate ladder, but the truth is that as long as capitalism remains in place the workers will never be anything more than commodoties to be bought and sold on the market. They will continue to be used and cast aside as best suits their corporate masters.
1 edit
For most of human history, almost every government on the planet has been essentially feudal in nature, with all the power concentrated in an 'aristocracy' (literally 'power to the best'.) However, at the beginning of the 21st century, the global economy is dominated by countries which espouse representative democracy, albeit with a strong capitalist bent (people vote, but effectively money votes too.) One view on this is that democracy is an anomaly and that we will soon revert to despotism. Another is that society has matured, and will continue to do so until we are capable of having an international socialist utopia.
The third, and the line I would take, is that representative democracy has simply outcompeted other forms of government, a bit like mammals outcompeted dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That doesn't mean that the world will forever be full of large mammals (though we might prove rather persisent as a species), nor does it preclude the possibility that the mammals will evolve into something different.
At the same time, the process of evolution does not take things from 'worst' to 'best', it simply produces things which are 'good enough'. My best guess is that democracy will eventually be succeeded by authoritarian governments which reward individual talent and effort, but have no scruples about new technology or about directing consumption towards utilitarian goods (eg compelling people to eat healthy food to improve productivity and reduce costs of healthcare.) 'Designer drugs' could be used to make people more industrious and cooperative, and to reduce crime. Whether such a system would be 'good' is a different question entirely.
PS: My guess is just that. I have no idea what governments we will have in the future, but there are viable alternatives.