Jump to content

Welcome Guest

Navigation

  • Objectivism Online Wiki

On Social Media:

Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Marxism failed because of the conditions they were started in

- - - - -

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1
dadmonson

dadmonson

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • Real Name:TJ
Well, Marx said that capitalism was needed to bring about a highly industrialized nation, which would be made up of a large working class population. He believed that it would be a natural process for this working class population to gain a class consciousness and therefore overthrow the oppressive capitalist regime. So barring propaganda, a nation would proceed into socialism after it becomes highly industrialized. Obviously, nation like Russia and China jumped the gun there, which is partly why they were not able to institute a true socialist society. And many European Nations and the USA have used propaganda in such an effective manner as to convince the people that socialism is bad. Additionally, those nations have done a great job infiltrating trade unions and such to quell the development of class consciousness.



The reasons behind their ultimate destruction lie in many places - dogmatism (I'd definitely say is one), invasions from capitalist nations (e.g. Bay of Pigs, Russia got invaded, too), isolation - via trade, transport, etc, and the material conditions surrounding these revolutions.
Indeed, look at Russia's economic state before the revolution! For anything to succeed there without many hiccups and problems would have to be a fucking miracle!

You need to understand that there are two types of Communism. Libertarian Communistm and Authorotarian communism.

As a Libertarian communist, I would argue the model for revolution utalised by communists over the last 90 years, or more specifically the existance of a vanguard party as a key feature of that model, is inherantly flawed.

Communist revolutions have failed to destroy capitalism due to inherant ideological and practical flaws within Authorotarian communism.

The failures of authorotarian communist revolutions were actually prediced decades before the Russian revolution when Communist/Anarchist thinker Bakunin said "Even if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power. Within a year he would be as murderous as the Tzar himself" - this statement has of course been absolved.

And if humans inherantly want stuff, and capitalism is a system that sees the concerntration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, surely capitalism is against human nature?

Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable. Food is deliebratly underproduced for the same reason. Whilst millions starve. That doesn't sound very efficient to me.
















This isn't what I think. It is what marxist think but they do make good points

#2
GWDS

GWDS

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Location:Brantford, Ontario
Trtosky said in his history of the Revolution the Russian landscape favored an agrarian, non-industrial society. The infinite bounty of Mother Russia discouraged industrialisation whereas the finite and harsher environments of Egnland, France, and Germany demanded it. For Marxism to have existed at all it needed to be done in the West, not in Russia so saying it failed there, or the other preindustrial societies it started in is nonsense.
We're ruined but we're building

#3
dadmonson

dadmonson

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • Real Name:TJ

Trtosky said in his history of the Revolution the Russian landscape favored an agrarian, non-industrial society. The infinite bounty of Mother Russia discouraged industrialisation whereas the finite and harsher environments of Egnland, France, and Germany demanded it. For Marxism to have existed at all it needed to be done in the West, not in Russia so saying it failed there, or the other preindustrial societies it started in is nonsense.

So you're for Marxism? I'm curious to what some of you objectivist think.

Edited by dadmonson, 17 November 2007 - 02:44 PM.


#4
Inspector

Inspector

    Night Watchman

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,033 posts
Marxist: Communism failed because we started looting before capitalism had produced enough to sustain our mooching behinds! It's not our fault!

Inherent in this formulation is the fact that Capitalism is productive and Communism isn't. It's like a confession, really.

#5
DarkWaters

DarkWaters

    1,000 lb Gorilla

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA
Hi dadmonson,

First off, I think you could attack the thesis statement: "Marxism failed because of the conditions it started in." The idea that the progression of societies largely depends on their economic and geographic starting point is (as you said) a Marxist theory and it is very wrong. The fundamental driving force that determines whether different civilizations flourish or fail is their underlying philosophy. The best way, although it is not simple, way to see this is to examine many examples from history.

For example, what caused the first nation to be founded on ideas of individual rights and a limited government whose solve purpose was to protect those rights? In other words, why did an American revolution-like event not occur sooner? I think it is because many of the founding fathers was enthusiasts of the philosophy of Locke, who emphasized natural arguments for individual rights. Why did France, whose revolution was essentially at the same time period, veer off in a significantly more socialist direction? I think it is because the French intellectuals at the time took the social contractist ideas of Rousseau very seriously.

I imagine that after some research, you can identify how European intellectuals have influenced the course of European history, how Russian intellectuals have influenced the course of Russian history, how Chinese intellectuals have influenced the course of Chinese history and so forth.

Ideas have incredible power in shaping the course of an individual's life as well as human history.

Second of all, the Marxist argument you have provided seems to argue that Socialism is better than Capitalism, but Socialism can only work after Capitalism has helped built up society.

I would agree that a society is much more capable of surviving with Socialist policies, but they would still be heading towards destruction. An individual could certainly accumulate a large amount of savings for a good thirty years, and then continue to survive while unemployed for another ten to twenty years while dipping into his savings accounts for financial support. Analogously, a society could flourish while under free market capitalism and then manage to coast for a while despite the increased economic controls on the state. However, this does not mean that the economic controls are advancing the lives of the individual citizens even though society would not collapse. I would argue that the controls are gradually destroying society. The rate of destruction will be a function of how restrictive the controls are and how much wealth already existed before the economic reforms.

Furthermore, regarding:

The reasons behind their ultimate destruction lie in many places - dogmatism (I'd definitely say is one), invasions from capitalist nations (e.g. Bay of Pigs, Russia got invaded, too), isolation - via trade, transport, etc, and the material conditions surrounding these revolutions.
Indeed, look at Russia's economic state before the revolution! For anything to succeed there without many hiccups and problems would have to be a fucking miracle!


I would look at all of the hardships that economically growing countries such as the United States, India, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Israel, Ireland and the like have routinely faced during their ascent. Circumstantial factors did not bring about the failure of the Soviet Union.

Lastly, I noticed that the argument you cited implicitly refers to the United States as a "capitalist nation." This seems to be a common misperception that many of my friends from China who were subjected to a Communist education have held. The United States, many nations of Europe, India and most other countries are mixed economies. They have a collection of socialist laws as well as capitalist laws.

I hope that this helps!

Edited by DarkWaters, 17 November 2007 - 03:39 PM.

"The man who acquires the ability to take full possession of his own mind may take possession of anything else to which he is justly entitled."
~Andrew Carnegie

"[N]othing to me is more revolting ..., But once war is forced on us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory -- not prolonged indecision. In war, indeed, there can be no substitute for victory."
~General Douglas MacArthur

#6
dadmonson

dadmonson

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • Real Name:TJ

Hi dadmonson,

First off, I think you could attack the thesis statement: "Marxism failed because of the conditions it started in." The idea that the progression of societies largely depends on their economic and geographic starting point is (as you said) a Marxist theory and it is very wrong. The fundamental driving force that determines whether different civilizations flourish or fail is their underlying philosophy. The best way, although it is not simple, way to see this is to examine many examples from history.

For example, what caused the first nation to be founded on ideas of individual rights and a limited government whose solve purpose was to protect those rights? In other words, why did an American revolution-like event not occur sooner? I think it is because many of the founding fathers was enthusiasts of the philosophy of Locke, who emphasized natural arguments for individual rights. Why did France, whose revolution was essentially at the same time period, veer off in a significantly more socialist direction? I think it is because the French intellectuals at the time took the social contractist ideas of Rousseau very seriously.

I imagine that after some research, you can identify how European intellectuals have influenced the course of European history, how Russian intellectuals have influenced the course of Russian history, how Chinese intellectuals have influenced the course of Chinese history and so forth.

Ideas have incredible power in shaping the course of an individual's life as well as human history.

Second of all, the Marxist argument you have provided seems to argue that Socialism is better than Capitalism, but Socialism can only work after Capitalism has helped built up society.

I would agree that a society is much more capable of surviving with Socialist policies, but they would still be heading towards destruction. An individual could certainly accumulate a large amount of savings for a good thirty years, and then continue to survive while unemployed for another ten to twenty years while dipping into his savings accounts for financial support. Analogously, a society could flourish while under free market capitalism and then manage to coast for a while despite the increased economic controls on the state. However, this does not mean that the economic controls are advancing the lives of the individual citizens even though society would not collapse. I would argue that the controls are gradually destroying society. The rate of destruction will be a function of how restrictive the controls are and how much wealth already existed before the economic reforms.

Furthermore, regarding:



I would look at all of the hardships that economically growing countries such as the United States, India, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Israel, Ireland and the like have routinely faced during their ascent. Circumstantial factors did not bring about the failure of the Soviet Union.

Lastly, I noticed that the argument you cited implicitly refers to the United States as a "capitalist nation." This seems to be a common misperception that many of my friends from China who were subjected to a Communist education have held. The United States, many nations of Europe, India and most other countries are mixed economies. They have a collection of socialist laws as well as capitalist laws.

I hope that this helps!

You know you're the man right?

Thanks, a bunch DarkWaters.

Edited by dadmonson, 17 November 2007 - 04:40 PM.


#7
dadmonson

dadmonson

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • Real Name:TJ
Here is a marxist vs. capitalism argument on a forum. The blue is the marxist and the text in the middle is not me but somebody else who is trying to support capitalism but doesn't really know their stuff. How would you respond to this marxist?


Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable. Food is deliebratly underproduced for the same reason. Whilst millions starve. That doesn't sound very efficient to me.

i dont think any free market advocate supports that. those farm programs intended to keep farmers wealthy. they were mostly introduced during the new deal when this country was closest to a socialist or a fascist takeover



Had you studied history you'd know that the US was never ever anywhere near a socialist or fascist takeover, especially with the existence of the Soviet Union. First of all, very few capitalists support a completely laissez-faire system; that would be foolish, most half-intelligent capitalists at least support some governmental regulation, per Keynes. Secondly, the dumping of the corn is a direct result of the greed-based nature of capitalism in conjunction with the supply-v-demand nature of the free market.

Under capitalism, production and trade is most cost-effective where there is scarcity; thus it is more in the interests of the owners of the means of production to produce less than is enough for everyone. So not only is the free market inefficient in this regard, it is downright incapable of taking care of society as a whole.


#8
fletch

fletch

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mentor Ohio

Here is a marxist vs. capitalism argument on a forum. The blue is the marxist and the text in the middle is not me but somebody else who is trying to support capitalism but doesn't really know their stuff. How would you respond to this marxist?


You might start by questioning what they put out as fact:

Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable.

How many tons? Who did the dumping, and how? Considering that the the United States produced 283 million metric tons of corn in 2006 and that was only 42 percent of the world's corn production in that year, it is difficult to imagine how many million of tons of corn would have to be dumped to have even the slightest impact on price.

Food is deliebratly underproduced for the same reason. Whilst millions starve. [/color]

What food?
And although my eyes were open
They might have just as well been closed--Procol Harum

#9
Mammon

Mammon

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chat Nick:Mammon
  • Real Name:Justin

i dont think any free market advocate supports that. those farm programs intended to keep farmers wealthy. they were mostly introduced during the new deal when this country was closest to a socialist or a fascist takeover



Had you studied history you'd know that the US was never ever anywhere near a socialist or fascist takeover, especially with the existence of the Soviet Union. First of all, very few capitalists support a completely laissez-faire system; that would be foolish, most half-intelligent capitalists at least support some governmental regulation, per Keynes. Secondly, the dumping of the corn is a direct result of the greed-based nature of capitalism in conjunction with the supply-v-demand nature of the free market.

Under capitalism, production and trade is most cost-effective where there is scarcity; thus it is more in the interests of the owners of the means of production to produce less than is enough for everyone. So not only is the free market inefficient in this regard, it is downright incapable of taking care of society as a whole.


Okay, the Marxist guy is a moron. The dumping of crops did take place, at the order of the government under FDR and his New Deal. It was a Keynesian policy and they did so because they, quite literally, thought "over-production" was the cause of the people starving. No farmer would dumb there crops when they could sell it and make a profit it of it, as the case would be with people starving. FDR didn't approve of this so he ordered the crops to be destroyed.

To the extent of my knowledge, I don't think this practice is still going on since certain parts of New Deal was proclaimed unconstitutional and some parts were repelled. But either way, an order from the government to destroy crops would count as government intevention in the economy which is antithetical to a capitalist free-market.



Back to the original arguement. Socialism fails because of decision. It's not a flaw in man or a flaw in the place where it was started. Think of it like this, socialism is the idea that you can take out the back two tires of a car and it should actually still perform and perform even better. When the car doesn't really perform better then a normal one, a lot of excuses come up as to why. First and foremost is the "The guy driving the car was just a bad person so the car wouldn't move for him" then the "The guy driving the car was an idiot so he couldn't figure out how to make it got" or the "He really had wheels on the car, but you couldn't see them and can't understand that the car was moving so fast it looked like it was moving slow..."

Now, with this we have "The car wouldn't go because it is on the wrong type of road, instead of the Interstate we need to put in a race track, because fast cars drive in race tracks"

It still ignores the flaw in the descision... nothing is pushing the car!
"It's not about where you were born. Or what powers you have. Or what you wear on your chest. It's about what you do... It's about action." -- Superman.

"[T]rue innovators are never bound by what is: instead they dream of what could be" -- Gary Hamel.

"Society cannot contribute anything to the breeding and growing of ingenious men. A creative genius cannot be trained. There are no schools for creativeness. A genius is precisely a man who defies all schools and rules, who deviates from the traditional roads of routine and opens up new paths through land inaccessible before. A genius is always a teacher, never a pupil; he is always self-made. " -- Ludwig von Mises.

“Precisely because of their pretense, the conservatives are morally lower than the liberals; they are farther removed from reality – and, therefore, they are more harmful in practice. Since they purport to be fighting “big government,” they are the main source of political confusion in the public mind; they give people the illusion of an electoral alternative without the fact. Thus the statist drift proceeds unchecked and unchallenged.” – Leonard Peikoff

#10
DarkWaters

DarkWaters

    1,000 lb Gorilla

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable. Food is deliebratly underproduced for the same reason. Whilst millions starve. That doesn't sound very efficient to me.


This again illustrates the common fallacy that I mentioned earlier. Many Marxist are taught, as my friends in China evidently were, that any arbitrary action in the United States was by edict of Capitalist philosophy. This is preposterous. If this specific allegation is even true, I suspect that it was at the behest of FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which is probably one of the worst programs of the New Deal. This literally led to farmers burning surplus crops because there was a maximum amount of crops that they could introduce to the market by law. The AAA is virtually an antithesis of free market capitalism in the context of agricultural and it is one of the prime fuelers the Great Depression.


Secondly, the dumping of the corn is a direct result of the greed-based nature of capitalism in conjunction with the supply-v-demand nature of the free market.


Notice how he gave no serious causal argument for why the corn was dumped. Any "greedy" farmer under this circumstance would rather sell the corn for any price above the costs of disposal. The Marxist is also attacking a straw man since no legitimate free market advocate would be in favor of strict controls on agricultural markets.

Anyway, If anyone is interested in learning more about the devastating consequences of FDR's programs, I recommend FDR's Folly by Jim Powell.
"The man who acquires the ability to take full possession of his own mind may take possession of anything else to which he is justly entitled."
~Andrew Carnegie

"[N]othing to me is more revolting ..., But once war is forced on us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory -- not prolonged indecision. In war, indeed, there can be no substitute for victory."
~General Douglas MacArthur

#11
fletch

fletch

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mentor Ohio

If this specific allegation is even true, I suspect that it was at the behest of FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which is probably one of the worst programs of the New Deal.


It never occured to me to go back 70 years to get the context of the Marxists allegations of corn dumping. When someone says "Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable," I think present tense. I could find no evidence that this practice is going on today. Nor would such a practice make any sense in a free market economy. It is no surprise, however, that if such a boneheaded action ever did happen, it happened during the presidency of FDR. But it is typical for Marxists and socialists to blame greedy capitalists for everything evil under the sun and give the state a pass.
And although my eyes were open
They might have just as well been closed--Procol Harum

#12
DarkWaters

DarkWaters

    1,000 lb Gorilla

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

It never occured to me to go back 70 years to get the context of the Marxists allegations of corn dumping. When someone says "Tons of corn is dumped in the sea every year to make remaining stocks more valuable," I think present tense. I could find no evidence that this practice is going on today. Nor would such a practice make any sense in a free market economy. It is no surprise, however, that if such a boneheaded action ever did happen, it happened during the presidency of FDR. But it is typical for Marxists and socialists to blame greedy capitalists for everything evil under the sun and give the state a pass.


Evidently I did not read the quote carefully. I was operating on a similar question that I received from a friend from China, who was taught in school that Capitalists would rather burn food than sell it to poor people. (!)

Needless to say, you are correct. We should not grant the premise that tons of corn is being dumped in the sea every year as no evidence was provided. Especially since such a practice would be utterly absurd.
"The man who acquires the ability to take full possession of his own mind may take possession of anything else to which he is justly entitled."
~Andrew Carnegie

"[N]othing to me is more revolting ..., But once war is forced on us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory -- not prolonged indecision. In war, indeed, there can be no substitute for victory."
~General Douglas MacArthur

#13
dadmonson

dadmonson

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • Real Name:TJ
Well the marxist hasn't been back yet but yall should read this he makes some good points. This is a different guy.

All people really need to understand about political theories of government is that they are maintained by force. All people really need to understand about socioeconomic systems is that they are maintained by indoctrination. The " competitive price system" in economic theory is no more practical or idealistic than the concept of a "cooperative price system". Both systems could be implemented as long as a system of rules and regulations was created to enforce it. Please, don't believe in the myth of capitalists either, that the "price system" magically adjusts itself based on supply and demand. Outside of the basic necessities of sustenance required for the survival of the body, every demand is a want created by human desire. We create our own desires.

At the highest stages of practical capitalism there is always oligopoly not monopoly. In all reality, capitalist economists accept this fact, but they get paid to wax poetically about theoretical models. At the highest stages of the Republic, there is always oligarchy. In all reality, political scientists accept this fact, but they get paid to wax poetically about theoretical models.

Karl Marx made a real contribution to history, economics, and political theory. That contribution was the essence of his critique of the primitive capitalist means of production, which was during his day the early extensions of the feudal society with the landed gentry and peasant farmers. He made a comparative analysis. He also forced mainstream proponents of the free market system to abandon the labor theory of value and embrace the "theory of marginal utility" abstracting away from the fact that any income producing activity requires labor at some point and will resort in "surplus value" or profits that are not equally distributed.

He simply demonstrated that under capitalism there will always be excess waste, and inequal access. There is not a single economist worth his salt that disagreed with Marxist critique of the capitalist system, most cronies of capitalism simply disagree with his solution. Why wouldn't they? By the way I am not a Marxist or a Capitalist, I simply studied Political and Economic science.


Edited by dadmonson, 19 November 2007 - 04:39 AM.


#14
John McVey

John McVey

    Advanced Member

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 803 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Chat Nick:JohnMcVey
  • Real Name:John McVey

(A translation, of sorts, of these alleged good points:) No such thing as principles of action blah blah blah, oligopoly blah blah blah, anyone who says otherwise is a shill etc etc... Ridiculous Eurocentric assertions that ignore mediterranean and middle-eastern trading history yada yada yada...

I'm not going to bother with that lot.

He also forced mainstream proponents of the free market system to abandon the labor theory of value and embrace the "theory of marginal utility" abstracting away from the fact that any income producing activity requires labor at some point and will resort in "surplus value" or profits that are not equally distributed.

*snikker* Your interloper is talking out of his arse. Marginal utility theory didn't come to prominence until Marx was already dead. As to the surplus value theory, ask that twit to provide a solution to the transformation problem. Try not to laugh too hard at the deer-in-headlights look.

JJM

Objectivism in Australia: G'day is g'day!

Blog | Proposed Constitution for Australia

#15
Inspector

Inspector

    Night Watchman

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,033 posts
Exactly which points of this new, as John so aptly calls him, twit do you think are worthy of the label, "good?"

#16
Netafja

Netafja

    Novice

  • Regulars
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:France
  • Chat Nick:Netafja
I suspect that the food dumped at sea is the GM variety. This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule.

Destruction of materials to affect price is never necessary. A simple planning of the delivery schedule to adequately meet all current needs of those with funds is the only precaution required. Where a significant oversupply arises, the investor will change products.



You might start by questioning what they put out as fact:

How many tons? Who did the dumping, and how? Considering that the the United States produced 283 million metric tons of corn in 2006 and that was only 42 percent of the world's corn production in that year, it is difficult to imagine how many million of tons of corn would have to be dumped to have even the slightest impact on price.

What food?



#17
DarkWaters

DarkWaters

    1,000 lb Gorilla

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

[Karl Marx] also forced mainstream proponents of the free market system to abandon the labor theory of value...


This is also nonsense. Even though David Ricardo, a student of Adam Smith, developed the Labor Theory of Value, Karl Marx embraced it wholeheartedly to the extent that it is commonly associated with him.

Dadmonson, I do not mind helping you. However, please start asking more direct questions. If anything, it should help increase your understanding of this material by doing some analysis yourself as opposed to just pasting a block of text and requesting a response.

If you want recommendations on where to learn more about these subjects, we will be more than happy to help.
"The man who acquires the ability to take full possession of his own mind may take possession of anything else to which he is justly entitled."
~Andrew Carnegie

"[N]othing to me is more revolting ..., But once war is forced on us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory -- not prolonged indecision. In war, indeed, there can be no substitute for victory."
~General Douglas MacArthur

#18
dadmonson

dadmonson

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • Real Name:TJ

This is also nonsense. Even though David Ricardo, a student of Adam Smith, developed the Labor Theory of Value, Karl Marx embraced it wholeheartedly to the extent that it is commonly associated with him.

Dadmonson, I do not mind helping you. However, please start asking more direct questions. If anything, it should help increase your understanding of this material by doing some analysis yourself as opposed to just pasting a block of text and requesting a response.

If you want recommendations on where to learn more about these subjects, we will be more than happy to help.

Yes, I know. I knew one of ya'll was going to say something like that sooner or later, lol. The Marxist was just saying all kinds of lies and half truths and persuading people that capitalism was EVIL(I'm sure you deal with this quite often). A lot of people are so hell bent against capitalism that it just doesn't seem right. I wanted to tell and prove to the marxist that he was wrong about so many things, but I just didn't have the knowledge. I've been reading a site though, www.importanceofphilosophy.com, it has helped me a whole lot. I'll do more searching. But with everybody here on this site's help I did get one person that was against capitalism at first, down to, "i think a mixed economy is the best compromise u can come up with. there's no way u can have pure capitalism or socialism." and the Marxist has been keeping quiet so that's good.

#19
DarkWaters

DarkWaters

    1,000 lb Gorilla

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Yes, I know. I knew one of ya'll was going to say something like that sooner or later, lol. The Marxist was just saying all kinds of lies and half truths and persuading people that capitalism was EVIL(I'm sure you deal with this quite often). A lot of people are so hell bent against capitalism that it just doesn't seem right. I wanted to tell and prove to the marxist that he was wrong about so many things, but I just didn't have the knowledge. I've been reading a site though, www.importanceofphilosophy.com, it has helped me a whole lot. I'll do more searching. But with everybody here on this site's help I did get one person that was against capitalism at first, down to, "i think a mixed economy is the best compromise u can come up with. there's no way u can have pure capitalism or socialism." and the Marxist has been keeping quiet so that's good.


I certainly admire your enthusiasm for spreading free-market capitalism. I definitely recommend reading more on the subject to not only increase your understanding but also to ensure that you truly do agree with it. I suggest reading both about the political theory underlying Capitalism, for example, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein and Markets Don't Fail by Brian Simpson. I also recommend familiarizing yourself with lots of examples in history of Capitalism working. For example, those found in many of Milton Friedman's books, Burton Folsom's books, India Unbound by Gurcharan Das, Thomas Friedman's books on Globalization, et cetera.

If you would like more unsolicited advice, I also recommend not spending too much time or energy arguing with Marxists on the internet. There is a large number of young people who are presently philosophically uncommitted and are still open to new ideas. I find discussing with these individuals to be much more rewarding. Trying to convert every Marxist on the internet will be nothing more than a frustrating, unrewarding and unproductive experience.
"The man who acquires the ability to take full possession of his own mind may take possession of anything else to which he is justly entitled."
~Andrew Carnegie

"[N]othing to me is more revolting ..., But once war is forced on us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory -- not prolonged indecision. In war, indeed, there can be no substitute for victory."
~General Douglas MacArthur

#20
fletch

fletch

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mentor Ohio

By the way I am not a Marxist or a Capitalist, I simply studied Political and Economic science.

Which, of course, makes him so much wiser than the rest of mankind. He praises Marx, blasts captialism, then pretends to be some sort of uncommitted objective expert. I could swear I have debated this guy....or his clone. Maybe they all have some sort of commie hand book they follow.
And although my eyes were open
They might have just as well been closed--Procol Harum

#21
Steve D'Ippolito

Steve D'Ippolito

    Senior Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado
  • Chat Nick:LordGodTarskyte

If you would like more unsolicited advice, I also recommend not spending too much time or energy arguing with Marxists on the internet. There is a large number of young people who are presently philosophically uncommitted and are still open to new ideas. I find discussing with these individuals to be much more rewarding. Trying to convert every Marxist on the internet will be nothing more than a frustrating, unrewarding and unproductive experience.


There are two possible benefits to debating Marxists.

Is there an audience? If so, then depending on the nature of the audiance, you could debate the Marxist hoping to make the audience see your point.

Or you might just do it to sharpen your debating skills.

But you almost certainly will not convince the Marxist.
"The landslide has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." Kosh Neranek, Babylon 5.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

#22
markt

markt

    Newbie

  • Regulars
  • 4 posts
The problem with marxism is that it doesn’t work … it was based on a flawed set of principles.

The Marxist regimes and propaganda we have seen have all been based on resentment – and the results have been predictable. And has there been anything more shameful and disgraceful than the agi-prop that the marxists used on their populations.-- a real violation of the human spirit. We can even hear the echo of marxist agi prop today in the propaganda the liberals have used in america-- to great effect.

A noble person, people, or philosophy cannot be based on resentment. Resentment destroys it does not create.

Marx’s work is based on resentment and a misintpretation of nature, human nature, and life. It is fair to say that stalin, mao and castro fairly represented marx’s work and that the 100 million killed by Marxist regimes in the 20th century were a sacrifice to Marx’s angry God.

That some people still want to continue in this direction after all the failed expiraments and horror is to me a little astonishing. More than a little astonishing.

A list of marxist leaders of the 20th century is a veritable rouges gallery-- a virtual who's who of every nasty, ressentful, power hungry, vicious, dented face that ever walked the earth. I am not exaggerating.
To me it is no mere accident that these people would come to power under marxism ... marxism attracts and develops this kind of person and directs his frustrations at anything which breaths free or is competent. Marx gives the underprivledged, the disinhereted, the ill favored the permission to tear everyone around them to pieces using the pretex of human equality. Marxism has been an excellent tool for power hungry men-- but little more than that thus far. Do we really want to try another Marxist experiment ? -- are 100 million dead not yet enough for a fair verdict ?

Edited by markt, 09 December 2007 - 05:29 PM.


#23
softwareNerd

softwareNerd

    Proud Father

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,107 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chat Nick:sNerd
An old topic, but for anyone interested, Yegor Gaidar has a good article on the Soviet Collapse, posted at AEI.

| Check out my Blog |
So many otherwise intelligent men want to raise other men to their mountain top by marching them up at gun point.


#24
AlexL

AlexL

    Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fribourg, Switzerland
  • Real Name:Alex Leibovici
Tank you, very illuminating!

Alex

#25
softwareNerd

softwareNerd

    Proud Father

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,107 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chat Nick:sNerd
An aspect that I find interesting is the short-term outlook. Often, participants in western economies are accused of looking at the short term, and going along with market momentum, evading the longer-term consequences. Putting aside that criticism for a moment, from the article, one sees this kind of thing among the Soviet Leadership: good times that could not last, but which they hoped would last, were their undoing.

According to the Wiki, Russia is among the biggest oil-producers today, despite not having among the top reserves. Consequently, Russia has 17 years to go at current levels, while Libya -- with less proven reserves -- has over 60 years. Clearly, the new mafia-type bosses of Russia are just as short-term in their thinking as were the old Soviet bosses.

Aside: I thought this quote from the politburo minutes was really funny, and yet summed up the essence of the Soviet thugs: ""Mr. Zasiadko has stopped binge drinking. Resolution: nominate Mr. Zasiadko as a minister to Ukraine."

| Check out my Blog |
So many otherwise intelligent men want to raise other men to their mountain top by marching them up at gun point.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users