Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The application of communist theory needs to be done very carefully - sweeping away the established system just leads to the dangerous elements at the fringes of society becoming the dangerous elements at the centre of power.

A slow transformation towards the ideal over many decades or even centuries is the most stable way to alter a system. The harder change is pushed through, the harder it is resisted and the harder it is to screen the changing elements to ensure that they are actually working for the greater good.

Saying it is a fundamentally flawed idea because the previous attempts have all been conducted in a flawed way by flawed people is disingenuous.

This, in a nutshell.

If you transplanted the British political, legal and judicial system to most countries in Africa, you'd have a military coup, executive vote rigging, and open bribery before the ink was dry. But here? It works. Why does it work? Because the people are culturally inclined towards making it work. Our Prime Ministers don't feel the need to cling onto power so much that they become dictators, judges don't take bribes, and army officers have no inclination to seize power (generally speaking).

In other words, should a society evolve in a certain way, it is entirely possible a functional Marxist system could eventually exist. Saying that it would be impossible due to 'human greed and selfishness' is just an intellectually lazy copout by someone who wants to feel superior by bemoaning the evils of humanity.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Commissar-Danno wrote:


Well as brillent as a drop out college student who free loaded off his friends and father for the rest of his life. Yes he was that, explains why college students flock to his teachings anyway.

Bill Gates is a college drop out. One of the richest men in the world.

There were lots of College drop outs in the 19th century, seeing as college was a lot less regular back then. Further, Marx did not drop out. The University of Berlin thought him too radical, and wouldn't accept his doctoral thesis. He submitted it to a different university, Jena, and they awarded him his PHD, and a lot of college grads back then ended up freeloading of friends and family. Especially when the German monarchy draws issue with your radical political ideas that monarchy is a bad thing and bars you from working.

And you missed the part where I said he was supported by his father and friend for the rest of his days.

Oh look, a person with radical ideas who couldn't get a job. There's no way he can be brilliant!

From my own studying of history, the only time communism has ever worked, was before we (humans) used precious metals as currency. and we were purely a barter society. However, even then, this system is still much more akin to a Marxist-Leninist system than it is a "pure" communist system.


And yeah.... taking a better look at Marx, I've developed the opinion that the guy was no communist, but merely a political theorist. As, at one point, he declared that Capitalism is merely an "evolutionary state" in the human chain.

 Commissar-Danno wrote:


And you missed the part where I said he was supported by his father and friend for the rest of his days.

And you missed the part where I pointed out he couldn't get work because the Prussian Monarchy blacklisted anyone who so much as uttered the phrase 'Classical Liberalism'.* He was supported by them because he had no other options. Further a great many academics were dependent on friends and family (which I also said) even when they could get work because being an academic paid virtually nothing back then (unless you were super famous anyway, and Marx didn't really get world wide fame till near the end of his life) .

The mid 19th Century wasn't the 1950's. You think a philosophy degree is worthless now? Lordy lordy it was even more worthless in 1850.

*Actually not that crazy, French Revolution and all that.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Commissar-Danno wrote:


And you missed the part where I said he was supported by his father and friend for the rest of his days.

And you missed the part where I pointed out he couldn't get work because the Prussian Monarchy blacklisted anyone who so much as uttered the phrase 'Classical Liberalism'.* He was supported by them because he had no other options. Further a great many academics were dependent on friends and family (which I also said) even when they could get work because being an academic paid virtually nothing back then (unless you were super famous anyway, and Marx didn't really get world wide fame till near the end of his life) .

The mid 19th Century wasn't the 1950's. You think a philosophy degree is worthless now? Lordy lordy it was even more worthless in 1850.

*Actually not that crazy, French Revolution and all that.

In fact, John Locke, father of Liberalism himself was dependent on "friends" for his own well being... Well, until he apparently took part in a plot to depose his own benefactor.

Same with Edmund Burke (who didn't try and depose his own benefactor, in fact much of his writing supported the "status quo" of the day)

Nope... why?

'Cuz, Capitalism curb stomps Communism.

[url=http://online.wsj.com/articles/douglas-irwin-the-ultimate-global-antipoverty-program-1414972491]The Ultimate Global Antipoverty Program
Extreme poverty fell to 15 percent in 2011, from 36 percent in 1990. Credit goes to the spread of capitalism.[/url]

 whembly wrote:
Extreme poverty fell to 15 percent in 2011, from 36 percent in 1990. Credit goes to the spread of capitalism.

I'm not going to say that people aren't better off -- but don't you see the inherent flaw in measuring well-being in capitalist dollars and then thanking capitalism?

When you consider that one of the key goals of communism is the eradication of money and property, everyone would be considered to be in "extreme poverty" by your standard, even if the system worked and they were better off in terms of food, accommodation, transport and healthcare.

 Smacks wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Extreme poverty fell to 15 percent in 2011, from 36 percent in 1990. Credit goes to the spread of capitalism.

I'm not going to say that people aren't better off -- but don't you see the inherent flaw in measuring well-being in capitalist dollars and then thanking capitalism?

When you consider that one of the key goals of communism is the eradication of money and property, everyone would be considered to be in "extreme poverty" by your standard, even if the system worked and they were better off in terms of food, accommodation, transport and healthcare.

And do you have any actual examples of that happening anywhere in the world?

 Smacks wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Extreme poverty fell to 15 percent in 2011, from 36 percent in 1990. Credit goes to the spread of capitalism.

I'm not going to say that people aren't better off -- but don't you see the inherent flaw in measuring well-being in capitalist dollars and then thanking capitalism?

This, in a nutshell. GDP does not measure one's happiness in life. And the fact that one does not starve does not equate to one eating healthy food. And so on.

PhantomViper wrote:
And do you have any actual examples of that happening anywhere in the world?

Why? Did someone claim it was happening?

 Ketara wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Extreme poverty fell to 15 percent in 2011, from 36 percent in 1990. Credit goes to the spread of capitalism.

I'm not going to say that people aren't better off -- but don't you see the inherent flaw in measuring well-being in capitalist dollars and then thanking capitalism?

This, in a nutshell. GDP does not measure one's happiness in life. And the fact that one does not starve does not equate to one eating healthy food. And so on.

And Communism doesn't ensure happiness in life either.

The individual is responsible for their own happiness and it shouldn't take the "collective" to facilitate that.

I'm not saying that the variants of Capitalisms is perfect. But, I'd argue true Communism is purely fantasy.

How so? Flawed, yes, but still possible. Mostly is "small" areas, and such. Small enough to have direct democracy.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How so? Flawed, yes, but still possible. Mostly is "small" areas, and such. Small enough to have direct democracy.

Flawed in the sense that human nature will prevent it.

You'd have to use force via the government to ensure compliance.

Then, folks in power would have to "give up " that up and return power back to the people. That's where it'll fail.

 Smacks wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
And do you have any actual examples of that happening anywhere in the world?

Why? Did someone claim it was happening?

You were, when you said that measuring poverty in monetary terms was a flawed idea and that it wouldn't work for a "moneyless" society.

Since such a society doesn't seem to exist, then measuring the well being of people through their increased financial means seems like a perfectly valid way to do it.

PhantomViper wrote:
You were, when you said that measuring poverty in monetary terms was a flawed idea and that it wouldn't work for a "moneyless" society.

No I did not claim such a place existed, and a society does not have to be "moneyless" for the notion to be flawed. A person who makes $300 a week and lives in government housing is better off than a person who makes $800 a week and pays $600 a week in rent. There are lots of people who make less that $1 a day and aren't living in poverty -- almost all young children for example -- and people who have managed to farm and live self sufficiently. Measuring well-being in dollars completely omits any and all non-monetary support you might be getting from others.

Since such a society doesn't seem to exist, then measuring the well being of people through their increased financial means seems like a perfectly valid way to do it.

Not when you are comparing capitalism to other systems of government. There is a clear conflict of interest there. Even if you only use it to compare capitalist countries, it is still not a good system because it doesn't compare people fairly. $100 a week might be a decent wage somewhere like Egypt or India, but you'd be destitute on that in London or NY.


Also, please don't put words in quote marks if they aren't quotes.

 Smacks wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
You were, when you said that measuring poverty in monetary terms was a flawed idea and that it wouldn't work for a "moneyless" society.

No I did not claim such a place existed, and a society does not have to be "moneyless" for the notion to be flawed. A person who makes $300 a week and lives in government housing is better off than a person who makes $800 a week and pays $600 a week in rent. There are lots of people who make less that $1 a day and aren't living in poverty -- almost all young children for example -- and people who have managed to farm and live self sufficiently. Measuring well-being in dollars completely omits any and all non-monetary support you might be getting from others.

And? What does the existence of children have to do with anything? The graph shows a percentage of people that live with under a dollar a day, unless you are claiming that there was a much bigger percentage of children worldwide as there exists nowadays, an increase in global wealth can still be directly translated to an increase in well being especially because that increase has direct correlations to things like longevity, health care, child mortality, education, etc.

And please show me those self sufficient farmers that somehow don't use money but still have a lifestyle that isn't considered poverty.

 Smacks wrote:

Since such a society doesn't seem to exist, then measuring the well being of people through their increased financial means seems like a perfectly valid way to do it.

Not when you are comparing capitalism to other systems of government. There is a clear conflict of interest there. Even if you only use it to compare capitalist countries, it is still not a good system because it doesn't compare people fairly. $100 a week might be a decent wage somewhere like Egypt or India, but you'd be destitute on that in London or NY.

So show me those other systems of government that aren't capitalist but that still manage to have the same development indexes as the western capitalist world.

 Smacks wrote:

Also, please don't put words in quote marks if they aren't quotes.

Unusual Usage
Quotes indicating verbal irony or other special use are sometimes called scare quotes. For example:

He shared his "wisdom" with me.
The lunch lady plopped a glob of "food" onto my tray.

Here you go: https://www.boundless.com/writing/textbooks/boundless-writing-textbook/style-structure-grammar-5/punctuation-31/using-quotation-marks-143-9262/

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How so? Flawed, yes, but still possible. Mostly is "small" areas, and such. Small enough to have direct democracy.

Direct democracy isn't communism. There are no elections or political classes in "true communism" so I don't see a correlation with direct democracy.

Communism can never work because it contradicts human nature and it's inherently self defeating. Communism is rooted in making sure that everybody has the same amount of stuff, it's much more materialistic than capitalism. Capitalism is rooted in giving everybody the opportunity to go get the stuff they want, communism is all about restricting what stuff people have. If everyone needs to have the same amount of stuff then you need a central authority with the power to make sure nobody gets too much stuff or has too little stuff. Once you create a controlling central authority you create a political class, now some people have more power than others, not there is no longer an equal balance which transforms communism into totalitarianism. Instead of "the people" being in charge they are now subjects to the central authority. This creates the additional issue of a central authority that will tend to act in the best interests of the central authority more so than in the best interests of the people.

Capitalism doesn't need a strong central authority because it's founded on individual responsibility and opportunity and market forces. People have more freedom and power within capitalism to get what they want and have the life that they want instead of a life that is dictated to them by the state. People generally resist when told they must have less so that others can have more because such a premise is built on the falsehood that there is a finite amount of wealth that can be shared. Wealth can always grow, value can always be added, other people's wealth doesn't limit yours.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How so? Flawed, yes, but still possible. Mostly is "small" areas, and such. Small enough to have direct democracy.

Direct democracy isn't communism. There are no elections or political classes in "true communism" so I don't see a correlation with direct democracy.

Communism can never work because it contradicts human nature and it's inherently self defeating. Communism is rooted in making sure that everybody has the same amount of stuff, it's much more materialistic than capitalism. Capitalism is rooted in giving everybody the opportunity to go get the stuff they want, communism is all about restricting what stuff people have. If everyone needs to have the same amount of stuff then you need a central authority with the power to make sure nobody gets too much stuff or has too little stuff. Once you create a controlling central authority you create a political class, now some people have more power than others, not there is no longer an equal balance which transforms communism into totalitarianism. Instead of "the people" being in charge they are now subjects to the central authority. This creates the additional issue of a central authority that will tend to act in the best interests of the central authority more so than in the best interests of the people.

Capitalism doesn't need a strong central authority because it's founded on individual responsibility and opportunity and market forces. People have more freedom and power within capitalism to get what they want and have the life that they want instead of a life that is dictated to them by the state. People generally resist when told they must have less so that others can have more because such a premise is built on the falsehood that there is a finite amount of wealth that can be shared. Wealth can always grow, value can always be added, other people's wealth doesn't limit yours.

Direct democracy because that's the one way to have everybody equal. Only if everybody has equal say can a system like communism survive.

Communism and Capitalism are both generally self-defeating. Both lead to something unwanted as their final result. Human greed will ensure that pure communism can never survive forever on the large scale, and same with pure capitalism.

I think never is a very strong word to use about something like this. "Is extremely unlikely to work" is a bit more accurate than "never".

And does Capitalism really "work"? I'd say it's possible to argue that unbridled Capitalism is also incredibly destructive.

It seems like a middle ground between the two extremes is where most of us end up, regardless of where we live. I would argue there has never been a successful "pure" capitalist society either.

Edit: Btw, on balance I find capitalism to be more likely to produce acceptable results than communism, but I think it should be well regulated.

It seems what works is a capitalist/socialist mix.

I'm not sure if any other government has ever really existed, just with different ratios of socialist to capitalist. Though I am no political theorist.

Well, no modern one AFAIK.

PhantomViper wrote:

Unusual Usage
Quotes indicating verbal irony or other special use are sometimes called scare quotes. For example:

He shared his "wisdom" with me.
The lunch lady plopped a glob of "food" onto my tray.

Here you go: https://www.boundless.com/writing/textbooks/boundless-writing-textbook/style-structure-grammar-5/punctuation-31/using-quotation-marks-143-9262/

It's not verbal irony if I didn't say it, and the context is literal. It's just you putting words in my mouth.