Wait…are we talking about the Communist Tank or the stock market here?
If you want to split hairs, fine. :rolleyes:
Attempting to implement Communism is certainly a bad thing.
Marc
As has been previously mentioned, Marc, it’s no more splitting hairs to absolve Marx from responsibility for “the deaths of millions and the suffering of hundreds of millions” than it is to absolve Christ for all the deaths caused in his name.
Again, as I first responded, do you think that Stalin would have been less Stalin had he used some other ideology as an excuse to iron-glove his country? If so, why?
And do you think the mechanisms of a Marxist disctatorship made it easier for Stalin to rule than if Russia had been a capitalist representative democracy?
. . . I’m not sure why you put the word “Marxist” in there, gobear.
But yes, a dictatorship makes it easier for a dictator to be a dictator. And yes, I find representative democracy much more appealing than dictatorship.
My only point is this: Marxism has never existed as a large-scale system of governance. It never will. Stalin (to stick with him for the time being) gave lip service to communism while maintaining a totalitarian regime. It is a simple fact, however, that the USSR was never in any way Marxist. Period, full stop, end of statement.
Simply using Marxism or communism as a convenient label for dictatorship does not mean that Marx is to blame for the abuses conducted in the name of his idea.
I agree gobear. We certainly have thousands…maybe even millions of people right here in the USA who would make a more bloodthirsty power-crazed dictator than Stalin would have. Many of these people hold political office right now, many of them are powerful businesspeople, or high-ranking generals. Some of them may have even been president–just look at [insert name of hated president here] for crying out loud.
But liberal capitalistic democracy makes it extremely difficult if not impossible for these psychos to get in a position to live out their megalomanical goals…even if they become president.
Since Marxist philosophy requires a dictatorial phase of the economy, it follows that said dictatorship is going to be hijacked by bad guys. I wouldn’t trust a single person in America with dictatorial power, even if I could hand-pick them myself. Well…I suppose I could be trusted to do the job…after all, I’m fair-minded, incorruptable…just the kind of steely-eyed visionary this country needs. But aside from myself, what candidates are there?
Any sociopoliticoeconomic system that concentrates power in the hands of an unaccountable few will be a disaster. Sometimes by great good fortune a “good dictator” assumes power. But what happens when the good dictator is gone? And what happens if the good dictator turns bad?
Marxism embraces dictatorship, and system that embraces dictatorship is inherently evil, therefore Marxism is inherently evil.
Okeedokee. Whatever you say.
Sure, it was. Marx said that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” was the natural first step ofter overthrowing capitalism. Marxism is an inherently totalitarian philosophy.
Again, ok.
I’ve been under the impression that “Marxism” was the end result (the pure communism Marx claimed all other systems evolved into) and that he considered the “middle stages” to be not required so much as inevitable.
But it’s been a while since I read the Manifesto. Y’all seem to be more up on it than I.
Alright. What I want to know is this: it’s 1989. The Berlin Wall comes down, shortly thereafter all those communist regimes go up in smoke.
I figure, OK, don’t have to hear about that one anymore.
Then, I’m eating lunch at a diner across the street from CUNY’s grad school, and a bunch of people who are students from the grad school are discussing Marxism like it’s still a hot intellectual topic.
I’m flabbergasted. I mean, exactly what would it take to admit that the damned thing doesn’t work? We had millions dead in the USSR, millions dead and a famine in China, millions dead and a famine in Cambodia, a famine that for all I know is still going on in North Korea, North Korea is way poorer than South Korea, ditto for East and West Germany (in the old days; the eastern portion is still poorer today I think), and on and on.
OK, so maybe it does look good on paper, maybe it doesn’t. Given the real world record, why does anyone still have the nerve to say that it would work, if only…
If only what? If pigs flew? If trees walked? If dogs talked?
But it is a hot intellectual topic. Or at least a valid one. Hell, look at this little discussion it’s begun.
And just as these young academics believe in all sorts of things they will abandon as they age, many of them believe in some mystical world in which everyone shares. Most of them will grow out of it. Some won’t. No big–it doesn’t affect your life any.
Um, maybe I am totally off-base, but I think a big issue here is that Communism is both an economic and political system. When I think of something to pit Communism against, it’s not Capitalism, its Democracy, Monarcy, Republic, Oligarchy, and that sort of thing.
I’m absolutely believe that pure Capitalism is not the best way to do things, but I would not be willing to give up my Democratic way of life (however corrupt that might be) in order to fix things.
Again, maybe I’m just not understanding the Communism thing, but in my relatively politically-uneducated mind I think a more ideal way to do things would be a Democratic government with more Communistic influences, which are voted on by the people (welfare, universal health care, education). This is how (roughly) Socialism works, is it not? In what ways does Communism improve upon Socialism? It seems like a decent compromise to me.
I might look at Communism differently if someone could explain to me how it might work without me having to give up many of the freedoms of choice I now enjoy.
There is a very big difference between the historic actions of humans and hair color. Obviously, hair color isn’t relevant to a political or economic theory. However, human action is the very basis of determining whether a theory is viable. Communism requires one to believe that humans are actually different than history and experience have shown them to be. Communism only works if this theory of difference is correct. While you might believe in this theory, most do not. Essentially, you’re asking people to welcome a dictatorship in order to achieve some new type of humanity that hasn’t existed. But history has shown that people act in their self-interest and that dictatorships don’t naturally dissolve into freedom. You might believe it can be different, and you are entitled to your faith. But objecting to people using a legitimate critique of your theory doesn’t fly. If it’s the actual phrasing of the sentence, then I’d say there’s plenty of hackneyed phrases on both sides of the debate.
You say that it doesn’t bother you if people disagree, just that you don’t think that phrase is legitimate. But the critique embodied in that phrase is legitimate. It’s merely a shorthand for a broader critique of Marxism. I’ve wrapped my head around Marxism, I simply don’t buy it. Pointing to human nature is a valid means of critiquing a political and economic theory.
And, as another poster noted, the recent rash of Communism debates have largely been started by people who are unable to effectively defend communism of any stripe. I would say that when an OP is full of poor reasoning you’re more likely to get people posting soundbites. A good OP invites good discussion.
We’re not talking about personal property. We are talking about PRIVATE property.
PERSONAL property could be things like your house, car, vacation cabin, boat, or any other objects that people need and have always needed to lead normal satisfying lives. It exists to satisfy some need of a personal nature. It is NOT capital.
PRIVATE property is factories, mills, mines, utilities, commercial buildings, rental housing, or any other which qualifies under the general heading of “capital”. Most of us own none except a few mutual funds, which is really not much more than a savings account.
You are to be excused for thinking they’re the same. Capitalist propaganda has gone to great lengths to convince people that Marxists advocate communal toothbrushes, etc.
In response to the OP, in my experience anyone who trots out the “looks good on paper” argument isn’t going to be disposed to listen to any argument, reasoned or otherwise, in support of Marx and communism. Then again, there’s no shortage of demagoguery anywhere on the political spectrum.
That having been said, there are a few good questions here that deserve answering. One was, roughly, “Why didn’t Marx lay the whole damn thing out in the Manifesto?”
While the CM is definitely one of Marx’ most important works, ranking right up there with Capital, it is not his only work, and the ideas and arguments for social change are examined throughout the sum total of his life’s output. At the same time, the Manifesto was written in 1848.
This is an important date for a number of reasons. Marx was only 30 years old at the time, and essentially still at the beginning of his political career. He had really only just completed his turn to revolutionary politics, and he was still engaging in more theoretical and philosophical debates with his old college drinking buddies.
At the same time, 1848 was a year marked by bourgeois revolutions throughout Europe. The emerging bourgeoisie was following France’s lead in challenging their respective monarchies and trying to establish more democratic forms of societies like republics. Marx, like many of his time, began to understand that social change could only come about through the class struggle becoming an open struggle for political power, and having been witness to the inequalities inherent in already fully developed capitalist societies like Britian and Belgium, he came to the conclusion that socialism would have to come about in the same way - the struggle of the expropriated against the expropriators.
But that struggle could not occur if the bourgeoisie wasn’t the ruling class. Thus nobody could really say with authority how the revolt of the workers against their bosses could, would, or should occur because the society in which that struggle was supposed to occur didn’t even exist. And only through observing what actually exists can one begin to formulate how things will probably progress and what needs to be done in order to turn progress in our favor.
This is why, when the Paris Commune was established in 1871, Marx and Engels wholeheartedly supported it. Here they had a real example of open workers’ struggle to replace capitalist society with a workers’ society. This was something they could point to as “the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class itself” - which they had stated in the Manifesto, and was about as specific as they could reasonably get 23 years beforehand.
Finally, people really need to understand the purpose of the Manifesto. It is not supposed to be an all-encompassing, highly detailed blueprint for a future society- for one thing, to say that the workers need to act for themselves as a class in order to establish socialism, and then turn around and say how socialism should be run on a daily basis, is presumptuousness of the highest order. The Manifesto was commissioned by the newly-formed Communist League (which Marx and Engels had helped establish) to set forth their political views in a short and popular form designed to make simple, clear arguments about the nature of capitalist society and the way forward to change in order to win adherents to the League. Things were politically volatile in 1848 and political parties of all stripes were out to build support for further activities.
It would be ungenerous, I suppose, to infer a positive correlation between having pro-communism sentiments and the inability to form a coherent argument.
It does seem as if the most vociferous pro-communist sentiments come from sweetly naive kids, like the OP, who have a praiseworthy desire to correct what they see as an unjust economic system, but who have no practical knowledge of economics or the business world.
Top-down managed economic systems like Marxism cannot work. People are not saying that because they are blackhearted meanies who are indifferent to the sufferings of the poor. They say it because Marxist theory flies in the face of both experience and human nature.
I’m not going to rehash all the arguments against Marxism, so I’ll just leave you with a P.J O’Rourke quote.
“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” – John Stuart Mill
“A hit, a hit, a very palpable hit!” 
Written from the perspective of a citizen of the USA
It seem that these discussions never get to the most important question: Which direction would the working class (wage and salary workers) like to take society to ensure their happiness and and security as free human beings? This is assuming that working people think and organize as a class, which they clearly do not.
It is clear that the direction over the past several decades is one of more corporate and government control over our lives, more stress and pressure, more insecurity, less leisure time, and a generally more uncivilized society.
Was this our choice? Was it inevitable? Which direction will it go now? These are fundamental questions which will become increasingly important as society degenerates further (I can’t think of any social index which indicates anything other than further degeneration)
Did Marx predict this? In general terms only. After all, we lack the ability to see a shift from boom to bust in the stock market within a year or so. Don’t fault Marx for not having a crystal ball. He never claimed to have one.
There is really only two possible directions. We continue as were going, being fodder for the corporate profit mill with all that implies, or people join together to take control of their own lives. Only real democracy, not the phoney kind we have now, with real decision making power will change things. And there is no way that that can happen under capitalism.
That is not to say that Capitalism cannot become more humane than it is now. Many capitalist countries in Europe are much more civilized places than the US. But they became that way to counter the “threat” of communism and through the political activities of communists and socialists, mostly in the trade unions. This process also occured in the US in the late '40s through about the mid 70’s, i.e., during a period when it was necessary to convince a large labor movement that capitalism was not bad like the communists kept preaching, but had evolved into something different from its 19th century form. Many people believed a new era had arrived and were completely shellshocked by the capitalist offensive which struck with full fury during the economic crisis of 1974-75. Since that time, many indices of quality of life for working people have trended steadily downward.
Reform in capitalism is never permanent. Once the pressure is off, it’s natural tendencies to impoverish the working class resume. It’s safe to do so now and it is going on right now. There are no more communists around to tell the workers, “we told you so!”
Final note: Capitalists are not threatend by ersatz “communists” who describe themselves as “Comrade of the Anarchistic Lawn Fornication League.” (The OP should read Lenin’s "Left wing communism, an infantile disorder) As a matter of fact, state security agencies have long created and supported organizations which use such rhetoric. Most working people intuitively avoid such characterizations and form negative associations with groups who use them. Neat huh?
Communism does NOT look good on paper.
It looks fine in sky writing, though.