# The fundamental proposition of Marxism. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2003, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032 "2003-11-30T06:55:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jonmarzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jonmarzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonmarzie)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/41 "2003-12-01T07:38:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _Posted by Sandino_ > > Marxists seek to expand the capacity of people to develop themselves creatively. This can only be done when the means of production are in the hands of the laborers. It appears that Communism wants to say that you can create new things. You can build a better mousetrap, and you can own that mousetrap, but you don’t own the idea. but once built, the idea isn’t yours anymore. Intellectual property is less yours than air. > [@](#): > > \*From[/i The Communist Manifesto (parenthesis mine) > > …The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. > We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally aquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity, and independence. > Hard-won, self-aquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceeded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is till destroying it daily. > Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property? > But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit (except the wage itself). It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. So, you have an idea for a magnetic hovercraft, and you thought up a prototype in your garage. This cost you a lot of effort. Now, you’d like to make a lot of these magnetic hovercraft, but you don’t have the labor resources to do so. What do you do? You hire people. Oh, wait. You can’t. That would be exploiting someone else’s labor. I guess you’re just stuck making all these magnetic hovercraft quite inefficiently in your small garage by yourself, with no one to keep you company. (Communists are against the family.) > [@](#): > > IBID (bolding mine) > > Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous **proposal of the Communists.** > On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. > > \ > > The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Wow! I didn’t know that the family I love is simply a tool of capitalism! Thank you, Marx, for opening my mind. ---
**Author:** ![Jonmarzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jonmarzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonmarzie)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/42 "2003-12-01T07:43:32Z")
Oh, and **adaher** , Communists do have something to say about emigration. > [@](#): > > _Again, from The Communist Manifesto, when Marx is talking about what will happen in Communist states._ > > 1. > > . > . > . > 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. > . > . > . So, they confiscate all of your money, everything you’ve made, and all other things. They only don’t take your mind because they can’t. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/43 "2003-12-01T07:47:33Z")
I already figured that, but would they let them leave? A skilled person can lose all his wealth and just make more. Which is why so many from the Eastern bloc fled to the West, leaving everything behind. Not to mention that liberty is a wonderful thing even if you’re dirt poor. I’d rather be free and live under an overpass than have all the material comforts I could want and be a slave. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/44 "2003-12-01T09:05:40Z")
Considering that Karl Marx himself didn’t want to live in a post-communist revolution society, I think the whole debate is moot. ---
**Author:** ![Fox\_in\_the\_Snow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/82dd89/32.png) [@Fox\_in\_the\_Snow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fox_in_the_Snow)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/45 "2003-12-01T09:26:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\ ***Sandino** , Lenin was nothing more than a murderer and a thug. Have you ever heard of the Red Terror? This took place from 1918 until 1920, officially, but actually continued until 1924. > > I suggest you make yourself familiar with _The Crucifixion of Liberty_ by Aleksander Kerensky. > > Lenin did indeed cause famine and slaughter throughout Russia. It wasn’t all Stalin. > > (Sorry, **Olentzero**! 😃 ) \*\* To say Lenin was nothing more than a murderer and a thug is a bit simplistic for my tastes. Was he those things? Without question. He was also a first rate politican, inspiring orator and writer of no little skill. Not a good man, by any reasonable standards but certainly a more complex one than you suggest. For what it’s worth Kerensky was hardly a saint either. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/46 "2003-12-01T11:41:54Z")
And Ted Bundy was handsome and intelligent. Sorry, but when someone is a mass murderer, their other qualities tend to look rather insignificant. ---
**Author:** ![Fox\_in\_the\_Snow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/82dd89/32.png) [@Fox\_in\_the\_Snow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fox_in_the_Snow)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/47 "2003-12-01T12:02:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*And Ted Bundy was handsome and intelligent. Sorry, but when someone is a mass murderer, their other qualities tend to look rather insignificant. \*\* Perhaps I was unclear, What I meant was that in a historical context I find it hard to accept the view that Lenin was _merely_ a murderer and a thug, that doesn’t give the full picture. I’m no fan of Lenin’s but surely one can acknowledge his skills and historical importance? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/48 "2003-12-01T12:37:16Z")
Yes, I was just getting emotional. As I’ve posted earlier, my parents escaped Communist oppression. I understand your point if I just detach myself a little. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/49 "2003-12-01T13:14:04Z")
What does it matter if I’m working for the State or working for Bob Johnson, CEO of MegaCorp? A person still has to work. The policies of the State or MegaCorp will still serve to protect the greater good of the State or the corporation, not my individual interests and goals. Marxisms goal of a “classless” society is impossible (unless by classless you mean “everyone is poor”) since there will always be some stratification of people by intellegence, skills, or authority. > [@](#): > > adaher > Not to mention that liberty is a wonderful thing even if you’re dirt poor. I’d rather be free and live under an overpass than have all the material comforts I could want and be a slave. That’s one of those statements that sounds good until you think about it for awhile. Would you actually rather live like a homeless person than be a well cared for slave? Isn’t that the choice 99% of the world makes when they get up for work in the morning? You have to go to a place every day, when and where they tell you. Do everything that is asked of you. In exchange, they will provide you with the means to feed, clothe and house yourself. It’s not quite slavery but it is a big infringement on your personal freedom. The alternative, of course, is to live under a piece of cardboard in a subway station (with 100% freedom). In any event, I would rather make a decent living working as some billionares wage-slave than live under a bridge. And if my option is to have the same standard of living working in a Marxist colective or some big corporate office, then who cares? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/50 "2003-12-01T13:18:33Z")
Working voluntarily for a wage isn’t slavery. It’s exchanging one thing of value for another. It is trade. Slavery isn’t trade. A slave is a possession, like a dog or a computer. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/51 "2003-12-01T13:36:45Z")
> [@](#): > > The October 1917 Revolution was the first, and so far only, revolution made by the working class… Really? What about [East Germany in 1953?](http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1325.jsp) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/52 "2003-12-01T15:39:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > Working voluntarily for a wage isn’t slavery. It’s exchanging one thing of value for another. It is trade. Slavery isn’t trade. A slave is a possession, like a dog or a computer. \*\* That is true. The point I am trying to make is that while we are technically free to work where we please (or not work at all), we are still bound to the system, whether it is capitalist, marxist or evil ant overlord-ist. All things considered, I think we would all choose to work in a system that maximized our personal freedoms. Those freedoms include having the mobility to work where we can in whatever career we choose. I don’t get the feeling a marxist economy allows that. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/53 "2003-12-01T16:39:44Z")
From adaher > [@](#): > > Working voluntarily for a wage isn’t slavery. It’s exchanging one thing of value for another. It is trade. Slavery isn’t trade. A slave is a possession, like a dog or a computer. Bingo. Exactly my point about the blurring of the lines. Back in the day, people didn’t have a lot of choices about what they could and could not do. They didnt’ have oppurtunities to change or go elsewhere. If you are a peasant farmer…you farmed. You were tied to the land. If you worked at a factory, then you most likely worked at that same factory all your life. If you were a miner, same. You were tied to your job by the lack of other oppurtunity. The situation today is like nothing Marx or Engels could have imagined. The OP is basically living in a fantasy world of the past. The revolution ALREADY happened…and is spreading. The revolution was social democracy, or socialist/capitalism, and its spread throughout Europe (and to the ex-communist states in Eastern Europe and Russia), through America, to Asia. Its making inroads into China, who will probably eventually fold their communist hand when the old men of the party finally die off. The key question is…WHY is socialist/Capitalism spreading throughout the world…and NOT Maxist/Lennist communism? Want to take a shot at THAT, Sandino? Also, please TRY and back up some of your more incredible claims with something more than retoric, hm? If you put forth something as fact (say, like the ‘fact’ that “Actually, it is quite correct. It was only the “fear of god” instilled in the hearts of the capitalists that finally prompted them to give women the right to vote. The USSR was the first major state to grant full political equality to women. The U.S. jumped on the bandwagon so as not to lose too many propaganda points.”) I’m not talking about quoting from either Marx, Lennin or Engels either…I’m talking about some FACTS here. Per the example, cite some sources showing the in fact America WAS influenced to grant sufferage to women because of the influence of Russia granting sufferage to their women. Cite that in fact the sufferage movement for women was not happening PRIOR to the Russian revolution. I’d also love a cite showing that communist style industries are more efficient than capitalist style industries on a production basis…hell, on ANY basis. It seems to fly in the face of reality, but why don’t you give us some solid cites that prove its so? Well, you get the idea. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/54 "2003-12-01T17:06:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fox in the Snow \* > \*\*Perhaps I was unclear, What I meant was that in a historical context I find it hard to accept the view that Lenin was _merely_ a murderer and a thug, that doesn’t give the full picture. > I’m no fan of Lenin’s but surely one can acknowledge his skills and historical importance? \*\* You’re right-I shouldn’t have put it that way. No doubt Lenin had many talents and no, Kerensky was not a knight in shining armor. HOWEVER, I would say that Lenin changed Russia for the worse, not for the better. And in the end, he was a ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/55 "2003-12-01T17:09:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fox in the Snow \* > \*\*Perhaps I was unclear, What I meant was that in a historical context I find it hard to accept the view that Lenin was _merely_ a murderer and a thug, that doesn’t give the full picture. > I’m no fan of Lenin’s but surely one can acknowledge his skills and historical importance? \*\* You’re right-I shouldn’t have put it that way. No doubt Lenin had many talents and no, Kerensky was not a knight in shining armor. HOWEVER, I would say that Lenin changed Russia for the worse, not for the better. (sorry, screwed up!) In the end, I would say his legacy is that of a thug and a murderer. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/56 "2003-12-01T17:15:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by qts \* > \*\*Paging **Olentzero**. \*\* No need to; **Sandino** is saying what I would have said, for the most part anyway. Sure, I have some disagreements with him/her on a couple of points, but that doesn’t mean I feel the need to set myself up as the voice of “the one true Marxism” against **Sandino** ’s arguments in this debate. It’s high time there was another voice from the radical left around here! ---
**Author:** ![Fox\_in\_the\_Snow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/82dd89/32.png) [@Fox\_in\_the\_Snow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fox_in_the_Snow)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/57 "2003-12-01T17:28:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*You’re right-I shouldn’t have put it that way. > > No doubt Lenin had many talents and no, Kerensky was not a knight in shining armor. > > HOWEVER, I would say that Lenin changed Russia for the worse, not for the better. > > (sorry, screwed up!) > > In the end, I would say his legacy is that of a thug and a murderer. \*\* Surely The legacy of Lenin is Stalin? And It doesn’t get much more damning than that. Given Stalin it is impossible to argue that Lenin was good for Russia. That said with the benefit of hindsight It’s hard to see anyone who was espicially good for Russia at the time. Nicholas brought the revolution on himself, Kerensky wasn’t up to the job, neither was Chernovs mob and The proto-fascism of Kolchack and Denikin is hardly attractive. Of course if they’d got out of the war right after the feburary Revolution things might of been different but saving that it’s hard to see how disaster could have been avoided. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/58 "2003-12-01T17:29:00Z")
Olentzero, could you take a shot at rationally explaining your views on why, empirically, it appears that social-democracy seems to be thriving (and spreading) under a modified capitalist system, while communism seems to be dieing out, a failed experiment? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/59 "2003-12-01T17:37:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sandino \* > \*\*The hostility toward Marxism has little or nothing to do with the actual propositions of Marxism, and everything to do with bourgeois ideology which washes peoples’ brains day-in, day-out, from cradle to grave. > \*\* Actually, it probably has more to do with Marxism’s abysmal human rights and economic record. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sandino \* > \*\*The necessary pre-conditions for this are: > (1) abolition of the standing army and police, to be replaced by the whole _armed people_, > (2) all officials to be elected and subject to recall at any time, and > (3) no official to recieve a wage higher than that of a skilled worker. > \*\* Are you alleging that Stalin or Khrushchev were subject to recall at any time? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sandino \* > \*\ ***_adaher_ -\> THe crux of the Communist problem has always been about what to do with the 10% of the population that absolutely cannot go along with the program. In most nations, the method of dealing with that 10% is to kill them. Communism can never be moral in a nation state, only as a voluntary social compact where 100% agree to it.** > > Marxists have never held that the entire population is going to go along–some portion will have to be coerced. As I stated above, **every** state is a special repressive force for the oppression of one class by another. We call for the expropriation of the bourgeois and landlords, for the nationalization of the means of production, without compensation. The bourgeoisie will, of course, not go along with this willingly, so they will have to be suppressed. State power must pass into the hands of the proletariat in order to totally crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie. > \*\* I’ll give you credit - at least you are up front with your commitment to mass murder. The problem with your plans, of course, is that in the US and most of Western Europe, the bourgeousie constitutes an absolute majority, and we don’t take kindly to attempts by to rob and murder us. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sandino \* > \*\* The real violence came with the counter-revolution, as the blood-soaked imperialists launched an assault on the infant state. This cost millions of lives. > \*\* Really? The invasion of Poland by Stalin was part of the counter-revolution? The purges of the Army? The engineered famines in the Ukraine? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sandino \* > \*\ ***_RickJay_ -\> The notion that the U.S. granted women the right to vote because of the Soviet Union is absolutely preposterous** > > Actually, it is quite correct. It was only the “fear of god” instilled in the hearts of the capitalists that finally prompted them to give women the right to vote. The USSR was the first major state to grant full political equality to women. The U.S. jumped on the bandwagon so as not to lose too many propaganda points. Women didn’t gain the right to vote in France, Italy or Japan until after 1944. In addition, whereas the right to vote in capitalist countries is mostly cosmetic, women had _actual_ political equality in the USSR, not just a token right to vote every few years on which member of the ruling class is going to rob and oppress the people. > \*\* Sorry, not true. It was the “vote” in the Soviet Union that was largely cosmetic and meaningless. Using the term “the right to vote” in the USSR is a misnomer, since the vote of the average Soviet citizen meant nothing to who was ruling that dark and bloody nation. Although you are correct that Soviet women had full equality with Soviet men. All slaves are roughly equal. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sandino \* > \*\*One of the lessons learned from the USSR is that a planned, collectivized economy is far superior, in terms of productive output, to capitalism. > \*\* Really? Shall I dig up the cites contrasting North and South Korea, or East and West Germany? Here you have simply taken leave of reality. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sandino \* > \*\ ***_GoHeels_ -\> You Marxists were responsible for famine, misery, totalitarianism, state-sponsored murder, environmental disaster, mass poverty, repression, lies, and gulags in the 20th century.** > > The exact opposite is the case. > \*\* Well, that was a devastating rebuttal. If by “devastating” you mean “mendacious” or “idiotically wrong”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sandino \* > \*\* _Workers democracy_ means passionate political debate among the parties in workers councils over all the urgent political and economic problems and the alternative programs put forward for solving them. It means free and open discussion and, when the issues are serious, it means vituperative and if necessary factional struggle. \*\* Free and open discussion? In the Soviet Union? Please tell me you’re kidding. Or do a little research on the term _samizdat_. Anyone else get the feeling that someone is channeling **Chumpsky**? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032/60 "2003-12-01T17:48:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xtisme \* > However, its hard for me to imagine ANYTHING taking class out of the equations…humans are hierchacally organized as a species, so you’ll ALWAYS have some kind of class structure, IMO. I think this is a strong indication that any egalitarian scheme will necessarily be totaltarian in practice, and force the creation of a power class in order to combat those that occur naturally. IMO the only practical ideal is having a welfare “floor” so no one falls through the cracks of society, and enforcing equality of opportunity (within reason). This should enable relative mobility, making class distinctions more abstract than real. With you, I think we are in or at least approaching a time when class distinctions are no longer primarily externally imposed as they may have been when communists were originally writing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fundamental-proposition-of-marxism/216032.md?page=4)