NationStates Jolt Archive

Marxists' Apartment A Microcosm Of Why Marxism Doesn't Work

November 13, 2002 | Issue 38•42

AMHERST, MA—The filthy, disorganized apartment shared by three members of the Amherst College Marxist Society is a microcosm of why the social and economic utopia described in the writings of Karl Marx will never come to fruition, sources reported Monday.

Enlarge ImageMarxists

Marxists Kirk Dorff and Josh Foyle.

"The history of society is the inexorable history of class struggle," said sixth-year undergraduate Kirk Dorff, 23, resting his feet on a coffee table cluttered with unpaid bills, crusted cereal bowls, and bongwater-stained socialist pamphlets. "The stage is set for the final struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the true productive class. We're well aware of that here at 514 W. Elm Street, unlike other apartments on this supposedly intellectual campus."

Upon moving in together at the beginning of the fall 2001 semester, Dorff, Josh Foyle, and Tom Eaves sat down and devised an egalitarian system for harmonious living. Each individual roommate would be assigned a task, which he would be required to carry out on a predetermined day of the week. A bulletin board in the kitchen was chosen as the spot for household announcements, and to track reimbursements for common goods like toothpaste and toilet paper.

"We were creating an exciting new model for living," said Dorff, stubbing his cigarette into an ashtray that had not been emptied in six days. "It was like we were dismantling the apparatus of the state right within our own living space."

Despite the roommates' optimism, the system began to break down soon after its establishment. To settle disputes, the roommates held weekly meetings of the "Committee of Three."

"I brought up that I thought it was total bullshit that I'm, like, the only one who ever cooks around here, yet I have to do the dishes, too," said Foyle, unaware of just how much the apartment underscores the infeasibility of scientific socialism as outlined in Das Kapital. "So we decided that if I cook, someone else has to do the dishes. We were going to rotate bathroom-cleaning duty, but then Kirk kept skipping his week, so we had to give him the duty of taking out the garbage instead. But now he has a class on Tuesday nights, so we switched that with the mopping."

After weeks of complaining that he was the only one who knew how to clean "halfway decent," Foyle began scaling back his efforts, mirroring the sort of production problems experienced in the USSR and other Soviet bloc nations.

At an Oct. 7 meeting of the Committee of Three, more duties and a point system were added. Two months later, however, the duty chart is all but forgotten and the shopping list is several pages long.

Enlarge ImageMarxist jump

Dishes and seminal Marxist tracts pile up in the kitchen sink.

The roommates have also tried to implement a food-sharing system, with similarly poor results. The dream of equal distribution of shared goods quickly gave way to pilferage, misallocation, and hoarding.

"I bought the peanut butter the first four times, and this Organic Farms shit isn't cheap," Eaves said. "So ever since, I've been keeping it in my dresser drawer. If Kirk wants to make himself a sandwich, he can run to the corner store and buy some Jif."

Another failed experiment involves the cigarettes bought collectively. Disagreements constantly arose over who smoked more than his fair share of the group's supply of American Spirit Blues, and the roommates now hide individually purchased packs from each other—especially late at night when shortages are frequent.

The situation is familiar to Donald Browning, author of Das Kouch: A History Of College Marxism, 1970-1998.

"When workers willfully become less productive, the economy of the household suffers," Browning said. "But in a society where a range of ability naturally exists, someone is bound to object to picking up the slack for others and end up getting all pissy, like Josh does."

According to Browning, the group's lack of productivity pervades their lives, with roommates encouraging each other to skip class or work to sit on the couch smoking pot and talking politics.

"A spirit of free-market competition in the house would likely result in better incomes or better grades," Browning said. "Then, instead of being hated and ostracized by the world at large as socialist countries usually are, they could maintain effective diplomacy with their landlord, their parents, and Kirk's boss who cut back his hours at Shaman Drum Books."

The lack of funds and the resulting scarcity breeds not only discontent but also corruption. Although collectivism only works when all parties contribute to the fullest extent, Foyle hid the existence of a $245 paycheck from roommates so he would not have to pay his back rent, in essence refusing to participate in the forced voluntary taxation that is key to socialism. Even worse, Dorff, who is entrusted with bill collection and payment, recently pocketed $30, a theft he claimed was "for the heating bill" but was put toward buying drinks later that night.

"As is human nature, power tends to corrupt even the noblest of men," Browning said. "The more power the collective has over the lives of the individuals, as is the case in this household, the more he who is in charge of distribution has to gain by being unscrupulous. These Marxists will soon realize they overestimated how much control they would like 514 W. Elm as an entity to have."

We can't really say a failed college expiriment disproves communism, maybe if the inhabitants actually did their share of the work and followed their communist ideals things would work better, instead of going "omg I cook and do the dishes, I deserve more" capitalists make me angry... Maybe if they evenly distributes the cigarettes i.e. the benefits they wouldn't have problems.

Marxists' Apartment A Microcosm Of Why Marxism Doesn't Work


I am* the legal representative of The Onion, and I will** be suing your ass for breach of copyright. How hard is it to give an accreditation when you cut-and-paste?





* not

** not

We can't really say a failed college expiriment disproves communism, maybe if the inhabitants actually did their share of the work and followed their communist ideals things would work better, instead of going "omg I cook and do the dishes, I deserve more" capitalists make me angry... Maybe if they evenly distributes the cigarettes i.e. the benefits they wouldn't have problems.

That's the thing though, how are you going to force people to do their share of the work?

We can't really say a failed college expiriment disproves communism, maybe if the inhabitants actually did their share of the work and followed their communist ideals things would work better...


Yes, but then we can say, maybe if the USSR had actually followed their communist ideals things would have worked better there too, no?

Clearly the issue is, even people who have these ideals - and most people do not - can't make it work. So is it ever going to work for a society where only some, or even most, have these ideals and the rest do not? No, not without mass executions and oppression.

I agree that a single college experiment doesn't disprove communism... but it echoes the total failure of communism in the larger world..

By implementing national quotas. You say a doctor works harder than a janitor so they don't deserve equal wages? Well then make the janitor work longer than the doctor. If they don't complete their designated job, they'd be penalized, if they don't complete their job repeatedly they'd receive a harsher consiquence.

I don't think communism can work on the large scale without a sucessful new-age socialist country ruling for 20+ years. Violence would then be unescessary, and people would be used to a state-run economy, almost equal wages, and the communist ideals.

O and for the record, I think I could run a much better communist dorm by not spending the group's money on cigarettes, not stealing the money, doing my part, and making sure verybody else does their's.

By implementing national quotas. You say a doctor works harder than a janitor so they don't deserve equal wages? Well then make the janitor work longer than the doctor. If they don't complete their designated job, they'd be penalized, if they don't complete their job repeatedly they'd receive a harsher consiquence.
*bangs head on keyboard*

I thought we all learned the lessons of central planning a loooooooong time ago.

O and for the record, I think I could run a much better communist dorm by not spending the group's money on cigarettes, not stealing the money, doing my part, and making sure verybody else does their's.
And what are you going to do if somebody doesn't do their share?

Boot them, but as long as did they a bare minimum of the work they're required to do, even if they didn't work as hard as me, I'd allow him to stay and receive the same benefits as me.

Quote from the 19th century's conservatives :

Banning child labor doesn't work.
Children will always work. The economy would colapse if we banned child labor
Compulsory education is not going to work. We need children in the mines because adults are too tall.
We tryed it in some mines somewhere and productivity has fallen.

Quote from the 17th century's conservatives :

Giving political power to the peasants is foolish. Peasants don't understand politics they'll screw up everything. It has been tryed somewhere and the peasants screwed up the economy.

Quote from the 5th century's conservatives before christ :

Freeing the slaves will destroy the economy. If we free the slaves nobody is going to do the work and we will all colapse. It has been tryed somewhere and they all died.

so marxism will never work as long as its run by MEN eh?

i had that same system when i was in college sharing with roomates that i didnt know before we roomed together.

it worked fairly well and never ended in filth and theft.

we were all women.

We can't really say a failed college expiriment disproves communism, maybe if the inhabitants actually did their share of the work and followed their communist ideals things would work better, instead of going "omg I cook and do the dishes, I deserve more" capitalists make me angry... Maybe if they evenly distributes the cigarettes i.e. the benefits they wouldn't have problems.

True. We can only point to the results of Cuba, Nicaragua, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Jugoslavia, Bulgaria, Mongolia, the USSR, North Korea, Laos, Yemen, Somalia, Cambodia, Angola, Afghanistan, China, and Viet Nam as viable examples of why Communism doesn't work as a political-economic system.

(NB: China and Viet Nam are no longer Communist economically.)

Quote from the 19th century's conservatives :

Yeah right. Are these like today's republican "conservatives?"

Banning child labor doesn't work.
Children will always work.

Well. Children do work today, do they not? Working on farms perhaps, doing a paper route... selling lemonade!


Compulsory education is not going to work.

And so you are saying it does? that forcing people to be educated, actually makes them educated? How does one force someone to go to school anyway... in the US truancy is still a problem.


Giving political power to the peasants is foolish. Peasants don't understand politics they'll screw up everything.

They DON'T. And they DO. That is why we have Bush in the white house, instead of someone competent. That is why all our politics is about keeping the same assholes in power, or getting new assholes in power, by a combination of media whoring, publicity stunts, commercial advertisement, propaganda, fear and ignorance.

Freeing the slaves will destroy the economy. If we free the slaves nobody is going to do the work and we will all colapse. It has been tryed somewhere and they all died.

In the fifth century, that was probably true.

But somehow I'm gonna doubt the authenticity of your 'quotes.' Somehow I don't think people in the 17th century said "they'll screw up everything."

And how is any of this relevant anyway? It isn't.

True. We can only point to the results of Cuba, Nicaragua, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Jugoslavia, Bulgaria, Mongolia, the USSR, North Korea, Laos, Yemen, Somalia, Cambodia, Angola, Afghanistan, China, and Viet Nam as viable examples of why Communism doesn't work as a political-economic system.

(NB: China and Viet Nam are no longer Communist economically.)
Depends what you call "working".
I believe those countries had or have a working socialist society.
Now if you believe a "working" society is one which is not socialist, naturally, it didn't and isn't "working".

Well. Children do work today, do they not? Working on farms perhaps, doing a paper route... selling lemonade!


Selling lemonade = working 10 hours a day in a mine. Gotcha.


And so you are saying it does? that forcing people to be educated, actually makes them educated? How does one force someone to go to school anyway... in the US truancy is still a problem.

Truancy is a problem, therefore compulsory education is useless. I have a cavity, therefore dentists are useless.



They DON'T. And they DO. That is why we have Bush in the white house, instead of someone competent. That is why all our politics is about keeping the same assholes in power, or getting new assholes in power, by a combination of media whoring, publicity stunts, commercial advertisement, propaganda, fear and ignorance.

President Bush, who I like not at all, is better than King Bush any time.

Depends what you call "working".
I believe those countries had or have a working socialist society.
Now if you believe a "working" society is one which is not socialist, naturally, it didn't and isn't "working".

There are only 5 Communist countries left on Earth: China, Cuba, North Korea, Viet Nam, and Laos.

Of those, only 2 (China & Viet Nam) are not economic basket cases, and that's because they've abandoned Communism as an economic mode. All of these failed Communist states prove the unattainability of the revolution vis-a-vis the Manifesto.

A working society is one that survives. This is what relegates Communism, and Fascism to the scrap heap of history. None of the 3 that are still economically Communist are going to survive, and I don't see Viet Nam or China not liberalizing in the next decade... else they wont survive, either.

Yeah right. Are these like today's republican "conservatives?"
They live in different times, but they share something in common. They think the status quo is the best possible solution. They don't believe progress is possible.

Well. Children do work today, do they not? Working on farms perhaps, doing a paper route... selling lemonade!

Indeed. But in some parts of the world, they don't. They learn instead. And since they do, productivity has risen. I believe the more educated are the people, the better for the economy, but that's a long term investment and you shouldn't expect return before a generation or two before that happens.

And so you are saying it does? that forcing people to be educated, actually makes them educated? How does one force someone to go to school anyway... in the US truancy is still a problem.
At least you agree it is a problem. Some people in the 19th century thought it was natural (but actually it was natural only for their own perception).

They DON'T. And they DO. That is why we have Bush in the white house, instead of someone competent. That is why all our politics is about keeping the same assholes in power, or getting new assholes in power, by a combination of media whoring, publicity stunts, commercial advertisement, propaganda, fear and ignorance.

Bush is not the best leader, but I think he is still a lot better than the kings and lords of the middle ages.

In the fifth century, that was probably true.

it was in the short term. In the long term, freeing the slaves payed back.

But somehow I'm gonna doubt the authenticity of your 'quotes.' Somehow I don't think people in the 17th century said "they'll screw up everything." I believe they did, although in the 17th century they were less and less doing so. However, in the middle ages, I'm quite sure they were the majority.

And how is any of this relevant anyway? It isn't.
I tryed to put in perspective the example cited by our friend.
I believe we should dig a little more than just the surface. Sometimes the gains are not immediat. You have to try and to fail before you succeed.

There are only 5 Communist countries left on Earth: China, Cuba, North Korea, Viet Nam, and Laos.

Of those, only 2 (China & Viet Nam) are not economic basket cases, and that's because they've abandoned Communism as an economic mode. All of these failed Communist states prove the unattainability of the revolution vis-a-vis the Manifesto.

A working society is one that survives. This is what relegates Communism, and Fascism to the scrap heap of history. None of the 3 that are still economically Communist are going to survive, and I don't see Viet Nam or China not liberalizing in the next decade... else they wont survive, either.
I think they will. I don't believe China will disappear anytime soon, but that's only my belief. And I believe that even if they go back to liberalism, the world will remember their attempt, as the world remembers the USSR today.

I think they will. I don't believe China will disappear anytime soon, but that's only my belief. And I believe that even if they go back to liberalism, the world will remember their attempt, as the world remembers the USSR today.

Of course China won't disappear. But the current regime is untennable without reform. Once there is a Chinese middle class, they won't have a choice. One can't effectively run a government which is liberalized economically and not politically.

Badly? I can't think of many that want to go back to the USSR, and that includes even the older folks I speak with when I'm visiting relatives in Slovakia & Poland. I assure you, being in Poland in 1983 was not all that much fun. :(

This "experiment" doesn't prove or even suggest anything at all that people didn't already know.
That being; in a communist system, the system only works for the poeple so long as the people only work for the system.

I'm not a communist either, so don't think I'm being all judgemental about a group of people that couldn't adhere to a strict policy for living.

It's just that the results shown from this study and the conclusion met don't correspond with each other.

Think of it this way if you like.
Pretend that humans had an immediate disposition to share all forms of assets, wealth and labour. Then a group of 3 people decided to live within a house hold that endorsed free-market enterprise and personal conservation.
Only no matter how hard they tried they couldn't stop giving each other the excess items each of them retained so that all possessions were equally distributed. Then if one of them could produce more labour than another they simply accepted that they were physically or mentally able to carry out the extra work, and therefore should.

Now if this had been a social experiment; you couldn't turn around and say "capitalism doesn't work as a stable system".

The only premiss that can be supported by these experiments is that a) A communist society can not be sustained should there be a predisposition towards free-market policies by the people under such governance, and b) A capitalist society can not be sustained should there be a predisposition towards socialist policies by the people under such governance.

It's like saying to someone that's failing to live by there chosen religions doctrine that their religion doesn't work.

That's retarded. Just because a 3 unwashed, bonghitting pseudo-intellectuals can't make a marxist idea work doesn't mean that marxist, socialist, or communist ideas do not have any good points or good ideas.

In the end it will come down to the people. You put those 3 bonghitting, unwashed pseudo-intellectuals in ANY economic system, and I'll wager my life's savings that they will probably remain unwashed, bonghitting pseudo-intellectuals. You can't make a fine breakfast omlette with rotten eggs, after all.

Of course China won't disappear. But the current regime is untennable without reform. Once there is a Chinese middle class, they won't have a choice. One can't effectively run a government which is liberalized economically and not politically.

Badly? I can't think of many that want to go back to the USSR, and that includes even the older folks I speak with when I'm visiting relatives in Slovakia & Poland. I assure you, being in Poland in 1983 was not all that much fun. :(
I bet the people you spoke to in Poland were petit bourgeois.

which edition of Der Sturmer did this feature in?

I bet the people you spoke to in Poland were petit bourgeois.

Sorry, but I doubt you can call lots of random people in Lublin, Tarnow and Sandomierz petit bourgeois. They were pretty much all farmers or tradespeople or students... I was there most recently for a month.

People, this is from The Onion. It's satirical, and fictional, not an experiment...

Sorry, but I doubt you can call lots of random people in Lublin, Tarnow and Sandomierz petit bourgeois. They were pretty much all farmers or tradespeople or students... I was there most recently for a month.
Actually farmers fall into the petit bourgeois category, but it doesn't matter.
I'm sure the people you talked to were more happy in the EU than in the USSR and that's probably because they have a better life now.
I wish them good competition in their new "free" market.

I think they will. I don't believe China will disappear anytime soon, but that's only my belief. And I believe that even if they go back to liberalism, the world will remember their attempt, as the world remembers the USSR today.
Yes, remembered for Stalin and his slaughter of 25 million of his own countrymen. Remembered very well.

People, this is from The Onion. It's satirical, and fictional, not an experiment...

You're new, so: It doesn't matter. NS'ers will argue about anything. :D

Actually farmers fall into the petit bourgeois category, but it doesn't matter.
I'm sure the people you talked to were more happy in the EU than in the USSR and that's probably because they have a better life now.
I wish them good competition in their new "free" market.

...and that's what I was on about. Thanks. :)

People, this is from The Onion. It's satirical, and fictional, not an experiment...
Yeah, I think the satirical thrust of the article isn't that Marxism doesn't work, but that a fairly large percentage of America's Marxists are middle class punk college kids with no work ethic.

Yes, remembered for Stalin and his slaughter of 25 million of his own countrymen. Remembered very well.
It's sad. Stalin was 'the enemy'. And that's all you know about the USSR.
From Great Britain, you remember the industrial revolution and how they were great conquerors who changed the world because your country is a former colony.
From the USSR, you just remember that Stalin killed many people in Gulags after the war. You don't remember they conquered space, opening a new era in human history, do you?

Selling lemonade = working 10 hours a day in a mine. Gotcha.


No, it = "working."


Truancy is a problem, therefore compulsory education is useless. I have a cavity, therefore dentists are useless.

No, truancy is a problem, therefore "compulsory education" is a contradiction in terms.

And even if you DO force people to sit in school you can't make them learn.

Cavities existing are a part and, in fact one might say they are a necessary component of the dentistry profession.


President Bush, who I like not at all, is better than King Bush any time.

:rolleyes: Maybe you could point out where I said that autocracy was a better form of government?


They live in different times, but they share something in common. They think the status quo is the best possible solution. They don't believe progress is possible.

Honey, if that's how you define someone as politically "conservative," it's no wonder you're so confused.

I believe they did, although in the 17th century they were less and less doing so. However, in the middle ages, I'm quite sure they were the majority.

No, my point was you were using "quotes" that are clearly just products of your head. Obviously no one used the phrase "screw up everything" in the 17th century. So really they are just clumsy, irrelevant strawmen.

No, it = "working."

But not all work is the same. Are you being obtuse just to be annoying?


No, truancy is a problem, therefore "compulsory education" is a contradiction in terms.

Nonsense. If there are murders does that mean that law and order is nonexistence. Compulsory doesn't mean that there is 100% compliance from everyone, just that it is a goal.



:rolleyes: Maybe you could point out where I said that autocracy was a better form of government?


You at least insinuated that democracy is no better.

But not all work is the same. Are you being obtuse just to be annoying?

Not all work is the same, but then the poster I was quoting did not differentiate much either. Context.

Nonsense. If there are murders does that mean that law and order is nonexistence. Compulsory doesn't mean that there is 100% compliance from everyone, just that it is a goal.

Well, I tell you, when I see someone I know get murdered, it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of law and order. But that's perception for you. Kind of like how if half the country thinks the Earth is flat, I have little faith in the effectivenss of our public, "compulsory" education.




You at least insinuated that democracy is no better.

I said what I said... deny that if you want, don't smack your head against what you think I'm insinuating. I said...

'Peasants don't understand politics they'll screw up everything.'

They DON'T. And they DO. That is why we have Bush in the white house, instead of someone competent. That is why all our politics is about keeping the same assholes in power, or getting new assholes in power, by a combination of media whoring, publicity stunts, commercial advertisement, propaganda, fear and ignorance.

That's really not at all the same as saying that I prefer Bush to be King. In fact, if democracy hadn't become so popular, how would Bush ever get to be King in the first place? He'd have to inherit the throne from the previous Bush, and so forth, and I don't think they'd be in the Royal Family...

Not all work is the same, but then the poster I was quoting did not differentiate much either. Context.



Well, I tell you, when I see someone I know get murdered, it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of law and order. But that's perception for you. Kind of like how if half the country thinks the Earth is flat, I have little faith in the effectivenss of our public, "compulsory" education.





I said what I said... deny that if you want, don't smack your head against what you think I'm insinuating. I said...



That's really not at all the same as saying that I prefer Bush to be King. In fact, if democracy hadn't become so popular, how would Bush ever get to be King in the first place? He'd have to inherit the throne from the previous Bush, and so forth, and I don't think they'd be in the Royal Family...


I think the point he was making was that child labor laws had done some good.

Adult literacy has skyrocketed since the institution of compulsory public education.

The point is that having the average American choose leaders is better than not.

Your point with all of this seems to be nothing more than that these solutions have not perfectly eradicated the problems that they aim at. My point is that nothing is perfect but that all of these developments in government haver certainly made things better.

You're new, so: It doesn't matter. NS'ers will argue about anything. :D

Hey, nothing wrong with debating, but a lot of people seemed to think this really happened. Although it probably has many times...

Hey, nothing wrong with debating, but a lot of people seemed to think this really happened. Although it probably has many times...

It has happened... in Cuba, USSR, Czechoslovakia, et al... :)