NationStates Jolt Archive

On NSG, like the rest of the world, arguments over capitalism and communism seem to take a moral tone. As both are supposedly scientific, this confuses me.
That is why I am asking anyone who knows anything about Marx and post-Marx communism to explain what it's all about. I understand what the basic differences between governments, but not the theoretical basis for why capitalism will fail and why communism will replace it. As the title says, please respond in a way that will not get this thread closed.

Rich people take all the money from poor people, poor people get POed, poor people revolt against rich people, everyone realizes owning stuff is stupid, socialism ensues.

Marx's theory of communism is that everyone is equal and everyone contributes to the whole. Basically, a doctor would get payed the same as a ditch-digger and the government will provide for your needs. In Star Trek, after the replicator was invented, this is what happened to the world's economy, and people worked to better themselves and mankind.

What happened when Stalin took over Russia, and what is now considered "communism", is that the government basically takes everything and tells you where you work, what you do, what you eat, etc. I have no idea why anyone would live in a modern communist country.

Marxism, a good idea, in theory. Terribly flawed when put to the practice. Do you think that sums it up?

Marxism, a good idea, in theory. Terribly flawed when put to the practice. Do you think that sums it up?

I think it sums up the fact that NSG is mostly infested with 12 yr old naive noobs with no idea what they speak of.

I understand what the basic differences between governments, but not the theoretical basis for why capitalism will fail and why communism will replace it.

For the super-short version: economic crises and the continued worsening of the condition of the workers will cause a worker revolution, bringing about a dictatorship of the proletariat that will convert property with a social character (the means of production) into socially-owned property.

For Marx, the system of distribution is a result of the system of ownership, and not an independent element... and thus, as the workers work in their class interest to destroy the class system and to emancipate their own labor, and the economy continues to develop, a point will develop where distribution is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." By the time such an end is reached, the abolition of classes means that no longer is the state with its repressive machinery necessary (because no class needs to be kept down): governance can be reduced to a mostly administrative function, with the occasional anti-social act dealt with by the public more directly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andaras
I think it sums up the fact that NSG is mostly infested with 12 yr old naive noobs with no idea what they speak of.

Plus some flamers, whose "knowledge" is impressive only to themselves.

I think it sums up the fact that NSG is mostly infested with 12 yr old naive noobs with no idea what they speak of.

Strike a nerve there?
And speaking of 12 year old naive noobs with no idea what they speak of (sorry to use it but your quote just seems amazing!;)), aren´t you acting like one just now?
Anyway, Marxism is and will always be a great idea, in theory, and a blatant mistake when put into practice.:rolleyes:

Limacon: Read the Manifesto, Capital, Gotha Program, Holy Family etc.

Anyway, Marxism is and will always be a great idea, in theory, and a blatant mistake when put into practice.:rolleyes:
I have heard numerous people say this, 'communism is good in theory', and whenever I hear it I know the person doesn't know anything about Marxism full stop, yet thinks they represent the sum of human knowledge.

One needs to be very careful to differentiate the ideas of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. Marx was a social scientist who saw the terrible inequalities capitalism was creating in rapidly industrializing Germany and sought to explain this and put it into the greater context of things. Lenin witnessed the new imperialism and world war one and thought this was not the outcome of capitalism but capitalism in its final form the capitalism of monopolies and aggression. Stalin was a corrupt dictator who wanted power and used the ideas of the other two as a smoke screen for this. Most of the negatives that are attributed to communism, socialism, Lenin and Marx were in fact prerogatives of Stalin.

Modern socialists (myself included) while influenced by Marx and Lenin do not interpret their ideas literally as propaganda might indicate and are equally influenced by Hobson, Smith, and others. And no one believes Stalin brought anything to the field of socialism, he merely tried to industrialize a nation quickly to less success than a fascist like Hitler managed with just as brutal methods.

Marxism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTLVYK3SwWM

and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbyzTI0M8eo

Strike a nerve there?

its probably more that your answer was just an empty cliche

I have heard numerous people say this, 'communism is good in theory', and whenever I hear it I know the person doesn't know anything about Marxism full stop, yet thinks they represent the sum of human knowledge.

Well, they do represent the sum political knowledge of a great many people. ;)

I have heard numerous people say this, 'communism is good in theory', and whenever I hear it I know the person doesn't know anything about Marxism full stop, yet thinks they represent the sum of human knowledge.

I think you´re misreading me. See, I don´t think my ideas and opinions represent the sum of human knowledge. I´ve studied Marxism, I´ve studied Communist governments, and I do recognize that they have their pros. But Marx´s ideas, although altruistic and good when you read about them, were flawed in many aspects that, when they´re put to the practice, fail because I don´t think Marx took into consideration just how greedy and mean humans are. A government for the people and by the people, an awesome thing (I´m not deploring it), doesn´t always work because when given power, human beings crave for more and to hell with what´s good for the whole. You, that know so well what Communism is, must know this. Oh, and that last statement wasn´t done sarcastically, Andaras.

But Marx´s ideas, although altruistic and good when you read about them, were flawed in many aspects that, when they´re put to the practice, fail because I don´t think Marx took into consideration just how greedy and mean humans are. A government for the people and by the people, an awesome thing (I´m not deploring it), doesn´t always work because when given power, human beings crave for more and to hell with what´s good for the whole.

But couldn't it be argued that the greed for more wealth (and the power over others it entails) is the product of the social conditioning of a non-communist economy?

its probably more that your answer was just an empty cliche

Read my last post. Oh, and if you care to share, by all means do.

Limacon: Read the Manifesto, Capital, Gotha Program, Holy Family etc.

You know, if a Christian is asked to give a quick summary of Christianity, they generally can. Sure, they might also tell you to read the bible.

So, can you give us a summary of Marx?

Or can't you manage for Marxism what any Christian can for Christianity?

yet thinks they represent the sum of human knowledge.

Turns out I am the secret of the universe.

It's hard to accept, I know. I was surprised at first, too.

But couldn't it be argued that the greed for more wealth (and the power over others it entails) is the product of the social conditioning of a non-communist economy?

Yes, you could say that. But take Russia, as an example. When Communism was established, this country had come out of centuries of Tsarist rule. The people that established this new form of government, were the product of a non-communist economy? Wouldn´t they, having the power now, hunger for more? And wouldn´t this behavior negate what Marxism preached (for lack of a better word)? I´m basing what I posted on that capacity.

Yes, you could say that. But take Russia, as an example. When Communism was established, this country had come out of centuries of Tsarist rule. The people that established this new form of government, were the product of a non-communist economy? Wouldn´t they, having the power now, hunger for more? And wouldn´t this behavior negate what Marxism preached (for lack of a better word)? I´m basing what I posted on that capacity.

Well, they did, didn't they? No one can claim that the USSR wasn't corrupt. Well, they certainly can, but I won't believe them.
But on the other hand, the USSR retained political elitism, so the point is somewhat moot.

I remember I used to have the pamphlet thing with a graph which explained Marxism, I remember it put Marxism into understanding for me. It had one big box at the top, 'Social Structure', which would be feudalism, capitalism, socialism etc. Coming from that box was two more, 'Superstructure' and 'Infrastructure', under superstructure was politics, ideology, philosophy and religion. Under Infrastructure was the means, mode and tools of production, so for example for the inventions of the steam engine as a tool of production feeds it's way up the structure and into the superstructure, maybe even changing the ideology and politics of the time, just as industrial capitalism took over from feudalism, the change in the tools, means or mode production feeds up and changes the superstructure of society, so feudal ideas as absolute monarchy, monolithic religion largely were destroyed after their economic base was replaced.

The basic premise was that all society is changed by economics, that real economy and material conditions will influence towards and indeed change the politics of the time. Thus Marx's theory was that the injustice of capitalism would eventually feed back into the superstructure and cause revolution and eventually the supplanting of bourgeois relations with proletarial (socialist) ones.

Well, they did, didn't they? No one can claim that the USSR wasn't corrupt. Well, they certainly can, but I won't believe them.
But on the other hand, the USSR retained political elitism, so the point is somewhat moot.

Every governmental structure is plagued by corruption, unfortunately. It´s also true for political elitism.
I have to conceded something to Marxism though, even after 160 or more of having being crafted, it´s still relevant.

Andaras, in every post I've made relating to you flaming people or people flaming you I have emphasised that you need to improve the way you relate to other posters. Posting things like "I think it sums up the fact that NSG is mostly infested with 12 yr old naive noobs with no idea what they speak of" shows me that you're just not taking it in.

How am I supposed to get this through to you? If you don't respond to polite notification or official warnings, I really don't have any choice but to try harsher measures in an attempt to impress this message upon you. You're on your third nation, and you're stacking up infractions rather fast; I would rather not have to ban anyone permanently, and I assume that you would rather not be banned.

I'm giving you twenty-four hours to think about this. Please reform your posting style!

~ Tsar the Mod.

Andaras, in every post I've made relating to you flaming people or people flaming you I have emphasised that you need to improve the way you relate to other posters. Posting things like "I think it sums up the fact that NSG is mostly infested with 12 yr old naive noobs with no idea what they speak of" shows me that you're just not taking it in.

How am I supposed to get this through to you? If you don't respond to polite notification or official warnings, I really don't have any choice but to try harsher measures in an attempt to impress this message upon you. You're on your third nation, and you're stacking up infractions rather fast; I would rather not have to ban anyone permanently, and I assume that you would rather not be banned.

I'm giving you twenty-four hours to think about this. Please reform your posting style!

~ Tsar the Mod.

Maybe you should reform your obvious political bias.

Maybe you should reform your obvious political bias.

Hilarity should shortly ensue.

Hilarity should shortly ensue.

I agree whole-heartedly with you on this one. :S

Hilarity should shortly ensue.

Well, the title of the thread was "Explain Marxism in a way that will not get this thread closed", not "Explain Marxism in a way that will not get Andaras banned".

Well, the title of the thread was "Explain Marxism in a way that will not get this thread closed", not "Explain Marxism in a way that will not get Andaras banned".

Either way it could only end in hilarity.

20 bucks says this thread gets locked.

Well, the title of the thread was "Explain Marxism in a way that will not get this thread closed", not "Explain Marxism in a way that will not get Andaras banned".

I know it´s bad of me to laugh at this but, NMS, rofl!

Andaras, in every post I've made relating to you flaming people or people flaming you I have emphasised that you need to improve the way you relate to other posters. Posting things like "I think it sums up the fact that NSG is mostly infested with 12 yr old naive noobs with no idea what they speak of" shows me that you're just not taking it in.

How am I supposed to get this through to you? If you don't respond to polite notification or official warnings, I really don't have any choice but to try harsher measures in an attempt to impress this message upon you. You're on your third nation, and you're stacking up infractions rather fast; I would rather not have to ban anyone permanently, and I assume that you would rather not be banned.

I'm giving you twenty-four hours to think about this. Please reform your posting style!



~ Tsar the Mod.

Is he eureka austrlias? (or however you spell it) Just wondering.

Is he eureka austrlias? (or however you spell it) Just wondering.

I want to know what happened to Anarchy Works. That guy was highly amusing.

Is he eureka austrlias? (or however you spell it) Just wondering.

Yes.

Is he eureka austrlias? (or however you spell it) Just wondering.

Pardon my ignorance but, what does this means?

Pardon my ignorance but, what does this means?

Different screen name/nation. Same guy, apparently.

If it doesn't get back on track, I will lock it. If it returns to the original subject, it can stay open. I don't want to see this devolve into Andaras-bashing or anything of the sort, but if it does I shall not be pleased. I believe that you are capable of more maturity than that.

As an aside, I should like to note that this ban has nothing at all to do with my politics. I should like to think that civility is a universal of proper human behaviour. It's what I'm here to try to enforce. That's all of it; there is no political bias. Just be polite to one another.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Pardon my ignorance but, what does this means?

Eureka was a commie *almost* as hardcore as andy who joined about the same time as me. He dropped off a month or two back, not really sure when cuz I kinda stayed off this for about a month.

If it doesn't get back on track, I will lock it. If it returns to the original subject, it can stay open. I don't want to see this devolve into Andaras-bashing or anything of the sort, but if it does I shall not be pleased. I believe that you are capable of more maturity than that.

As an aside, I should like to note that this ban has nothing at all to do with my politics. I should like to think that civility is a universal of proper human behaviour. It's what I'm here to try to enforce. That's all of it; there is no political bias. Just be polite to one another.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Sorry, don't mean to bash, I just wanted to know if andy was Eureka.

If it doesn't get back on track, I will lock it. If it returns to the original subject, it can stay open. I don't want to see this devolve into Andaras-bashing or anything of the sort, but if it does I shall not be pleased. I believe that you are capable of more maturity than that.

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

But it's not so much capability as willingness.

Eureka was a commie *almost* as hardcore as andy who joined about the same time as me. He dropped off a month or two back, not really sure when cuz I kinda stayed off this for about a month.

I see. Thanks.:)
Now, lets just try to go back to the topic in question. I think it´s very interesting.

Maybe you should reform your obvious political bias.

I don't think Tsar is doing this because of political bias, but just trying to help you out.

I see. Thanks.:)
Now, lets just try to go back to the topic in question. I think it´s very interesting.

I bet 20 bucks this thread would be locked.

Andaras sucks.

I see. Thanks.:)
Now, lets just try to go back to the topic in question. I think it´s very interesting.

*Applies defibrillator to thread*

Wikipedia has a pretty* succinct examplation of Marxist theory in it's article about class struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle#Main_class_struggle), if you want to read through all of it.

Core ideas:
- The bourgeoisie (industrialists) own the means of production (which are required to produce most goods).
- They rely on the labour of the proletariat (working class) for their income.
- According to the labour theory of value, the value of a product is worth how much labour is put into producing it.
- Because the proletariat must support the bourgeoisie as well as themselves, they do not recieve the full value of their labour. This is known as exploitation.
- If the workers are too exploited, they will eventually revolt against the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production for themselves, as exploitation will continue so long as anyone other than the proletariat owns the means of production.
- Class boundaries dissolve (as there is really only one class) resulting in classlessness. The state, whose purpose is to uphold the power of the ruling class, dissolves as well.

*Well, relatively.

I bet 20 bucks this thread would be locked.

Andaras sucks.

Carefull, the tiniest thing could be considered flaming, take it from a guy who knows.

I bet 20 bucks this thread would be locked.

Andaras sucks.

Rhyno, try not to be next in line after Andaras. Do try to get back to the topic.;)

Carefull, the tiniest thing could be considered flaming, take it from a guy who knows.

<- Note join date. I joined before that, actually. My original nation had a space before the D.

<- Note join date. I joined before that, actually. My original nation had a space before the D.

Hahaha, wow, I didn't see that, I just looked at the post count and assumed. Heh, that only goes to show how assumptions can be. :p

Hahaha, wow, I didn't see that, I just looked at the post count and assumed. Heh, that only goes to show how assumptions can be. :p

You should have seen forum 7.

It was glorious.

You should have seen forum 7.

It was glorious.It was inane spam. Back on topic.

*Applies defibrillator to thread*

Wikipedia has a pretty* succinct examplation of Marxist theory in it's article about class struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle#Main_class_struggle), if you want to read through all of it.

Core ideas:
- The bourgeoisie (industrialists) own the means of production (which are required to produce most goods).
- They rely on the labour of the proletariat (working class) for their income.
- According to the labour theory of value, the value of a product is worth how much labour is put into producing it.
- Because the proletariat must support the bourgeoisie as well as themselves, they do not recieve the full value of their labour. This is known as exploitation.
- If the workers are too exploited, they will eventually revolt against the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production for themselves, as exploitation will continue so long as anyone other than the proletariat owns the means of production.
- Class boundaries dissolve (as there is really only one class) resulting in classlessness. The state, whose purpose is to uphold the power of the ruling class, dissolves as well.

*Well, relatively.

Hm.. I think I´ll add this article to complement my reading of the Communist Manifesto. It sums up some important points. I´ve been reading it for the past few days but my progress with it has been slow. My work-schedule is the devil.

It was inane spam. Back on topic.

I happen to think inane spam is glorious. My point stands.

I happen to think inane spam is glorious. My point stands.

FTW! If I knew how to sig, I would sig this.

I happen to think inane spam is glorious. My point stands.

Dude, get your bum back into topic, seriously, like, please. This thread´s gonna get locked (and I don´t want that to happen) if you keep this up.:headbang:

My work-schedule is the devil.

Wage slavery! Exploitation of the working class by the capitalist oppressors! Rah rah rah! :D

Wage slavery! Exploitation of the working class by the capitalist oppressors! Rah rah rah! :D

Meh, perhaps. After all, I work for the government.:p

Well, I must say first, Marxism is no longer actually practiced, communism has replaced it, please correct me if I'm wrong there. Marxist theory would actually work, except for the one fatal flaw, that is, human greed. Everyone wants to be better than someone else, so in practice Marxism cannot work. What most people appear to forget is that when Marx wrote his thoughts out and started Marxism, the Russian Empire was controlled by an authoritarian Tsar Nicholas II, who strongly opposed any and all changes that might affect his complete power over the Russian people. Marx was therefore trying to change that situation, the current state of Russia is nowhere near as bad.

FTW! If I knew how to sig, I would sig this.

Hit the quote button, highlight, copy, User CP, edit sig, paste, save.

If that's what you mean by sig. Because otherwise you're talking about something completely different and I would be confused.

Meh, perhaps. After all, I work for the government.:p

Education minor. 20K starting.

Shut up.

I can see we're not going to get anywhere worthwhile here. I am disappointed.

:(

~ Tsar the Mod.