I haven't read Marx so I cannot say.
slave owners were capitalists
if capitalism gets a pass for that, why doesn't communism get a pass for its atrocities? it's almost as if political ideologies develop and grow and evolve along with the people that implement them
With how humans are, Marxism and communism can not succeed.
MedeaLysistrata posted...
slave owners were capitalists
if capitalism gets a pass for that, why doesn't communism get a pass for its atrocities? it's almost as if political ideologies develop and grow and evolve along with the people that implement them
Its not about getting a pass for atrocities. Sure atrocities play a part, but I'm asking strictly about its viability. Capitalism is still alive and going strong, so you can't really compare that to say Communist Russia (or Stalinist Russia for the semantics Nazis) which was why I was asking.
Marxism hasn't grown and evolved along with the people that implemented it, so Idk what you're even trying to say, but I do now have you tagged as a Marxist.
Sounds good on paper, but human nature makes it even worse than the things that sound bad on paper.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
a command economy is extremely viable, and as technology develops it becomes even more viable.
remember, socialism brought Russia to the status of an economic superpower in the period of a few decades. before that, it was a backwater agricultural country. Cuba developed one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world.
Marxism hasn't grown because it was virtually abandoned, and any country that tries to be socialist gets shit on by the global community. capitalism is bound to do better as it stands because the global system is set up for capitalism already.
also i'm not a 'marxist', i just think command economies aren't given their due.
MedeaLysistrata posted...
a command economy is extremely viable, and as technology develops it becomes even more viable.
remember, socialism brought Russia to the status of an economic superpower in the period of a few decades. before that, it was a backwater agricultural country. Cuba developed one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world.
Marxism hasn't grown because it was virtually abandoned, and any country that tries to be socialist gets shit on by the global community. capitalism is bound to do better as it stands because the global system is set up for capitalism already.
also i'm not a 'marxist', i just think command economies aren't given their due.
I'm asking you to assess the viability of Marxism specifically. You are defending Marxism, so in my eyes that makes you a Marxist. And you talk about Russia being an economic superpower while completely ignoring how that was built on labor camps and forced slave labor of its innocent citizens, which ended up killing 10s of millions of people, and ultimately failed completely which led to the dissolution of the USSR. Idk how you could possibly speak on the "successes" of Marxism without also acknowledging how it proved to be completely unsustainable.
The viability of Marxism is not what attests to its value. There are lot of critical concepts within Marxism which has greatly influenced much of modern political philosophy in some way shape or form. The way we study sociology today for instance, such as looking at the societal issues through the lens of class structures is heavily influenced by the Marxist tradition. Its funny, I believe Marx thought himself more of an economist but nobody respects his ideas as an economist anymore, his main works helped develop methodologies for sociology and philosophy
i'm sorry, i thought this wasn't about atrocities? why do you think the US is such a successful country? surely because all those white people spent hours in the cotton fields.
You can discuss the advantages of an idea that you ultimately disagree with, especially if the advantages are grossly outweighed by the disadvantages.
Yes, command economies can be extremely efficient - but so far, only short-term. Russia had an enormous boom that led to a catastrophic bust. And that leaves out who it was on the backs of.
MedeaLysistrata posted...
i'm sorry, i thought this wasn't about atrocities? why do you think the US is such a successful country? surely because all those white people spent hours in the cotton fields.
It isn't about atrocities, its about sustainability. And the US has literally 0 slaves and we are more powerful now than we ever were when we did have slaves. So exactly what is your point?
The23rdMagus posted...
You can discuss the advantages of an idea that you ultimately disagree with, especially if the advantages are grossly outweighed by the disadvantages.
Yes, command economies can be extremely efficient - but so far, only short-term. Russia had an enormous boom that led to a catastrophic bust. And that leaves out who it was on the backs of.
Same thing with North Korea, I believe they were initially far more successful a country than South Korea. But short term gains have literally nothing to do with sustainability which is what determines something's viability.
I have no idea why people think that pointing out that certain instances of Marxism were not complete failures from start to finish somehow negates the fact that they all ended as abject failures.
you realize one of the claims of Marxism is that money makes more money, right? the USA is successful because it made a ton of money from slavery, and has basically been coasting on that boon ever since. don't believe me? then why are poor African capitalist countries still poor?
here are my main points:
-any economic system will be successful if it exploits people
-an economic system won't be as successful if it doesn't exploit people
-an economic system is more likely to succeed if the world order is built to support it
-an economic system will likely fail if the world order is not built to support it
-an economic system is more likely to succeed if it has ample time to develop and grow
I doubt that any society could "stick to the plan",
Kazi1212 posted...
The viability of Marxism is not what attests to its value. There are lot of critical concepts within Marxism which has greatly influenced much of modern political philosophy in some way shape or form. The way we study sociology today for instance, such as looking at the societal issues through the lens of class structures is heavily influenced by the Marxist tradition. Its funny, I believe Marx thought himself more of an economist but nobody respects his ideas as an economist anymore, his main works helped develop methodologies for sociology and philosophy
Sure but that isn't the question. The XFL gave the NFL the idea of the skycam along with other ideas they still implement today, but that doesn't mean the XFL is a viable league capable of sustaining itself.
Well you're quite obviously dead wrong about the reason behind the USA's success. Sure slavery helped us at the time, but to say we've been riding that wave for over 100 years and that we've somehow been able to exponentially increase not only our wealth, but our GDP since that time solely off of money made during slavery is laughably ignorant.
Basically claiming that the US owes its wealth to slavery is objectively incorrect and common sense is more than enough to prove that. As for your "main points" Idk what the actual point of that list is, so maybe scale it down to one point and actually prove that, and if at all possible make it actually relevant to the discussion at hand.
Marxism has shaped the capitalism we have today. The gains made by the working classes over the past 150 years are in large part due to class struggle, and the efforts by people who would have been familiar with his work or ideas, if they weren't out and out socialists themselves. The eight-hour workday, the weekend, those are the products of class struggle.
Well, unlike the XFL, Marxism has left its stamp on history both intellectually and at the physical level, for better or worse. My point is, you shouldnt judge any single political idea by its viability factor, because no single idea idea has ever been viable in its own. Please tell me one idea that has been viable by itself to sustain the type of civilization and society we have now? Or rather has it been a hodgepodge of different political and philosophical ideas that has led us to point in history we are now? The American political system just doesnt jus draw from one intellectual tradition, but multiple, especially the way the modern economy is set up.
My point is, its really a narrow minded way to look at historically significant ideas merely within the confines of the logic of the idea itself. Engaging with it in a way that highlights its place in the continuation of human history and relation to other more developed ideas is a much more open minded way of looking at things. You can easily disregard read some very interesting ideas with the former mindset(Im willing to bet you havent read Marx) and I personally dont believe in having such a mindset towards knowledge
so you're not going to explain how most capitalist countries that weren't colonies, or financed by the US almost entirely, are still poor?
EDIT: as i'm sure you've been able to deduce from the points I listed, no I don't think socialism is viable. fwiw "Marxism" refers to the economic theory, not the political model.
Marxism has shaped the capitalism we have today. The gains made by the working classes over the past 150 years are in large part due to class struggle, and the efforts by people who would have been familiar with his work or ideas, if they weren't out and out socialists themselves. The eight-hour workday, the weekend, those are the products of class struggle.
Precisely. People just dont see how political ideas of magnitude such as Marxism has forever changed how states and economies are run
Are these needless deaths the fault of capitalism?
http://cw33.com/2018/01/22/dad-daughter-found-dead-in-home-sought-help-to-fix-furnace/
Kazi1212 posted...
Well, unlike the XFL, Marxism has left its stamp on history both intellectually and at the physical level, for better or worse. My point is, you shouldnt judge any single political idea by its viability factor, because no single idea idea has ever been viable in its own. Please tell me one idea that has been viable by itself to sustain the type of civilization and society we have now? Or rather has it been a hodgepodge of different political and philosophical ideas that has led us to point in history we are now? The American political system just doesnt jus draw from one intellectual tradition, but multiple, especially the way the modern economy is set up.
My point is, its really a narrow minded way to look at historically significant ideas merely within the confines of the logic of the idea itself. Engaging with it in a way that highlights its place in the continuation of human history and relation to other more developed ideas is a much more open minded way of looking at things. You can easily disregard read some very interesting ideas with the former mindset(Im willing to bet you havent read Marx) and I personally dont believe in having such a mindset towards knowledge
Actually the NFL still utilizes the sky cam and other things it picked up from the XFL so it indeed did leave its stamp on the NFL.
And you're seriously telling me that you shouldn't judge a form of governance on its viability? Lol so it doesn't matter if something is destined to fail? I mean dude I get what you're trying to say, that there are good things we shouldn't just completely dismiss solely because they were borne out of an ultimately unsustainable ideology. But that's not what this topic is about at all. I'm asking about Marxism as a whole because there are people who are literally arguing that Marxism as a whole is still a viable ideology that is worthy of yet another attempt at implementation. The fact that you don't seem to understand how absolutely dangerous that idea is and how it needs to be addressed ASAP before it actually manages to get a foothold is mind boggling. Over 100 million people were needlessly murdered all in the name of a completely unsustainable form of governance and you seem to think its more important that we acknowledge that it may have had a good idea or two than to acknowledge its inevitable murderous outcome.
Really think about what you're saying now man and ask yourself if its somehow more important than avoiding another 100 million unnecessary deaths of innocent people.
I suppose youre trying to argue, whereas Im trying to have a discussion. Listen, I dont believe Marxism is viable, I never argued that. my judgment of it as political system is that a system which solely relies on marxist principles of economics is destined to fail. However, I do see the uses of Marxist ideas helping implement the kind of society I want to live in, which is exactly what has happened in modern society, some Marxist ideas have indeed been implemented. From that perspective Marxism has tremendous value to human history. My thinking on the issue isnt as binary and based on fear lingering as yours.
By the way, lets not pretend other political ideas throughout history havent also lead to mass deaths and suffering, including capitalism. And furthermore, let me I said earlier, every successful sustainable society today has drawn from multiple intellectual traditions, including Marxism
Love capitalism too much. :D
Kazi1212 posted...
I suppose youre trying to argue, whereas Im trying to have a discussion. Listen, I dont believe Marxism is viable, I never argued that. my judgment of it as political system is that a system which solely relies on marxist principles of economics is destined to fail. However, I do see the uses of Marxist ideas helping implement the kind of society I want to live in, which is exactly what has happened in modern society, some Marxist ideas have indeed been implemented. From that perspective Marxism has tremendous value to human history. My thinking on the issue isnt as binary and based on fear lingering as yours.
By the way, lets not pretend other political ideas throughout history havent also lead to mass deaths and suffering, including capitalism. And furthermore, let me I said earlier, every successful sustainable society today has drawn from multiple intellectual traditions, including Marxism
Well I agree with you on that end dude, its just that you told me that I shouldn't be judging Marxism on its viability when I created this topic because there were people that were literally arguing that Marxism is still valid and completely sustainable if implemented correctly. That should strike fear in your heart and feels a lot more important than what you're trying to talk about, but that's just me wanting to talk about what I want to talk about rather than listening to your completely valid point, so I guess my bad on that.
I suppose I just think the idea that Marxists will somehow gain traction in popular political culture and could be a potential danger as ridiculous. They hold even significantly less power than the Evangelists and its not like evangelicals hold much power to worry about them to begin with
the USA is successful because it made a ton of money from slavery, and has basically been coasting on that boon ever since. don't believe me? then why are poor African capitalist countries still poor?
I'm sensing some very black-and-white thinking here. It's very much possible to acknowledge the cultural significance of a philosophy towards society as a whole, while at the same time acknowledging that the whole-hog implementation is impossible, impractical, dangerous, and questionably viable.
Some parts of its influence, in the vein of workers' rights, have turned out to be good for capitalism. It's okay to just take the good parts out of an otherwise flawed idea.
Workers rights by far predates Marxism/socialism and more or less share the same roots as capitalism IE the black death.