Marxism

Yes, I am also sure that the team developing the atomic bomb was very surprised when it was later used as a weapon also…

It definetly came as something of a surprise to Richard Feynman. I still think we should trust human nature a lot more though- the research was used as a weapon because there was a war on. I’m convinced that nuclear technology would have been developed sooner or later anyway.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes, I am also sure that the team developing the atomic bomb was very surprised when it was later used as a weapon also…[/quote]

Yep, who’d think that a liberal dem like Roosevelt would ever condone such a thing!

Actually, since looters and thugs have little use for productive achievements of science, they use them for the only thing that looters and thugs
can think of: creating weapons of coersion and destruction.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Yes, I am also sure that the team developing the atomic bomb was very surprised when it was later used as a weapon also…

Yep, who’d think that a liberal dem like Roosevelt would ever condone such a thing!

Actually, since looters and thugs have little use for productive achievements of science, they use them for the only thing that looters and thugs
can think of: creating weapons of coersion and destruction.
[/quote]

Just when you started to show some semblence of rationality, you ruin it by saying some dumb shit like this.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Yes, I am also sure that the team developing the atomic bomb was very surprised when it was later used as a weapon also…

Yep, who’d think that a liberal dem like Roosevelt would ever condone such a thing!

Actually, since looters and thugs have little use for productive achievements of science, they use them for the only thing that looters and thugs
can think of: creating weapons of coersion and destruction.

Just when you started to show some semblence of rationality, you ruin it by saying some dumb shit like this.
[/quote]

If I’m dumb enough to say some ‘dumb shit like this’, then how would I be able to figure out that what I said was dumb? :slight_smile:

In other words: What do you disagree with in my post? That thugs would use science for creating weapons of destruction? Ahhh…what’s wrong with that, big guy?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Yes, I am also sure that the team developing the atomic bomb was very surprised when it was later used as a weapon also…

Yep, who’d think that a liberal dem like Roosevelt would ever condone such a thing!

Actually, since looters and thugs have little use for productive achievements of science, they use them for the only thing that looters and thugs
can think of: creating weapons of coersion and destruction.

Just when you started to show some semblence of rationality, you ruin it by saying some dumb shit like this.

If I’m dumb enough to say some ‘dumb shit like this’, then how would I be able to figure out that what I said was dumb? :slight_smile:

In other words: What do you disagree with in my post? That thugs would use science for creating weapons of destruction? Ahhh…what’s wrong with that, big guy?

[/quote]

I disagree with your offhand dismissal of FDR and clssifying him and his peers as “looters and thugs.”

Well, notsomuch disagree with it as recognize you as a schmuck for saying it.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Yes, I am also sure that the team developing the atomic bomb was very surprised when it was later used as a weapon also…

Yep, who’d think that a liberal dem like Roosevelt would ever condone such a thing!

Actually, since looters and thugs have little use for productive achievements of science, they use them for the only thing that looters and thugs
can think of: creating weapons of coersion and destruction.

Just when you started to show some semblence of rationality, you ruin it by saying some dumb shit like this.

If I’m dumb enough to say some ‘dumb shit like this’, then how would I be able to figure out that what I said was dumb? :slight_smile:

In other words: What do you disagree with in my post? That thugs would use science for creating weapons of destruction? Ahhh…what’s wrong with that, big guy?

I disagree with your offhand dismissal of FDR and clssifying him and his peers as “looters and thugs.”

Well, notsomuch disagree with it as recognize you as a schmuck for saying it.

[/quote]

Why didn’t you rip Vroom for his remark?

Headhunter,

Marx el al laid the seeds for revolution, which generally means upheaval, violence and struggle. He put out a blueprint and we can see where some people ran with it.

The fact that he created an ideology and tossed it out into the world to see what would happen might mean that he bears some responsibility for what happened.

Maybe he felt it was inevitable, but what if he was wrong? It’s all history now, but how new ideas are unleashed on the world could sometimes use a little bit of care and caution.

Don’t make me connect the dots for you all the time… it gets tiring.

if you want a more modern interpretation, you can check out this book that was used for a UC Santa Cruz class last quarter: Reinventing Marxism by Howard J. Sherman

I think its worthwhile even if you don’t agree at all with such ideas, to at least learn about them and know what they are.

From what I can see, capitalism and globalization, due to overpopulation and environmental problems (which don’t necessarily result from capitalism), is closing on on itself. In other words the world ain’t big enough for this to keep going on for much longer, and we will have to find some solution, which I think will likely be a more socialized, i.e. marxist influenced, world.

But socialism in the way that Marx defined is inherently flawed and impossible: it is a utopian ideal. Because some people don’t want to give up their free will in order to have a utopia (like Dostoevsy’s “Underground Man”, or think of Morpheus and all those guys in the Matrix), which is enough to shatter the whole system, which requires a dictator to supress (like Stalin), thus the inherent flaw. Just my opinion.

For a practical example, research the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. It was a real-world attempt at Marxist ideals, that unfortunately only lasted 12 days. But the concept is what you’re after.

Mojo

[quote]harris447 wrote:
(On a related note I recently had to do a presentation in class on Marxism. I told the other members of my group that the presentation should be two words long: “Didn’t work.”[/quote]

Actually, it’s more like “never been done right” or “can’t work.”

There has never been a true communist state. All the “commie” countries stopped at the next-to-last stage, just before the ruling class disappears. Imagine that.

The true communist ideal, where the people rule themselves and all goods and means of production belong to everyone is, IMO, an unreachable utopia which doesn’t take into account human nature.

First of all, people like to own stuff. It’s basic human nature. Even very young kids will fight over what they consider “theirs.” Once you allow the concept of private property, you’ll have individuals who own more than others and the classes are back.

Secondly, the problem with the “everything belongs to everyone” concept can be easily seen at any public restroom. When something belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one in particular and people don’t really seem to care about the condition of the place. Very few people will care if they piss on the floor, drop some shit besides the garbage can, crack a tile or break the mirror.

Communism is an interesting idea, but anyone who thinks it could ever work in its ultimate, purest form need to get out and meet people more.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter,

Marx el al laid the seeds for revolution, which generally means upheaval, violence and struggle. He put out a blueprint and we can see where some people ran with it.

The fact that he created an ideology and tossed it out into the world to see what would happen might mean that he bears some responsibility for what happened.

Maybe he felt it was inevitable, but what if he was wrong? It’s all history now, but how new ideas are unleashed on the world could sometimes use a little bit of care and caution.

Don’t make me connect the dots for you all the time… it gets tiring.[/quote]

Except for the last paragraph, that’s what I’ve said, in this and numerous other threads.

I can’t imagine you ever getting tired of being helpful, Vroom. It’s just part of your nature, to be helpful.

[quote]the german wrote:
if you want a more modern interpretation, you can check out this book that was used for a UC Santa Cruz class last quarter: Reinventing Marxism by Howard J. Sherman

I think its worthwhile even if you don’t agree at all with such ideas, to at least learn about them and know what they are.

From what I can see, capitalism and globalization, due to overpopulation and environmental problems (which don’t necessarily result from capitalism), is closing on on itself. In other words the world ain’t big enough for this to keep going on for much longer, and we will have to find some solution, which I think will likely be a more socialized, i.e. marxist influenced, world.

But socialism in the way that Marx defined is inherently flawed and impossible: it is a utopian ideal. Because some people don’t want to give up their free will in order to have a utopia (like Dostoevsy’s “Underground Man”, or think of Morpheus and all those guys in the Matrix), which is enough to shatter the whole system, which requires a dictator to supress (like Stalin), thus the inherent flaw. Just my opinion.[/quote]

You are correct in your analysis. Individuals pop up who don’t want to be on a leash and a chain.

In another thread, I asked: “What if I don’t want to pay tax money to help victims of Katrina?” You’d have thought, by the comments I got, that I was the devil incarnate. I was excorciated because I said that individuals should not be forced to help others in need. If someone wants to volunteer, fine. I said it was immoral to force one person, at gunpoint, to help another.

This means that any kind of Marxist-Welfare State MUST eventually resort to force against those who don’t want to cooperate – which we saw with the Soviets, the Chinese, the Nazis, and so on.

Good post!

[quote]pookie wrote:
harris447 wrote:
(On a related note I recently had to do a presentation in class on Marxism. I told the other members of my group that the presentation should be two words long: “Didn’t work.”

Actually, it’s more like “never been done right” or “can’t work.”

There has never been a true communist state. All the “commie” countries stopped at the next-to-last stage, just before the ruling class disappears. Imagine that.

The true communist ideal, where the people rule themselves and all goods and means of production belong to everyone is, IMO, an unreachable utopia which doesn’t take into account human nature.

First of all, people like to own stuff. It’s basic human nature. Even very young kids will fight over what they consider “theirs.” Once you allow the concept of private property, you’ll have individuals who own more than others and the classes are back.

Secondly, the problem with the “everything belongs to everyone” concept can be easily seen at any public restroom. When something belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one in particular and people don’t really seem to care about the condition of the place. Very few people will care if they piss on the floor, drop some shit besides the garbage can, crack a tile or break the mirror.

Communism is an interesting idea, but anyone who thinks it could ever work in its ultimate, purest form need to get out and meet people more.

[/quote]

Good post! As a compromise, how much of Communism should we allow into a system, to care for the old, sick, aged, and so on? Or should they have to rely on private charity?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Good post! As a compromise, how much of Communism should we allow into a system, to care for the old, sick, aged, and so on? Or should they have to rely on private charity?[/quote]

I guess it pretty much depends on what we value as a society. Personally, I like the idea of providing free health care for all; and covering the basics: lodging, food, clothing (welfare, basically).

We live in rich societies and we shouldn’t have people starving in the streets; or suffering from a debilitating disease they can’t afford to treat. People should basically be able to live pain-free and disease-free lives so that they are able to be productive members of society.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a way to implement this idea without a bunch of freeloaders jumping on it and parasiting the system, rendering the system much too costly for the working taxpayers to support.

Employer supported health coverage is an interesting idea, since you have to work to be covered. You can’t really parasite the system. The problem with that situation is that losing your job also mean you lose your coverage. The “John Q” situation, which is something we’d like to avoid. Being between jobs can be stressful enough for a family without the added worry of someone needing care or treatment.

It’s not an easy question to resolve. It’s very hard to reduce abuse/fraud without trampling the rights and freedom we also want to have.

Most countries seem to be going toward a mix of public/private care systems. The US from a mostly private system with public programs like Medicaid, HMOs, etc. and Canada from a 100% free system (free to use, not free when tax day comes around…) slowly allowing private clinics to operate in parallel. Many Europeans countries also have similar system. France, for example, covers “essential” treatments, but not those deemed elective.

By the way, there’s a very interesting debate posted about this very topic here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.gladwellgopnik.html

Most points from both sides of the public-free/private-pay-to-use systems are presented an well argued. A very interesting read.