PoS wrote:

Communism is a failure because it never got implemented and never will be- it's a pipe dream.

You should be thanking God that it's just a pipe dream. Providing for everybody is its good side, but its downside, incredibly limited personal freedom, outweighs it.

eynon wrote:

gezdar wrote: eynon wrote: gezdar wrote: How can it be a failure when even the sternest of capitalist countries adopted and incorporated huge parts of communism into their systems e.g. USA and Britain. we got most of our welfare ideas from Otto von Bismark not the commies. Which one is older? The chicken or the egg? concepts of public welfare and a social safety net go back to the Romans and earlier. Karl got most of his ideas from other people.

I agree.

I've always disagreed with the "social welfare is a socialist concept" bromide.

For me i've always seen it as a result of retarded "state vs non-state" hyperbole.


The idea that a tax paid program, is a means to control production, would leave minarchist states in a bind.

eynon wrote:

I still don't buy that.

You don't have to buy it, in order for it to be fact.

Quote:

There were plenty of moderate Socialists in the European political arena both before and after Marx. Marxists represented a sub-set of Socialists that Bismark was hostile too, a sub-set that want considerably more radical reforms then those he implimented. Bismark worked with the more moderate, non-Marxists, to achieve his reforms. He didn't get his ideas from the radicals, in fact he implimented his reforms to oppose the radicals.

Had the Marxists and like minded radicals not been on the scene, there would have been less of a push on the part of the ruling class to allow the reforms that were implimented.

Love it or hate it, the presence of the Social Democratic movement (at the time, very Marxist) had a lot to do with the compromises that the ruling class made with it's more moderate opponents.

You yourself stated that "he implemented his reforms to oppose the radicals".

Quote:

saying Marxists gave us social-welfare is like saying the Confederates gave us abolition.

Are you willing to point out where I made this statement?

Quote:

I would be willing to bet that without Marxism many liberal nations would have adopted more social-welfare programs sooner and with less fuss.

And I'd be willing to bet the opposite. That's like saying Jim Crow laws and Civil Rights Era legislation could have happened without the Civil Rights movement.

The presence of the Socialist/Communist/Anarchist movement presented the ruling class with a choice. Either produce a better standard of living for the people or be buried by them.

Funny, how many of the job benefits our parents enjoyed started to be phased out in the 70s when the USSR became to decay.

Quote:

It was the taint of Marxism that often made folks more hostile to their implimentation. It still does. So I don't buy the agrument that Marxism furthered the causes of social-justice and welfare, if anything, it served to retard it.

Marxism never sought to further the cause of social programs. Their end game has always been a radical restructuring of the economic system. Social programs though helpful do nothing to address the root cause of poverty.

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Uh. What? You do realise that both the U.S and Britain had independent socialist movements. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

How so? Were these movement not influenced by Marxist thought?

Quote:

Thats besides the point though, if you want to phrase this debate from the vernacular into something a little more academic. Assuming my communism he means Marxism. Then yeah the failure of Marxism as a scientific theory and the inability of the state to dissolve away in several specific attempts at a deliberate application are fairly damming.

As I stated earlier in this thread to one of your posts. Had the nations that attempted to build communism (which they didn't even get close) had reached Communism then I'd agree with your assessment.

But they didn't even meet the preconditions that Marxists talked about for the dissolution of the state.

stripe66506 wrote:

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Uh. What? You do realise that both the U.S and Britain had independent socialist movements. That's a ridiculous statement to make. How so? Were these movement not influenced by Marxist thought?

Not really, you have to remember the British (and desendents of said state) have had proto socialism since the diggers in the 17th century.

Quote:

Quote: Thats besides the point though, if you want to phrase this debate from the vernacular into something a little more academic. Assuming my communism he means Marxism. Then yeah the failure of Marxism as a scientific theory and the inability of the state to dissolve away in several specific attempts at a deliberate application are fairly damming. As I stated earlier in this thread to one of your posts. Had the nations that attempted to build communism (which they didn't even get close) had reached Communism then I'd agree with your assessment. But they didn't even meet the preconditions that Marxists talked about for the dissolution of the state.

Im confused because my point here is that empirical success has in the past proved non-actual despite attempt.

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

gezdar wrote: How can it be a failure when even the sternest of capitalist countries adopted and incorporated huge parts of communism into their systems e.g. USA and Britain. Uh. What? You do realise that both the U.S and Britain had independent socialist movements. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Thats besides the point though, if you want to phrase this debate from the vernacular into something a little more academic. Assuming my communism he means Marxism. Then yeah the failure of Marxism as a scientific theory and the inability of the state to dissolve away in several specific attempts at a deliberate application are fairly damming.

Yes, I'm taking a more academic stance here. I'm not looking at communism as an isolated system of governance.
So, you're arguing that Britain and USA have never adopted any socialist/communist/welfare state ideas?

I say that's a ridiculous statement to make. Who cares who the thinker was. Politicians have no ideas of their own, they get them from someone else. That's why to me eynon's comment that USA got it from Bismarck is funny to say the least.
Of course there were socialist/communist thinkers in Britain besides Marx, but to say that they were independent is ridiculous. They influenced European thinkers just as they were influenced by them.

gezdar wrote:

thefranzkafkafront wrote: gezdar wrote: How can it be a failure when even the sternest of capitalist countries adopted and incorporated huge parts of communism into their systems e.g. USA and Britain. Uh. What? You do realise that both the U.S and Britain had independent socialist movements. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Thats besides the point though, if you want to phrase this debate from the vernacular into something a little more academic. Assuming my communism he means Marxism. Then yeah the failure of Marxism as a scientific theory and the inability of the state to dissolve away in several specific attempts at a deliberate application are fairly damming. Yes, I'm taking a more academic stance here. I'm not looking at communism as an isolated system of governance. So, you're arguing that Britain and USA have never adopted any socialist/communist/welfare state ideas? I say that's a ridiculous statement to make. Who cares who the thinker was. Politicians have no ideas of their own, they get them from someone else. That's why to me eynon's comment that USA got it from Bismarck is funny to say the least. Of course there were socialist/communist thinkers in Britain besides Marx, but to say that they were independent is ridiculous. They influenced European thinkers just as they were influenced by them.

Everything looks like everything and everything is related to everything.

Awsome.

gezdar wrote:

thefranzkafkafront wrote: gezdar wrote: How can it be a failure when even the sternest of capitalist countries adopted and incorporated huge parts of communism into their systems e.g. USA and Britain. Uh. What? You do realise that both the U.S and Britain had independent socialist movements. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Thats besides the point though, if you want to phrase this debate from the vernacular into something a little more academic. Assuming my communism he means Marxism. Then yeah the failure of Marxism as a scientific theory and the inability of the state to dissolve away in several specific attempts at a deliberate application are fairly damming. Yes, I'm taking a more academic stance here. I'm not looking at communism as an isolated system of governance. So, you're arguing that Britain and USA have never adopted any socialist/communist/welfare state ideas?

No and I thought I was being quite clear here. There has been a very vibrant socialist movement in the English speaking world that developed quite independently of that on the continent (communion sic Marxism) mainly becuase it was based in utilitarianism not hegel.

Quote:

I say that's a ridiculous statement to make. Who cares who the thinker was. Politicians have no ideas of their own, they get them from someone else. That's why to me eynon's comment that USA got it from Bismarck is funny to say the least.

If everything was simply a synthesis of existing ideas. We'd have run out of new ideas some time ago.

History is full of sui generis ideas. Most based on refined empirical observation. But there's also a category of conceptual ideas that simply were not available to people in the past. Most strikingly you'll struggle to find any notion of liberty like anyone understands it today before the 16th century.

Quote:

Of course there were socialist/communist thinkers in Britain besides Marx, but to say that they were independent is ridiculous. They influenced European thinkers just as they were influenced by them.

Not really, becuase like I said. Utilitarinsim has been the driving force of 'british and post british' socialist thinking. Where as taking communism to mean conential marxism. Has quite a diffrent development from hegel.

These are not revolutionary statements I am making here. Rather pointing out that your clearly unaware of people like Robert Owen several socialist publicans of whom pre-date marx's birth.

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Not really, you have to remember the British (and desendents of said state) have had proto socialism since the diggers in the 17th century.

This I'm aware of as is any Marxist you'll run into. (Because Marx spoke about them)

However, it can not be denied that Marxism had an influence in the Leftist movements in the UK and it's decendents. Hell, the Manifesto of the Communist Party was first published in London.

Quote:

Im confused because my point here is that empirical success has in the past proved non-actual despite attempt.

My point here is that it can not be concluded that Marx was wrong about the dissolution of the societies that attempted Communism do not even reach the material conditions that Marxists talked about being neccessary for the state to dissapear in the first place.

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

gezdar wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: gezdar wrote: How can it be a failure when even the sternest of capitalist countries adopted and incorporated huge parts of communism into their systems e.g. USA and Britain. Uh. What? You do realise that both the U.S and Britain had independent socialist movements. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Thats besides the point though, if you want to phrase this debate from the vernacular into something a little more academic. Assuming my communism he means Marxism. Then yeah the failure of Marxism as a scientific theory and the inability of the state to dissolve away in several specific attempts at a deliberate application are fairly damming. Yes, I'm taking a more academic stance here. I'm not looking at communism as an isolated system of governance. So, you're arguing that Britain and USA have never adopted any socialist/communist/welfare state ideas? No and I thought I was being quite clear here. There has been a very vibrant socialist movement in the English speaking world that developed quite independently of that on the continent (communion sic Marxism) mainly becuase it was based in utilitarianism not hegel. Quote: I say that's a ridiculous statement to make. Who cares who the thinker was. Politicians have no ideas of their own, they get them from someone else. That's why to me eynon's comment that USA got it from Bismarck is funny to say the least. If everything was simply a synthesis of existing ideas. We'd have run out of new ideas some time ago. History is full of sui generis ideas. Most based on refined empirical observation. But there's also a category of conceptual ideas that simply were not available to people in the past. Most strikingly you'll struggle to find any notion of liberty like anyone understands it today before the 16th century. Quote: Of course there were socialist/communist thinkers in Britain besides Marx, but to say that they were independent is ridiculous. They influenced European thinkers just as they were influenced by them. Not really, becuase like I said. Utilitarinsim has been the driving force of 'british and post british' socialist thinking. Where as taking communism to mean conential marxism. Has quite a diffrent development from hegel. These are not revolutionary statements I am making here. Rather pointing out that your clearly unaware of people like Robert Owen several socialist publicans of whom pre-date marx's birth.

I have to admit this is beyond me. I was drawing conclusions from what I knew about Marx, communism, etc. and what I read from Smith, Mill, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc.
I've never heard about Owen or any notable socialist British philosopher. I've read some Marx but didn't like him. Hegel was too pretentious for my taste. What he talks about I find much better said by the far eastern philosophers. But that's just me.

Mr.Bill wrote:

Quote: or dictatorships or whatever, can you please explain what you mean by using these words, and how they apply to the USSR The USSR wasn't a dictatorship? Election after election, when the communist party got 98% of the vote, that was pretty telling. I guess you really don't want to discuss communism.

Technically the word "dictator" is a contradiction because for a man to rule he needs complacency.

eynon wrote:

gezdar wrote: eynon wrote: gezdar wrote: How can it be a failure when even the sternest of capitalist countries adopted and incorporated huge parts of communism into their systems e.g. USA and Britain. we got most of our welfare ideas from Otto von Bismark not the commies. Which one is older? The chicken or the egg? concepts of public welfare and a social safety net go back to the Romans and earlier. Karl got most of his ideas from other people.

All people get their ideas from other sources. Plagiarizing is the nature of development. As Marx said, you cannot isolate consciousness from the environment it inhabits. A child locked in the closet for his entire life would base most of his thoughts around concepts like the thickness of dust and how it hurts to stub your toe on the floorboard. The first truly independent thinkers existed 200,000 years ago and it was their notions about "sunlight warms my skin" that made all of these conversations possible.

Wow this thread certainly took off when I went on my little break.

Jebus wrote:

But has a truly communistic state ever existed?

Yes that is true, but to be more precise the USSR failed, east Germany failed, Poland failed, China did something but is most certainly not close to communism, and all the eastern block countries failed.

(Steps into thread) Well, even during the Great Depression when millions of Western citizens were out of work, not a single Soviet citizen suffered from unemployment. Not saying the methods were moral or anything, I'm just sayin. (Steps out of thread)

Marxism was the greatest friend capitalism ever had. If your only alternative is this guy:


even rule by GE and Ford looks good.

I think if Marx had never existed democratic non-atheistic socialism would have taken over just about everywhere.

kenpo wrote:

Jebus wrote: But has a truly communistic state ever existed? Yes that is true, but to be more precise the USSR failed, east Germany failed, Poland failed, China did something but is most certainly not close to communism, and all the eastern block countries failed.

Standard dismissals aside, I have to come out and say that the standard application of the word "communism" speaks for itself about the nature of Western society. Considering no Soviet, German, Polish, or Chinese leader declared their nation "communist," it is quite interesting to note that we are taught to label them as such. In reality it would have been impossible for these leaders to reconcile their actual government operations with the vague predictions found in the writings of Marx, Luxemburg, and Kropotkin.

For that reason the Soviet Union was never called "communist." It was allegedly "socialist." Whether talking about Stalin or Khrushchev, the memo was never communism. Communism was the "future endpoint." Of course the very concept of a state-orchestrated pathway towards communism is riddled with its own issues, and I think Marx would have been quite frustrated to see party leaders declaring their revolution to be a simple issue of throwing out capitalists.

And, as a matter of terminology, a "communist state" is impossible in the context of historical materialism because a "state," as a sociological study, is (in simple terms) a class-dominated use of government.

stripe66506 wrote:

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Not really, you have to remember the British (and desendents of said state) have had proto socialism since the diggers in the 17th century. This I'm aware of as is any Marxist you'll run into. (Because Marx spoke about them) However, it can not be denied that Marxism had an influence in the Leftist movements in the UK and it's decendents. Hell, the Manifesto of the Communist Party was first published in London.

Im not saying there arnt Marxists in Britain or that historically Marxism hasn't been significant in Britain.

But there's always been a very British brand of socialism, that pre-dates marx's and has always had a thoroughly independent streak.

Diggers, Owen and the Fabians are three fantastic examples.

Quote:

Quote: Im confused because my point here is that empirical success has in the past proved non-actual despite attempt. My point here is that it can not be concluded that Marx was wrong about the dissolution of the societies that attempted Communism do not even reach the material conditions that Marxists talked about being neccessary for the state to dissapear in the first place.

The failure of sincere attempts to apply the theory is not a falsification?

This is just sounding like serious Ad hocing to me im afraid.

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Im not saying there arnt Marxists in Britain or that historically Marxism hasn't been significant in Britain. But there's always been a very British brand of socialism, that pre-dates marx's and has always had a thoroughly independent streak. Diggers, Owen and the Fabians are three fantastic examples.

This I know and they had a significant influence on the movement that Marx was apart of in his day. (Without them there may have been no such thing as Scientific Socialism.)

Quote:

The failure of sincere attempts to apply the theory is not a falsification?

Yep. It's all about conditions. No matter how sincere the attempt, it is doomed to failure without the proper conditions.

Now, had the USSR and the other states that have (or are still) had an economy that had advanced to a point where there was no shortages and they did not have to deal with matters such as national security then I'd be in agreement with you.

Instead, socialist revolutions happened in some of the least advanced regions of the world. So they had to deal with modernizing AND having to defend themselves against the most powerful nations in the world.

From Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed

Leon Trotky wrote:

The basis of bureaucratic rule is the poverty of society in objects of consumption, with the resulting struggle of each against all. When there is enough goods in a store, the purchasers can come whenever they want to. When there is little goods, the purchasers are compelled to stand in line. When the lines are very long, it is necessary to appoint a policeman to keep order. Such is the starting point of the power of the Soviet bureaucracy. It “knows” who is to get something and how has to wait.

Leon Trotsky wrote:

Socialism is a structure of planned to the end of the best satisfaction of human needs; otherwise it does not deserve the name of socialism. If cows are socialized, but there are too few of them, or they have too meagre udders, then conflicts arise out of the inadequate supply of milk – conflicts between city and country, between collectives and individual peasants, between different state of the proletariat, between the whole toiling mass and bureaucracy. It was in fact the socialization of the cows which led to their mass extermination by the peasants. Social conflicts created by want can in their turn lead to a resurrection of “all the old crap.” Such was, in essence, our answer.

Quote:

This is just sounding like serious Ad hocing to me im afraid.

With all due respect, sounds more like you're applying some serious "ad hocing" to your position good sir.

Quote:

Now, had the USSR and the other states that have (or are still) had an economy that had advanced to a point where there was no shortages and they did not have to deal with matters such as national security then I'd be in agreement with you.

So the conditions for a successful socialist revolution is one where there was no need for one.

Quote:

Instead, socialist revolutions happened in some of the least advanced regions of the world. So they had to deal with modernizing AND having to defend themselves against the most powerful nations in the world.

Well, the dichotomy: For the latter to have any relevence, there must be a simutaneous worldwide socialist revolt. For the formr, all countries must equal. Both concepts are fantasy.

Quote:

[quote="Leon Trotsky"]Socialism is a structure of planned to the end of the best satisfaction of human needs; otherwise it does not deserve the name of socialism.

This is another way of saying socialism can never fail. If things don't work out as they thought it would, then it was never socialism.
Its otherwise known as "faith."