Marxist's Apartment A Microcosm of why Marxism Doesn't Work

[johncmcleod]

Observation, both systems work to increase production, but the worker is happier under the capitalist system.

In communist societies, it is work or else. Work harder and you are stupid.

Well, I really don't see how workers would be happier in a capitalist system than in a communist one. They don't have to worry about job security, getting paycuts, they aren't poorer then other people, there is perfect equality, they won't get exploited by the corporation they work for, what is produced by the workers is in the hands of the workers, not in the hands of some corporate executive to use to make himself even richer then he already is, there are no homeless or starving people, there are no ghettos, I could go on forever.

And if you work harder in a communist system, you aren't stupid. You are working harder for the good of the country. You are working to find the cure of a disease, to feed a child, to clothe people.

originally posted by Ted Striker:
Man, I really really don't understand this fascination that some westerners have with being wannabe Commies! How many more examples of failure do you need to see? Are you guys just trying to be different?

And "example country XYZ wasn't an example of TRUE COMMUNISM" doesn't cut it!

What examples of failure? Let's see. Here are the communist nations:

Russia-went from a country where the country was mostly dirt poor peasants and was comepletely underdeveloped and run by rich aristocrats to an egilatarian soceity that became the second most powerful nation in the world. Now, they are in a capitalist system and Russia is struggling. Unfortunately brutal dictators led the country because Stalin took over power and used it not the way it should have been used and Lenin died before it could be stopped.

Cuba-do any of you honestly think that if it was capitalist it would be better off then any of the other Latin American countries? Cuba has much higher literacy and better health care then the other Latin American countries. And even though a tyrant runs the country most Cubans are happy with the way they live. We only hear about the anti-Castro ones that came to the US and get on TV.

China-In 1950 it was a country of peasants and was hundreds of years back in technology from the west to being industrialized and a modern nation-all in a matter of years.

Vietnam is still reeling from the effects of the Vietnam war and is struggling, but would be even worse if it was in a capitalist system.

originally posted by Drake Tungsten:
Being raised in the 80's, I hate commies with a passion, like all real Americans should. I've noticed that people younger than I, however, don't seem to have been brought up to hate commies with the proper fervor. It seems the defeat of communism in the Cold War, while great, has removed the reality of communist rule from the public eye and created a generation who don't really understand how completely evil communism is. These naive saps seem to revel in their support for leftist and communist policies, something that in the past was limited to the moronic and smelly hippy fringe. I don't know what the reasons are for this continued belief in communism, but it scares me that this many people could still believe in such a failed and evil ideology.

Drake-I must say that people like you are absolutely disgusting. America is filled with people like you. It is because of those that by the time I was in 4th grade and knew nothing of politics or anything about economics I knew that communists were evil. They were the people responsible for all the problems in the world and they deserved to die. I knew that every last one of them was an evil person. It is people like you that teach the youth of our nation to only think from the extreme right point of view, so by the time we are all adults we know nothing of what people with other ideologies think, and we can look at things from only one angle. So when the conservatives that run the country do something wrong, we fail to see it because we cannot question what they do, or look at the problem from all angles. The people now make poor decisions because they can only look at things from one point of view. The war in Iraq is a perfect example of this. Americans know absolutely nothing of the reasons it is opposed in all parts of the world. Most Americans are lead to believe that Saddam is going to attack us with nukes or other WoMD, or they don't even know that we are completely violating international law. When I argue with someone on the war in Iraq and bring up reasons that the leftists don't want to go in, they have never heard any of these ideas before and dismiss them as wrong. And I can't stand that you call communists 'evil.' You know a few communists from an internet forum and maybe a few live near you, and you don't like their ideology so you think everyone with the same beliefs is evil. Shame on you.

As for the people complaining about communists forcing people to work, what if you believe in a state where the lazy people that don't work don't get punished? Everyone would work for the good of the nation, not so they can get a better car. Some people might be lazy and not work, but the efficiency of manufacturing and agriculture is so great that if some people don't work you can still get by and everyone will have plenty of food and clothes and other necessities. And those who don't work can always be encouraged by their peers to work.

One of the main arguments of capitalists is that "Capitalism is more productive." I'm not sure if I agree or not, but I strongly believe that they are missing the point. Is it all about productivity? Is how strong the nation will be the only thing that counts? Isn't which system makes the life better for the average person a more important criterion than which system produces more? In the US, if we're in a capitalism then we may be more productive and have more luxuries, have fancier cell phones and bigger cars and name brand clothing, but do things make you happier? In the US, we are way richer and have way more luxuries then the other nations of the world, yet so many of us are depressed or suicidal or use drugs to get away from their situation. Even the rich people many times feel their existence is pointless and sometimes poor people are happier then the rich, though many of them are more depressed because it is very depressing to live in poverty while others are rich. Believe me, walking through the poor areas of town is depressing enough. So things don't make you happy necessarily.

Anyway, back to the rest of my point. In a communist state, the people would have everything they need and more, maybe not all of the useless luxuries we have now, but every day they'd be getting up for a purpose. They wouldn't work so they can survive and not get fired, they wouldn't work for their boss, or they woulnd't throw their life away working just so they can have more money in the end, they would be working for the benefit of the country. It would be a more wholesome way of living. My main point is not which system is better, but just the more productive the system is shouldn't be the main way to judge which system is better.

As for the libertarian argument on people being forced to work different then those who work or starve, I disagree with it completely. If you don't work in a traditional communist state, you get the can and suffer the consequences of being in prison. If you don't work in a capitalist state, you get fired and suffer the consequences of living on your own (which would mean starvation). But what difference does it make? How many people in a communist state just refuse to work and then spend all of their time in prison? And how many people do you know in a capitalist state just refuse to work and decide to starve to death?

I guess that libertarians can be deontologists and make their economy based on whatever is moral or not. But we must look at the bigger picture. Why do what is moral and immoral? I believe the best answer for this is to make the world a better place. So if we are doing what is moral is making the world worse, then why do it? In a libertarian economy there is no control. It is brutal. There will be jobs that pay ridiculous amount of money, and there would be jobs that would pay dirt. And there wouldn't be enough jobs for anyone. Without state help, many would be jobless. There would be starvation. Corporations would terribly exploit people just as they did during the depression when they could just lower their wages to almost nothing and the people could do nothing about it because they didn't have anywhere else to work. The people could form strikes, but it would be very hard to strike when you could take that job and feed your family. Many strikes just couldn't be organized because people wouldn't want to lose a job. The environment would be destroyed because nothing would stop the corporations from doing what they please. Monopolies would rule. Corporations could literally slowly accumlate more power until all business would be owned by just a few corporations. The country wouild be controlled by a few rich old guys. The poor would get no health care. If you were rich, you could survive diseases. If not, you're dead. The poor would be starving. And yet there would be rich corporate owners who never had worked a hard day in their life and had so much money they didn't know what to do with it. This is why a libertarian economy makes the world a better place. If we will follow the libertarian point of view, the purpose of morality has been destroyed.

And even if morality is the only deciding factor, then tell me this: is it moral to allow such an immoral economy to exist when it could be stopped?

[Drake Tungsten]

It is because of those that by the time I was in 4th grade and knew nothing of politics or anything about economics I knew that communists were evil.

Sounds good so far.

They were the people responsible for all the problems in the world and they deserved to die.

Yep.

I knew that every last one of them was an evil person.

Uhuh.

I must say that people like you are absolutely disgusting.

Oh, so you don't really see the truth about the inherent evil of communism. Piss off then, you pinko commie scum.

And I can't stand that you call communists 'evil.'

The truth hurts sometimes...

[Berzerker]

John -

Well, I really don't see how workers would be happier in a capitalist system than in a communist one. They don't have to worry about job security, getting paycuts, they aren't poorer then other people, there is perfect equality, they won't get exploited by the corporation they work for, what is produced by the workers is in the hands of the workers, not in the hands of some corporate executive to use to make himself even richer then he already is, there are no homeless or starving people, there are no ghettos, I could go on forever.

Is that your description of Cuba, N Korea, China and the USSR? Yes, let's compare north and south Korea. Ghettos are the result of rent control (Harlem was a fairly nice place to live before government got involved), and the greatest mass starvations occured in communist countries. And perfect equality? Hardly, one need only see how the bigwigs and the masses live under communism. And people aren't poorer in communism? C'mon!!!

What examples of failure? Let's see. Here are the communist nations:

Russia-went from a country where the country was mostly dirt poor peasants and was comepletely underdeveloped and run by rich aristocrats to an egilatarian soceity that became the second most powerful nation in the world.

Umm...this economic boom was a result of technology created in the west, technology that allowed for the same, no, a greater boom in the west. And what happened to your beloved USSR when acquiring that military power? It went bankrupt! Oh, btw, the USSR was only powerful wrt military power, not economic power.

Now, they are in a capitalist system and Russia is struggling. Unfortunately brutal dictators led the country because Stalin took over power and used it not the way it should have been used and Lenin died before it could be stopped.

Struggling because of what decades of communism did to the country. So, your response to Ted's comment about communist failures is: they didn't do it right. Nice... so you agree the USSR was a failure?

Cuba-do any of you honestly think that if it was capitalist it would be better off then any of the other Latin American countries?

Of course, most latin countries don't have capitalist systems.

Cuba has much higher literacy and better health care then the other Latin American countries. And even though a tyrant runs the country most Cubans are happy with the way they live. We only hear about the anti-Castro ones that came to the US and get on TV.

What happens if they want to leave? Yeah, real nice "poll" of how Cubans feel. State your disgust and get thrown in a cage...

China-In 1950 it was a country of peasants and was hundreds of years back in technology from the west to being industrialized and a modern nation-all in a matter of years.

Would that have happened if the west hadn't developed the technology first? How many people were slaughtered by this epitome of greatness?

Vietnam is still reeling from the effects of the Vietnam war and is struggling, but would be even worse if it was in a capitalist system.

And Santa has some gifts for you this Christmas.

[Ted Striker]

There is no Santa?

[SKILORD]

Russia-went from a country where the country was mostly dirt poor peasants and was comepletely underdeveloped and run by rich aristocrats to an egilatarian soceity that became the second most powerful nation in the world. Now, they are in a capitalist system and Russia is struggling. Unfortunately brutal dictators led the country because Stalin took over power and used it not the way it should have been used and Lenin died before it could be stopped.

Far be it from me to criticise Communism's Jesus Christ, but Lenin was a brutal f*cking dictator too.

Cuba-do any of you honestly think that if it was capitalist it would be better off then any of the other Latin American countries? Cuba has much higher literacy and better health care then the other Latin American countries. And even though a tyrant runs the country most Cubans are happy with the way they live. We only hear about the anti-Castro ones that came to the US and get on TV.

In addition to what has already been said about other Latin American nations being uncapitalistic there is also a point to be made that Cuba is traditionally more literate than those nations. Such things predate your revolution.

As for Health Care, wtf? Isn't that one of the principle foundations of their government? So what? What about Standard of living, or per capita GNP?

You rarely hear about the hundreds of Cubans locked away in Fidel's prisons, you're right. Good point.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Agathon
Agreed about the hippies though - how dare those decadent bourgeois hedonists associate themselves with communism!?!

I'm sure you work 10 hours/day in an assembly line.

I love the story though, it's pure reality.
I experienced THIS last year:

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.

It works with fines though.

[SKILORD]

It works with fines though.

Fines would make it Capitalist though, lacking the harmony of a Communistic system.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Fines would make it Capitalist though, lacking the harmony of a Communistic system.

It's still perfectly communistic (though our policy was never meant to be ideologic, we just tried to be fair to each other, we didn't think about a social experiment...)
Whoever isn't willing to contribute his workforce to the community will have to contribute something else. The fines are used to buy "common goods" like cleaning stuff, toilet paper etc.

[Ned]

Originally posted by johncmcleod

Well, I really don't see how workers would be happier in a capitalist system than in a communist one. They don't have to worry about job security, getting paycuts, they aren't poorer then other people, there is perfect equality, they won't get exploited by the corporation they work for, what is produced by the workers is in the hands of the workers, not in the hands of some corporate executive to use to make himself even richer then he already is, there are no homeless or starving people, there are no ghettos, I could go on forever.

You talk like a woman. Women are interested in security and protection.

And if you work harder in a communist system, you aren't stupid. You are working harder for the good of the country. You are working to find the cure of a disease, to feed a child, to clothe people.

More girish stupidity.

What examples of failure? Let's see. Here are the communist nations:

Russia-went from a country where the country was mostly dirt poor peasants and was comepletely underdeveloped and run by rich aristocrats to an egilatarian soceity that became the second most powerful nation in the world. Now, they are in a capitalist system and Russia is struggling. Unfortunately brutal dictators led the country because Stalin took over power and used it not the way it should have been used and Lenin died before it could be stopped.

Yeah, kill enough peasants and they will say anything. And of course everyone really enjoy standing in lines for hours every day to buy a meager selection of food.

In terms of "powerful nation," what you expect when you invest 50% of your GNP in the military.

Cuba-do any of you honestly think that if it was capitalist it would be better off then any of the other Latin American countries?

When it was conquered by Fidel, it had the highest standard of living in Latin America. Today, it is near the bottom, one tenth of what it formerly had. Contrast Peuto Rico which today is at a level more than ten time that of Cuba.

Cuba has much higher literacy and better health care then the other Latin American countries.

Standard communist propaganda.

China-In 1950 it was a country of peasants and was hundreds of years back in technology from the west to being industrialized and a modern nation-all in a matter of years.

China began to progress when it turned to capitalism under Deng.

Vietnam is still reeling from the effects of the Vietnam war and is struggling, but would be even worse if it was in a capitalist system.

We will never know, will we?

As for the people complaining about communists forcing people to work, what if you believe in a state where the lazy people that don't work don't get punished? Everyone would work for the good of the nation, not so they can get a better car.

Exactly what Hitler said. Do you want me to get a quote?

One of the main arguments of capitalists is that "Capitalism is more productive."

It's the difference between slavery and pay according to your production. It is the difference between inefficient ected state monopolies and efficient competition.

[a]Isn't which system makes the life better for the average person a more important criterion than which system produces more?

This surely is an important criterion. Capitalism wins.

In a communist state, the people would have everything they need and more, maybe not all of the useless luxuries we have now, but every day they'd be getting up for a purpose. They wouldn't work so they can survive and not get fired, they wouldn't work for their boss, or they woulnd't throw their life away working just so they can have more money in the end, they would be working for the benefit of the country. It would be a more wholesome way of living. My main point is not which system is better, but just the more productive the system is shouldn't be the main way to judge which system is better.

This is NAZIism in its finest expresssion.

I guess that libertarians can be deontologists and make their economy based on whatever is moral or not. But we must look at the bigger picture. Why do what is moral and immoral? I believe the best answer for this is to make the world a better place. So if we are doing what is moral is making the world worse, then why do it? In a libertarian economy there is no control. It is brutal. There will be jobs that pay ridiculous amount of money, and there would be jobs that would pay dirt. And there wouldn't be enough jobs for anyone. Without state help, many would be jobless. There would be starvation. Corporations would terribly exploit people just as they did during the depression when they could just lower their wages to almost nothing and the people could do nothing about it because they didn't have anywhere else to work. The people could form strikes, but it would be very hard to strike when you could take that job and feed your family. Many strikes just couldn't be organized because people wouldn't want to lose a job. The environment would be destroyed because nothing would stop the corporations from doing what they please. Monopolies would rule. Corporations could literally slowly accumlate more power until all business would be owned by just a few corporations. The country wouild be controlled by a few rich old guys. The poor would get no health care. If you were rich, you could survive diseases. If not, you're dead. The poor would be starving. And yet there would be rich corporate owners who never had worked a hard day in their life and had so much money they didn't know what to do with it. This is why a libertarian economy makes the world a better place. If we will follow the libertarian point of view, the purpose of morality has been destroyed.

Someone's been reading a lot of science fiction. The problem with this scenario is that capitalism exists in a democracy. People act to restrain abuses in a democracy, thus naturally smoothing the rough edges of capitalism.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Well, I really don't see how workers would be happier in a capitalist system than in a communist one. They don't have to worry about job security, getting paycuts, they aren't poorer then other people, there is perfect equality, they won't get exploited by the corporation they work for,

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of factory workers who used to work in the former eastern bloc. Job security? No pay cuts? They weren't poorer then the party elites who lived high on the hog while the average house wife had to wait an entire day in line just to buy toilet paper? Sorry, but the system was not sustainable and so everyone lost their jobs and there were tons of defacto pay cuts as every eastern bloc currency kept being devalued time and time again.

there are no homeless or starving people, there are no ghettos, I could go on forever.

There were lots of people who starved or went hungry because the collectivized farm system was horrably inefficient. In 1913 Russia had huge farm exports and was one of the world's largest agricultural producers but under the Soviet collectivized system out put per acre kept dropping all the time until the Soviets had to rely upon the west to provide them with half of their grain.

BTW The crap conditions which most of the people were forced to live in sure looked like a ghetto to me when I watched them on tv back in the 1980s.

Cuba-do any of you honestly think that if it was capitalist it would be better off then any of the other Latin American countries?

Per capita income wise Cuba was one of the Richest in Latin America in 1959. Now, it is one of the poorest. You're right communism has worked so well.

China-In 1950 it was a country of peasants and was hundreds of years back in technology from the west to being industrialized and a modern nation-all in a matter of years.

China wasn't hundreds of years behind anybody in the 1940's. They actually had a fairly large industrial out put and produced most of their own war material in WW2. They also had plenty of trained scientists and that's why they were able to get the bomb in 1950 (with a bit of help from Stalin).

Vietnam is still reeling from the effects of the Vietnam war and is struggling, but would be even worse if it was in a capitalist system.

Hardly. Vietnam suffers mainly from corruption and the fact that the state regulates and taxs capitalist businesses to death. Thailand & Vietnam were nearly identical in development in 1950. Thailand went capitalist and Vietnam, Cambodia, and Loas all went communist. Thailand got dramatically richer and guess who didn't.

Drake-I must say that people like you are absolutely disgusting. America is filled with people like you. It is because of those that by the time I was in 4th grade and knew nothing of politics or anything about economics I knew that communists were evil.

I think it is funny that you are accussing Drake of knowing nothing when you so obviously know nothing about economics or the communist vs capitalist system. Any way I'm going to ignore the rest of your long winded rant against Drake.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thailand & Vietnam were nearly identical in development in 1950. Thailand went capitalist and Vietnam, Cambodia, and Loas all went communist. Thailand got dramatically richer and guess who didn't.

Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

[johncmcleod]

I am too lazy to go through every argument and respond, and I know I'll lose in the end because I always lose when I get in an argument with anything, all I'll say is this. So far, the few communist nations have been lead by brutal, tyrant dictators who do a bad job of running the country. Lenin would be ashamed of what Stalin did. Lenin didn't intend for the leaders to take the money away from the people and live luxuriously, though I must say that where many officials of the Soviet Union lived wasn't that nice (the exception goes to the dictator of the country) I believe in democracy. I also don't understand how what I was saying was like nazism either. Additionally, all nations that attempt to become communist are harassed by the US. And, I am undecided whether I'm communist or not. I was just playing devil's advocate.

I think it is funny that you are accussing Drake of knowing nothing when you so obviously know nothing about economics or the communist vs capitalist system. Any way I'm going to ignore the rest of your long winded rant against Drake.

The whole point of my rant was to prove that people like Drake who run the country program the minds of us to dismiss the ideas of the left before we even know what they are. So we can't make an educated decision about what system we want and we don't know how to look at things from a different point of view. The government should not be forcing people to only believe in one type of government. They cause us to keep a close-mind, and having a close-mind has contributed greatly to many of the problems of the world.

BTW The crap conditions which most of the people were forced to live in sure looked like a ghetto to me when I watched them on tv back in the 1980s.

Exactly, those were what you saw on the US media. The US media will do whatever it can to make communism look evil. And if you think how the people lived in the 80s is bad, the way they lived before communism was fifty times worse.

And as for those arguing against my arguments on the SU and China, one cannot deny how much the nations were modernised. First off, technology might have progressed in the West but that doesn't change the way the average person in the east lived. Same goes with the Soviet Union. There was no magical technology that all of the sudden made lives for the average person in the countries. Beiking before world war two was still ruled by a Chinese emperor, and the technology of the Chinese was practically ancient. The average person was a peasant. There was no plumbing or electricity, or manufacturing. Mao caused the nation to greatly modernise extremely quickly. I have talked to people that went to China, and it is a modern country now. Ask any elderly Chinese person and they will tell you the country has changed greatly. Same goes with the soviet union.

As for Ned's comments, I would like you to understand I don't give a s*** about if I sound like I'm 'womanish' or not. It is typical in our society for males to be obsessed with their 'manliness' and to believe anyone who isn't manly should be ostracized. I believe in what I think is right and I don't care how manly it is. When it comes down to politics, who really cares whether it is manly or not? Shouldn't it be whatever system is the best more important then silly things such as how manly it sounds?

I would also like to state the capitalists' doomsday scenarios of people starving is highly unlikely. The US agriculture is so efficient that it is amazing. Our farmers can easily feed the country many times over. The government pays them not to grow more food they grow so much, and they still grow so much they export it to other countries. This will be increased with genetic engineering of crops. Even if the farmers are less efficient working-wise, no one will be starving.

This surely is an important criterion. Capitalism wins.

Then why do so many capitalists feel an emptiness in their lives? Why are so many depressed? Why do so many take to drugs to escape their world in your perfect system in the richest nation in the world? You didn't explain why capitalism is better in this regard, you just said that it is.

And as for Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, it is hard to be communist and successful when you're getting the crap bombed out of you by the US or massive genocide is occurring in your country.

[Drake Tungsten]

The whole point of my rant was to prove that people like Drake who run the country program the minds of us to dismiss the ideas of the left before we even know what they are.

People like me run the country? Sweet!

[Sandman]

You talk like a woman. Women are interested in security and protection.

Classic Ned.

[Az]

I'll get involved in this thread, later.