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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
che:

They weren't under the Communists.

They were during the NEP. It's only in the 1930s, when Stalin decided to liquidate them as a class that they were no longer priveledged.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Democracy was born when two voted to take the land of a third after he had improved it and made it fertile.

That's not true. The first organized democracy (as opposed to primative tribal democracies, which have existed far longer than we can count) began in Athens as a result of too many Athenians being enslaved for debt. As a result, they overthrew the govenment and established a democracy so no Athenian could ever be enslaved by another Athenian again.

History is always the enemy of conservative ideology.

[Ben Kenobi]

A state that follows the distributive justice of communism.

Either UR or Che,

Give an example of this distributive justice.

Have there been any states that have conformed to this model?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's not true. The first organized democracy (as opposed to primative tribal democracies, which have existed far longer than we can count) began in Athens as a result of too many Athenians being enslaved for debt. As a result, they overthrew the govenment and established a democracy so no Athenian could ever be enslaved by another Athenian again.

History is always the enemy of conservative ideology.

Well at least the Athenians did not vote to confiscate the lands of the rich and distibute them to the poor.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Either UR or Che,

Have there been any states that have conformed to this model?

That's his definition, not mine.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Give an example of this distributive justice.

Marx defined this quite precisely in his works.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Have there been any states that have conformed to this model?

No, as it requires a very high level of productivity to succeed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Democracy was born when two voted to take the land of a third after he had improved it and made it fertile.

The third person bribed corrupted officials to seize land from the other two.

I can make hypothetical scenarios as well as you do, you know.

Originally posted by Ned
The politics of envy is enormously destructive and immoral.

The underlying principle of distributive justice is equality, not envy.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, as it requires a very high level of productivity to succeed.

So all we have is theory.

We don't really know whether communism as defined will actually work in the real world.

As for this distributive justice, could you not have quoted, from each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs?

There are several problems with this approach in Marx.

1. "He presumes, therefore, that human beings will want to be productive and will produce pretty much as much as they can. Everyone will work to the fullest of their abilities simply because they love to work. "

Now, I think that this is absolutely unrealistic. People will not want to work to their fullest extent unless they are somehow compensated for their efforts. Marx, in detaching compensation from efforts removes drive for both sides of people, from the workers to increase productivity, and from those who do not work to find some.

Che:

What's your definition then? How would it differ from URs?

[Drake Tungsten]

IBM Emancipates 8,000 Wage Slaves

ARMONK, NY—In a move hailed by corporation owners as a forward-thinking humanitarian gesture, IBM emancipated more than 8,000 wage slaves from its factories and offices Monday.

"You are all free, free to go!" said IBM CEO Samuel J. Palmisano to the 600 men and women freed from the corporation's Essex Junction, VT, location. "No more must you live a bleak, hand-to-mouth existence, chained to your desks in a never-ending Monday-through-Friday, 9-to-5 cycle. Your future is wide-open. Now, go!"

The 600 newly freed workers cleared out their desks and were escorted from the building within an hour. In spite of Palmisano's jubilance, the emancipated wage slaves were strangely quiet as they filed into the parking lot, carrying their work possessions in cardboard boxes.

"I'll miss them," said Jim Tallman, manager of IBM's plant in Rochester, MN.

Tallman, who was ordered to set 150 of his factory's wage slaves free, added, "They were hard workers. Many of them were extremely intelligent. Some were like members of the family. But I know in my heart that having them here was a crime against human resources. The world is changing, especially the economy, and no decent businessman could look at the cost-benefit analysis and not see that turning them loose was the only thing to do."

Palmisano explained that, while IBM posted profits for its second quarter, its microelectronics sector lost money due to a sharp downturn in the industry. The corporation also freed wage slaves from plants in Endicott, NY; Austin, TX; and Raleigh, NC.

Public response to the emancipation has been largely positive, particularly among the company's shareholders. Value of IBM stock jumped 7.5 percent in the hours following the historic corporate-emancipation proclamation.

Business leaders have enthusiastically praised the wage-slave release.

"In these days of streamlined, modern business, wage slavery is an increasingly peculiar institution," CNN national business correspondent and arbitrage guru Mike Boettcher said. "We owe these poor, exploited people a chance to try to make it on their own merits. It's not right to work them to their deaths, or even to the usual retirement age of 67."

Palmisano said the move, although sudden, came at the right time.

"There is no reason for a modern-day John Henry to spend his life trying to out-spreadsheet an IBM business machine," Palmisano said. "Especially since our computers, properly programmed and equipped, can handle the accounting workload of hundreds of human beings."

Upon hearing the news, many of the liberated wage slaves expressed trepidation over their uncertain futures.

"I don't know what I'm even supposed to do now," said Essex Junction's Anne Porter, 36. "I was born into a family of wage slaves. I've never known anything but wage slavery. I barely own anything more than the clothes on my back and the other, almost identical business-casual pantsuits hanging in the closet of my studio apartment."

"On the other hand, I'll never have to see that whip-cracking quality-assurance overseer again," Porter added.

President Bush hailed IBM's decision in an address to the White House press corps Monday.

"No one said freedom was easy," said Bush, who in recent months has praised wage-slave-emancipation programs initiated by Eastman Kodak, Sun Microsystems, AT&T, General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, Boeing, General Mills, and Oracle. "But doing what's best for the corporation as a whole eventually benefits us all. This is what America is all about. I wish all the newly freed wage slaves the best of luck in their bright new futures."

Wall Street Journal analyst J. Craig Hoffman praised the emancipation.

"In a truly modern capitalist nation, letting people go is the only right thing to do," Hoffman said. "Certainly, IBM could have kept those poor wretches slaving away for the company, as some have been doing for the past 30 years. But, we must ask, at what cost?"

"Actually, $47,643 average annual overhead per worker, counting salary, benefits, and projected cost of pension or 401K co-payments, adjusted for inflation over the wage-slaves' useful lifespan, as it turns out," Hoffman added.

http://www.theonion.com/3939/news1.html

Well, at least one major company is still fighting the good fight for Marxism. God bless the comrades at IBM.

[Berzerker]

UR -

That's not the point. Charity is not a consequence of capitalism. Having charities inside a capitalistic society is not a valid redress for the massive inequalities that is a result of capitalism. The society as a whole has a moral resposibility to help its most disadvantaged group.

Charities are not needed under communism because there will not be any disadvantaged group.

Has there ever been a capitalistic system where charity did not exist? Capitalism is just a word for the marketplace where people exchange what they and others value, charity is just what most people do when they see others in need. Charity is inherent to being human and capitalism allows charity to exist. And if charity isn't needed under communsim, then communism runs counter to human nature - which probably explains why communists have to spend so much effort "re-educating" the masses. It's no coincidence damn near every communist system tries to prevent people from leaving while capitalist systems have to limit immigration - too many people fleeing your beloved communism.

The underlying principle of distributive justice is equality, not envy.

There's another difference between capitalism and communism - the capitalist sees a nice home and says, "I want a nice home too, I better work hard and save my money". The communist sees a nice home and says, "they shouldn't have that nice home, destroy it so they are my equal".

Envy is also inherently human, so communism must be a really amazing idea if it can overcome human nature in so many ways. Oh yeah, that's where the "re-education" comes in.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Che:

What's your definition then? How would it differ from URs?

Communism is that stage of industrial society in which democracy has been extended from the political sphere into the social and economic spheres as well, when production for exchange-value is replaced with production for use-value, and when scarcity is replaced by abundence.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
There's another difference between capitalism and communism - the capitalist sees a nice home and says, "I want a nice home too, I better work hard and save my money". The communist sees a nice home and says, "they shouldn't have that nice home, destroy it so they are my equal".

Actually, the communist says, "Everyone should have nice homes."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. "He presumes, therefore, that human beings will want to be productive and will produce pretty much as much as they can. Everyone will work to the fullest of their abilities simply because they love to work. "

Now, I think that this is absolutely unrealistic. People will not want to work to their fullest extent unless they are somehow compensated for their efforts. Marx, in detaching compensation from efforts removes drive for both sides of people, from the workers to increase productivity, and from those who do not work to find some.

Not really. Recent researches show that Marx is correct to a large extent. After a person has satisfied basic survival needs, he works to:

1. Fulfill psychological needs
2. Fulfill social needs
3. Perform self-actualisation

This explains very well why there are a large number of people who write programs for others to use, completely free (either as in beer or both).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The underlying principle of distributive justice is equality, not envy.

Well, perhaps when translated to practical politics, as we see daily paraded by the Democrat Party, it becomes envy.

Envy: a feeling of grudging or somewhat admiring discontent aroused by the possessions, achievements, or qualities of another.