The Communist Manifesto

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
There has been no serious attempt at socialism in history on the terms that Marx envisaged, and personally I suspect that we may still be hundreds of years short of the conditions which might make it fully viable.

This is the final flaw of the socialist argument, and I've seen it ever since I've started debating people on matters of economics; there has been no "true socialist" society because the goalposts move every time a flaw is exposed.

I could just as easily dismiss criticism of capitalism under the guise of there having never been a "serious attempt" to create a kind of Hayek-Friedmanist laissez-faire capitalism. Even the U.S. in the 19th century would not meet such qualifications, nor would the present states of Singapore or the self-governing territory in Hong Kong.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The USSR never had the chance to develop on its own terms because it was instantly attacked with intent to destroy, or at least to cripple it.

What do you mean, the western intervention? That was far too marginal to have a real impact on the civil war. Or the civil war itself? Well that's the direct consequence of overthrowing another regime by violence. You can hardly expect everyone just welcoming the new communist overlords.

Stalinism was no by-product of something brought in from outside.

[Blaupanzer]

Marx was wrong about the effectiveness and efficiency of central planning. I say this as someone who has read the Manifesto and admired its sympathies and historical understanding. Market economies do a better job with a thousand threads of supply and demand to make sense of the economy than any set of geniuses and computers can do with central planning.

Marx also showed his own middle-class upbringing in expressing the belief that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was going to make sense in ANY economic order. Those who produce more (A) do expect a greater reward than those who produce less (B), no matter how large the obligations and family of B. Those expectations are based on a person's sense of justice, and are not due to class distinctions or improper indoctrination, so they won't just disappear in some new era.

Lastly, a naivety shows clearly in the belief that the government would "slowly fade away." Real humans don't seek power only to give it up. Alternatively, we have never tried to create a technocracy to be ruled by people with identifiable, verifiable skills in each area of statecraft who compete for ruling places based on contests of skill, not seeking out votes and citizen support. This type of government is implied by the manifesto as the precedent to the government and the bureaucrats fading away. (I know it is NOT specifically called out, but we have 200 years of perspective to reflect on the cures to early industrialism issues reflected in the Manifesto.)

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

This is the final flaw of the socialist argument, and I've seen it ever since I've started debating people on matters of economics; there has been no "true socialist" society because the goalposts move every time a flaw is exposed.

I don't believe it is a matter of moving goalposts, but a matter of first principles, as I stated.

I could just as easily dismiss criticism of capitalism under the guise of there having never been a "serious attempt" to create a kind of Hayek-Friedmanist laissez-faire capitalism.

It was the eventual aim of Margaret Thatcher's project.

I don't doubt that those who attempted to build socialist states were taking it seriously, but I'm saying that the conditions have never been met, in the terms that Marx, AIUI, envisaged. No advanced industrial capitalist society has been subject to a socialist-lead revolution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
This is at best a convenient excuse to explain the failures of socialism. Socialism's failures are purely internal, not the effects of "economic warfare" like the radicals would contend.

Let's assume that you have developed a new method of creating energy, so cheaply and efficiently, that it will put the world's energy producers out of business. No one will let you build it, but eventually you find a place to build, and you set about trying to build this revolutionary new power plant. During the building phase, industrial saboteurs set off a bomb, which not only destroys the entire plant build so far, but kills nearly ten percent of your employees.

Needless to say, you might get a little paranoid. You might, hire a security firm. You might start doing background checks on all employees and contractors. You might require all employees to be searched upon entering the work site.

Then, finally, when you get the plant up and running, industrial saboteurs attack again, destroying much of the plant, but not all of it. Many more of your workers are killed.

Does this mean your idea was a bad one? That you're an idiot for even trying? Well, that's what happened to the USSR.

[Blaupanzer]

True, Che, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, a dictatorship complete with a special class available only to senior party members and selected Government officials was not what Marx had in mind. So "creating energy, so cheaply and efficiently, that it will put the world's energy producers out of business" was not what got interfered with. Instead it was just another version of the Tsar and his ministers, much like the one that had been overthrown. Rhetoric is not action, the "workers" did not rule the state. They still don't.

[BeBMan]

Just read an article how the tsar's entire family was wiped out exactly 90 years ago, incl some of his servants.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by BeBro
Just read an article how the tsar's entire family was wiped out exactly 90 years ago, incl some of his servants.

The trouble with monarchs is that if you don't get rid of them for good, they keep popping back up again, and causing trouble, like weeds.

[BeBMan]

It's quite amusing how communism comes with lots of criticism on the evils of others and with high promises of making everything better, but then in practice just resorted to a simple "the end justifies the means" procedure when it seemed convenient.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by BeBro
It's quite amusing how communism comes with lots of criticism on the evils of others and with high promises of making everything better, but then in practice just resorted to a simple "the end justifies the means" procedure when it seemed convenient.

Yes, it is amusing that humans are humans.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Yes, it is amusing that humans are humans.

And esp. if they still think they're saints.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by BeBro
"the end justifies the means"

I think that most political beliefs seem to share this viewpoint.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I think that most political beliefs seem to share this viewpoint.

No. There are numerous examples for this. Just take the debate around torture right now. Or one about bioethics, cloning, whatever. If anyone would agree that the end always justifies the means we simply hadn't such debates.

BTW, as for "popping back up again" the tsar had already left the political stage after the February Revolution

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BeBro
Just read an article how the tsar's entire family was wiped out exactly 90 years ago, incl some of his servants.

It was the servants' choice to get shot. The orders were only to take the family, to prevent them from falling in to the hands of the Whites so they couldn't be used as a rallying point. The servants refused to be separated from the Tsar and his family, so they got shot.

Given that NINE MILLION people perished in the Russian Civil War, I don't really care to terribly much about one specific family that sent millions to their deaths in WWI.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BeBro

No. There are numerous examples for this. Just take the debate around torture right now. Or one about bioethics, cloning, whatever. If anyone would agree that the end always justifies the means we simply hadn't such debates.

Different people have different ends.

It's one thing to condemn "the ends justifies the means," when you aren't facing the threat of the imminent extinction of millions. It's another thing when the lives of those millions are your responsibility.