Is Marxism Feasible?

[Damnyankee]

Is Marxism Feasible? Is it possible to implement it according to Marx? I personally think that the attempts of Marxism put forth by the Russians and Chinese is evidence enough of how unworkable it truely is. Now, I know that the Marxists in CFC OT will come to defend their sacred Marxist principles, by stating that no Marxist government has ever existed, but I say this. If Marxism was so perfect and potentially ideal, why has every single revolutionary had to alter it to make the bulk of the rest of the Marxist principles workable?

Again, this is not a debate on Marxism vs. Capitalism, this is simply a debate on whether Orthodox Marxism can ever be implemented and made to work.

 

[LesCanadiens]

This thread is highly loaded. It starts off by declaring that a "true Marxist" state is impossible because every effort to implement one is failed, and then asks us if we think it is possible. You've automatically dismissed any arguments put forth by potential opponents in this discussion as BS.

Anyways, many ideas first proposed by Marx already exist in Western society eg. a central credit rating system.

An important thing for you to do would be to describe exactly what you mean by "Orthodox Marxism" considering that Marxism was not written by Karl Marx. The political ideology you call Marxism is an interpretation of Karl Marx's work; in essence, there is no such thing as Marxism, only the various ideologies of those that interpret his work. Thusly, this discussion was intellectually bankrupt before it even began.

 

[Arwon]

Marxism is a system of thought and a method for analysing society, not an implementable political system. So is it implementable? Just look at modern historiography or the social sciences and you'll see the answer is yes, it has been.

Anthropology, for example, is a particularly Marxist influenced field, because Marxism sees humanity as an animal existing in nature and developing in those material terms... not a some special class of being planted fully-formed on this earth by some diety.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Marxism isn't feasable. You need some one to control the equality, an evil dictator.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

This thread is highly loaded.
<snip>
Thusly, this discussion was intellectually bankrupt before it even began.

Seconded. I personally think that the threadstarter shows more evidence for wanting to beat on poorly understood strawmen than for wanting a serious discussion.

 

[Vince-G]

Marxism's fundamental premises don't correlate with reality. The coming into existence of some ghostly "class consciousness" isn't something I can see in the future, and in history communism has merely been an excuse for megalomaniacs like Lenin and Stalin (don't shoot me!) to establish dictatorships. George Orwell sums this up beautifully in Nineteen Eighty-Four when he talks about the middle class always exploiting the lower class to get into power.

Marx's vision of capitalism getting more and more oppressive is wrong, in my opinion it is getting less and less oppressive. Lenin's theories about "ultra-imperialism" have equally proven to be incorrect. The fact is, moderate socialism obsoletes the need for communism. I know people complain about corporate America - I'm British, mind - and "Britain, Ltd.", and so on, but at the end of the day, the worker today is treated one heck of a lot better than the worker of the 19th century.

Corporations aren't run by idiots. The point is, the reason why there are exploited people in Asia, and in Africa, is that these are people whose resistance would be completely insignificant. I don't see a band of 12-year-old Cambodians overthrowing the world order. The people who could do this are people who don't need to - there are trade unions, there are government regulations, there are social democrats, there are loads of things to make the capitalist system cushy and favourable to the worker.

And in the end - communism has become so associated with Iron-Curtain Eastern Europe that communists aren't seen as being the vanguard of any progressive revolution any more.

And there's the human nature argument: people aren't going to be happy and equal, in my own words, humanity always tends towards a hierarchy. It's a simple fact of life, however egalitarian your government is, however equal your society pretends to be, some people are always better at others. Better politicians, better workers, better sportsmen even. These "better" people are always going to end up on top.

That's why communism, in my opinion, won't work.

 

[Princeps]

Capitalism = Power to the hands of secrative, totalitarian private tyrannies
Communism = Power to the hands of secretive, totalitarian state tyranny

Sumwhat different, but anarchism is the way.

Vince, ultra-imperialism is very much present in our world today -- maybe not precisely as he expected. The major powers, United States, Europe and so forth, maintain massive protectionist policies, violating all trade rules, while they force the poorer countries to open their markets for western explotation. Financial liberalization has severely compromised democracy and so forth.

Also, as for trade unions, in United States for example, the criminal government has take various measures to destroy labour unions, which were previously a powerful force, today they barely exist.

 

[gallego]

Is Marxism Feasible? Is it possible to implement it according to Marx? I personally think that the attempts of Marxism put forth by the Russians and Chinese is evidence enough of how unworkable it truely is. Now, I know that the Marxists in CFC OT will come to defend their sacred Marxist principles, by stating that no Marxist government has ever existed, but I say this. If Marxism was so perfect and potentially ideal, why has every single revolutionary had to alter it to make the bulk of the rest of the Marxist principles workable?

Again, this is not a debate on Marxism vs. Capitalism, this is simply a debate on whether Orthodox Marxism can ever be implemented and made to work.

I'm not a Marxist at all; I disagree with him and I don't think his system works. But you can't dismiss him by using the real world as an example. Have Christians always followed the Bible, or Muslims the Quran? Many times not. Marxists in the real-world revolutions contradicted a lot of what Marx said. They were impatient and wanted Communism right away, so they tried to turn it into an active political movement, when Marx only said it was an inevitable material/economic movement that would erupt worldwide. A lot of these views were in his earlier papers published only after the Soviet revolution had taken place and many of these ideas were used against them.

I think he is wrong because I think he incorrectly defines human nature. He says humans naturally want to produce and be creative and he says that capitalism and wage labor alienates us from our true nature by taking the intellectual part out of our work--we have to work as a means to survive, not as a means to fulfill ourselves. So eventually people get fed up and when the conditions are right, a revolution takes place among the workers. But I think that humans just want to get by as best as possible, and that they won't want to work if they don't have to. Besides, his utopian state of universal abundance that he says will enable Communism is irrelevant; if we can reach such a state of comfort through technological advancement and the automation of drudgery through capitalism, then what is the difference?

I don't think orthodox Marxism can be made to work. But it really has never existed yet so the real world doesn't count.

 

[Dubai Vol]

Marxism doesn't work because it assumes that people will work for the common good. The truth is that people are lazy, stupid, greedy, and dishonest. Capitalism, for all its faults, actually capitalises (pun intended, groan here) on these traits. Government has the necessary function of restraining the excesses of capitalism. Whether Europe or the US has the balance more closely correct is a matter of debate, but Marxism, which postulates the eventual disappearance of the state as everyone learns to work for the common good, is a fantasy. And the centally planned economies of the USSR and China, which Marx saw as an intermediate stage in the evolution of communism, clearly failed miserably.

That said, small-scale comunes of good people have been reasonably successful, but they existed within the framework of a capitalist society.

I'm not an expert, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

 

[EconomistBR]

Marxism doesn't work because it assumes that people will work for the common good. The truth is that people are lazy, stupid, greedy, and dishonest. Capitalism, for all its faults, actually capitalises (pun intended, groan here) on these traits. Government has the necessary function of restraining the excesses of capitalism. Whether Europe or the US has the balance more closely correct is a matter of debate, but Marxism, which postulates the eventual disappearance of the state as everyone learns to work for the common good, is a fantasy. And the centally planned economies of the USSR and China, which Marx saw as an intermediate stage in the evolution of communism, clearly failed miserably.

That said, small-scale comunes of good people have been reasonably successful, but they existed within the framework of a capitalist society.

I'm not an expert, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

"Marxism doesn't work because it assumes that people will work for the common good. The truth is that people are lazy, stupid, greedy, and dishonest"

Totally true. Marxism is not meant for Humans, it's meant to some Alien species.

 

[Vince-G]

Capitalism = Power to the hands of secrative, totalitarian private tyrannies
Communism = Power to the hands of secretive, totalitarian state tyranny

Sumwhat different, but anarchism is the way.

Vince, ultra-imperialism is very much present in our world today -- maybe not precisely as he expected. The major powers, United States, Europe and so forth, maintain massive protectionist policies, violating all trade rules, while they force the poorer countries to open their markets for western explotation. Financial liberalization has severely compromised democracy and so forth.

Also, as for trade unions, in United States for example, the criminal government has take various measures to destroy labour unions, which were previously a powerful force, today they barely exist.

I think really it's an exaggeration to claim that the EU and the US, and the other major economic powers (pseudo-communist China, Russia, and the other few) are engaging in ultra-imperialism. Ultra-imperialism would imply they're fighting each other. I know there is definitely diplomatic tensions, but the EU, for instance, enjoys a very good trade relationship with the US. The capitalist world is not ripping itself apart as Lenin predicted. There have been two great wars and neither have precipitated a world revolution.

That leads me to my next point: the nuclear weapon. Marx could not have foretold the development of such an enormously destructive weapon, that would render major, world-war scale conflict useless, a loss-loss situation. The capitalist world would not want to tear itself apart because in doing so the leaders know they will only be able to destroy themselves. World war is suicide.

I can see your point, there is a kind of corporate imperialism, and I accept that. There is no, however, inter-governmental, conflict-inspiring "ultra-imperialism" that I can see.

 

[Damnyankee]

Seconded. I personally think that the threadstarter shows more evidence for wanting to beat on poorly understood strawmen than for wanting a serious discussion.

Not necessarily. Just stating my opinion. I probably should have stated it after the question though in another post. Yea, my first post did seem loaded. Well, it happens Poorly understood strawmen? If I was a person who did not understand Marxism, I would have stated that the so-called Communist societies(Soviet Union, China, etc) were communist. I didn't. Well, anyway, another reason I find Marxism too un-feasible is because of the stages of Marxism. Going from a free capitalist society to a Marxist society in which the bourgeoisie is liquidated just seems too fantastical for people in the modern western nations to stomach.

 

[Integral]

I think Marxism is poorly defined.

Damnyankee, can you provide me with a brief, one-paragraph outline of Marxism? Then we'll be on the same page.

If you are referring to the Marxist view of history (broad class struggle), I don't buy it. Sure, there has been class struggle, but it is not at the center of all revolutions.

If you are referring broadly to collectivism, then it is only feasable in small communities. As the size of the community increases, the ability to coordinate pure collectivism decreases.



-Integral

 

[Damnyankee]

I think Marxism is poorly defined.

Damnyankee, can you provide me with a brief, one-paragraph outline of Marxism? Then we'll be on the same page.

If you are referring to the Marxist view of history (broad class struggle), I don't buy it.

If you are referring broadly to collectivism, then it is only feasable in small communities. As the size of the community increases, the ability to coordinate pure collectivism decreases.



-Integral

Well, I wasn't referring to the Marxist view of History. Thats another debate. Collectivism I am not referring to either. I am referring to the simple implementation of Marxist policies. Are they feasible? Can a modern capitalist society implement it? Would they?

Marxism is a system of socialism.The dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Thats as brief as I can get, lol.

 

[Integral]

The dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Oh! Collectivism.

Or perhaps a better word is Hayek's "Command economy". Either way, it represents Marxism.* This will fail due to the bolded word: public control of distribution. Basically, this would require the State to set all prices. For that to be efficient, the State would have to know everyone's utility, preferences, marginal rates of substition, etc. Up until the early 1990's, no system could keep all that data in check. Now, the advent of computers makes the task easier, but still impossible.

The price mechanism utterly dominates central planning; we've seen that before. West Germany vs East Germany. North Korea vs South Korea. China vs Hong Kong, pre-1980.

There are also efficiency concerns, (economic) welfare concerns, and issues of personal freedoms. But I think that the distribution aspect is sufficient.

Again, though, for sufficiently small societies 'Marxism' is feasable. When societies get larger, the ability of one central organization to coordinate distribution gets weaker.


-Integral

* I just don't like the word Marxism. Allow me to use "command economy" as a proxy, since that's what you described.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Marxism doesn't work because it assumes that people will work for the common good. The truth is that people are lazy, stupid, greedy, and dishonest. ...Marxism, which postulates the eventual disappearance of the state as everyone learns to work for the common good, is a fantasy. And the centally planned economies of the USSR and China, which Marx saw as an intermediate stage in the evolution of communism, clearly failed miserably.

Probably the pinpoint failure of Marx's philosophy was that he believed a 'temporary dictatorship' would need to be established to ensure a smooth transition in his society's early life. He did not explain how this dictatorship would remove itself after its job was 'done', and had obviously failed to account for the variable of human error. Marx was an idealist; his utopian vision was impractical.

 

[Lotus49]

Probably the pinpoint failure of Marx's philosophy was that he believed a 'temporary dictatorship' would need to be established to ensure a smooth transition in his society's early life. He did not explain how this dictatorship would remove itself after its job was 'done', and had obviously failed to account for the variable of human error. Marx was an idealist; his utopian vision was impractical.

That's the point I was going to bring up (yet again, in another 'would communism work' thread). This idea that you can give absolute power to a few, and they'll later just 'give it up' willingly, is a total farce that flies in the face of human nature.

Power corrupts, and those that obtain it at a high level will seek nothing but to keep from losing it. Basically, it's a fun Utopia / dream world, but in reality the human race is not perfect and will not function in that way, for the reasons some others have begun to describe above.

I honestly feel sorry for people who are naive enough to believe in this ideology.

 

[Stewbert 08]

Is libertarianism feasible?

 

[Stewbert 08]

An important thing for you to do would be to describe exactly what you mean by "Orthodox Marxism" considering that Marxism was not written by Karl Marx. The political ideology you call Marxism is an interpretation of Karl Marx's work; in essence, there is no such thing as Marxism, only the various ideologies of those that interpret his work. Thusly, this discussion was intellectually bankrupt before it even began.

And the word Marxist came long after Marx. Just like the word Christian came long after Christ.

In that respect, it's much like asking if any religion is "truly Christian."

Interestingly enough, many of the people in these debates are willing to lump every country that calls itself Communist into the dustbin of Examples Of How Every Country That Tries Communism Fails, yet if we were to apply the same standard and examine every person or organization that calls itself Christian and see whether it is possible to truly live according to Christ, an interesting thing happens:

In other words, China, Cuba & the Soviet Union were/are about as Communist as the Catholic, Baptist and Mormon Churches are Christian.

 

[Damnyankee]

And the word Marxist came long after Marx. Just like the word Christian came long after Christ.

In that respect, it's much like asking if any religion is "truly Christian."

Interestingly enough, many of the people in these debates are willing to lump every country that calls itself Communist into the dustbin of Examples Of How Every Country That Tries Communism Fails, yet if we were to apply the same standard and examine every person or organization that calls itself Christian and see whether it is possible to truly live according to Christ, an interesting thing happens:

In other words, China, Cuba & the Soviet Union were/are about as Communist as the Catholic, Baptist and Mormon Churches are Christian.

Interesting thing is that I am an Atheist, you know what they say about Assume, it makes an ass out of you and me... but mostly you.