- 23,876
- 11,344
This question just brought itself back onto my front-burner due to recent conversations...
The discussion centers around the viability of Marxist socialism as an economic and political theory, exploring its foundations, criticisms, and comparisons with capitalism. Participants engage in a debate regarding the assumptions underlying Marxism and its practical implications in the real world.
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the viability of Marxist socialism. Disagreements persist regarding the nature of human behavior and the effectiveness of different economic systems.
Participants note the limitations of Marxist theory in addressing the complexities of human behavior and societal governance. The discussion also reflects on the historical context of Marxism and its criticisms, as well as the challenges of implementing any socio-economic system in the presence of human flaws.
You assume an obvious answer. We shall see.loseyourname said:Marxism is flawed on so many levels, I don't know why you would even ask this.
The actual reason why this idea was scrapped is that ICBMs can get from Siberia to Washington DC in less than 5 minutes. Scrambling F-16s takes more time than that, the only way for it to be marginally effective is to have many air fields on constant red alert 24/7, 360 days a year.polyb said:Here is the idea: Take a small rocket, attach it to say a F-16 as a launch platform and arm it with an explosive device that has a bunch of pellets or BBs in it. Design it to ensure a sufficient density of pellets covering an area that would basically shred the internal components of the incoming warheads and there you go. Problem solved and a bunch of people don't get vaporized. One major problem though, too cheap!
loseyourname said:Adam Smith says that human act in their own rational self-interest.
I also have to disagree with him on the grounds of self interest, there are so many examples of how people can be quite selfless. Greed is not in our nature, just our culture.polyb said:Well I have to disagree with Smith, Human Beings are not necessarily rational, only vulcans are rational!
Smurf said:The actual reason why this idea was scrapped is that ICBMs can get from Siberia to Washington DC in less than 5 minutes. Scrambling F-16s takes more time than that, the only way for it to be marginally effective is to have many air fields on constant red alert 24/7, 360 days a year.
Not disagreeing with that. Just that I havn't heard of any reasonable alternatives.. except for.. oh what was that.. something about disarmament.. some crazy hippie types must've come up with it.polyb said:OK smurf, then just put them on some ICBMs! Either way, the "star wars" system is farce as far as I am concerned!
Smurf said:I mean, no reasonable human being would think that if you have no enemies you'll be safe, we need those nukes to save us from the Killer bees and Y3k and.. and.. and.. TERRORISTS!
Smurf said:I also have to disagree with him on the grounds of self interest, there are so many examples of how people can be quite selfless. Greed is not in our nature, just our culture.
Smurf said:... ICBMs can get from Siberia to Washington DC in less than 5 minutes...
Smurf said:How far do you think it is between Khabarovsk and Washington?
loseyourname said:Excessively irrational behavior is largely discounted, as Smith assumes that this accounts only for a very small proportion of human economic decisions.
Didn't you assert the same thing in that thread and didn't I correct you there? Aquamarine and I are not saying anything like what you are implying. We know that capitalism requires some government intervention to prevent abuse.polyb said:Going back to the other thread, russ, I have to say that you and aquamarine are promoting an ideal of capitalism that just does not work in the real world, though it does just fine in an Aynd Rand novel. Ironically you guys are making the same mistake as Marx, you are assuming an ideal world. At least you're in good company!
Unfortunately, russ, people will lie, cheat, steal and even kill in order to get wealth or power.
You're right - stupid mistake because we've been talking about socialism lately.wasteofo2 said:Marxist Socialism? Didn't Marx only see Socialism as the step between Capitalism and Communism?
I voted assuming you meant the economic system outlined in the Communist Manifesto...

russ_watters said:Didn't you assert the same thing in that thread and didn't I correct you there? Aquamarine and I are not saying anything like what you are implying. We know that capitalism requires some government intervention to prevent abuse.
Who have said anything about 'Atlas Shrugged' or the rest of the objectivistic system. It is not an economic theory but a complete philosophical system. A rather poor one in all aspects.polyb said:You could have fooled me russ! You guys are coming across like you have just read "Atlas Shrugged" or "Fountainhead" and it is coming across as an idealism or worse, an elitism. Perhaps you missed my post stating that in order to properly gauge the complexity of economic systems more robustly all the '-isms' needed to be dropped and a systems approach would be more insightful into the 'game' called economics.
Perhaps you should look into the work of a russian economist that studied capitalistic economic cycles and the 'boom and bust' involved. http://faculty.washington.edu/~krumme/207/development/longwaves.html. His perspective is quite insightful and well researched.
oh yeah, one more thing: GET OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSE. You postings come across in a belligerent manner and that is not acceptable.
Instead of 'reading between the lines, ' read what we actually say at face value. To do otherwise assumes we are lying about our opinions or motives.polyb said:You could have fooled me russ! You guys are coming across like...
... and several recent threads on globalization (ie., the Monsanto seed lie being spread by "environmentalists"), which reflects several points from THIS link from Aquamarine (Smurf's statement alone hits 4 of them!):Smurf said:The Vietnam war was started by greedy capitalists in an attempt to prevent a successfull communist regime from gaining control in South East Asia
Now, the article was talking about universities, the problem isn't just limited to universities. These ideas are being espoused here as if there is merit to them. Communism/socialism are discussed or mentioned in passing as if they were/are viable systems of government/economics. The phrase "successful communist regime" is a historically factual and philosophically/theoretically provable oxymoron, yet it is stated and read as if it should be taken seriously....you can with absolute confidence predict that the curriculum [of any university] will be suffused with themes such as[abridged]:
-capitalism is inherently unjust, dehumanizing, and impoverishing;
-socialism, whatever its practical failures, is motivated by the highest ideals and that its luminaries -- especially Marx -- have much to teach us;
-globalization hurts the poor of the Third World;
-natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate and that human industrial activity is an ever-increasing threat to "the environment";
-the pathologies of the underclass in the United States are due to racism and that the pathologies of the Third World are due to the lingering effects of colonialism;
-Western civilization is uniquely oppressive, especially to women and "people of color," and that its products are spiritually inferior to those of non-Western cultures;
Every single one of these claims is, in my view, false; in some cases demonstrably so. At any rate, in every case the opposite point of view can be, and has been, defended powerfully by thinkers as worthy as any the Left can muster. Yet you will, in the modern university, rarely hear these assertions seriously challenged...
Greed is not the point of the statement. The point is motivation. Socialist/Communist systems lack motivation for the participants. This leads to falling away of necessary elements for a society to sustain the populations of today's world. Look at the USSR: Why should a country of that size, covering that geographical region, lack suficient cereal crops to feed its people as it did in the 70's? As soon as you start relying on countries outside of your own for your major food source, you are going to fall.Smurf said:I also have to disagree with him on the grounds of self interest, there are so many examples of how people can be quite selfless. Greed is not in our nature, just our culture.
russ_waters said:When SS was concieved, it sounded wonderful, didn't it? Well it was nice for a few decades, but now we know that it is a long, slow death for our economy if we don't do something about it soon.
Though I agree with your characterization, the argument between "greed" and "motivation" is hair-splitting rhetoric. Call it something nasty-sounding and it doesn't change the fact that it exists and is part of what it means to be a living organism. Though greed itself may be cultural (but an irrelevant, rhetorical characterization), competitiveness most certainly is not.Artman said:Greed is not the point of the statement. The point is motivation. Socialist/Communist systems lack motivation for the participants.
SelfAdjoint said:False. There is nothing wrong with Social Security, and it doesn't need fixing. The problem we have is the national debt which is set to grow to horrendous proportions in the next decad. THAT needs fixing, THAT will sink our economy, not SS.
http://research.aarp.org/econ/fs40r_ss_trust_1.htmlWhat Is the Current and Future Status of the OASDI Trust Funds?
The Trustees, using the intermediate, or best estimate, assumptions in the 1999 Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Trustees Report, project that the OASDI trust funds will accumulate assets for the next 15 years.
However, the Trustees project that beginning in 2014 some of the interest earnings will need to be combined with tax revenue to cover benefit payments. By 2022, income (including contributions and interest) will fall short of expenditures, and it will be necessary to start redeeming the trust fund securities. The Trustees report projects the OASDI trust funds will be depleted in 2034.