alexandra said:
Pengwuino, this is not what communism is about (why would I want to promote such horrors if it were?) - it is just what you have been taught it is.
This is what communism is:
I've been busy for the last few days and couldn't find time to answer you until this morning, and then as I was about to post, I saw you'd switched to some idealization of communism when I thought we were talking about Marx. I'm going to post the Marx thing anyway, but first I want to comment on your statement "this is not what communism is about," which seems to me as idealistic as a statement gets.
When you say "this is what communism is," that's pure fantasy. It might be what communist devotees dream it could be, but what it's actually been has been the horrors, and that's the only applied examples we have of communism to judge it by.
It's easy to write off the failures to misapplication, but it could just as well be that communism both invites oppression and is ultimately inefficient. So because no one has ever applied it successfully, you cannot possibly state "what communism is."
Anyway, here's what I was going to post about Marx:
alexandra said:
Please, Les, show me the observational/research studies that claim to be the final word on this issue. It is not enough to say ‘You’d have to live in the dark ages not to notice…[ that the reason some human-based system works better than another is primarily because the system is designed around human nature ], because we are trying to have a reasoned exchange of ideas here so we need to back up our claims.
Well, maybe you should study the field of organizational development. The case studies are abundant, and the results are clear for anyone to see. Why do you think management theory has changed so much in the last 40 years? It has been from recognizing that people do have intellectual, creative, emotional, and participatory needs
on the job, and then designing work flow around those needs. I don’t think it’s fair to expect me to educate you in something which is so easily observed and researched for oneself.
alexandra said:
Marx did not think that what inspires and motivates humanity is economics . . . Marx argues that capitalist competition for a larger share of the pie impoverishes humans by robbing them of having any worthwhile goals as intellectual/artistic/creative beings. It is simplistic and inaccurate to accuse Marx of economic determinism. That some of his interpreters misinterpret his theory so crudely does not mean that the theory itself is crude.
I think he rationalized his theory with idealistic rhetoric, but it is contradicted by what Marx’s focus was. Consider how he explains his concept of “self fulfillment” as dependent on socioeconomic conditions, what people have to do to make a living, and what sort of practical relationships they have with others. Now compare that with say, Maslow’s concept of self actualization. I can see ways to interpret them as similar in several respects, but there is a huge difference in how they are put into practice.
Maslow’s approach is something each individual can work toward alone, and which the managers and associates of each work environment can implement. One by one, sort of like a revolution from within the system, things can be changed. And, in fact, that is exactly what’s been happening. It turns out that designing work systems around human psychological needs helps people be more productive and effective, so self-interest has proven itself again. As people learn more about themselves, they find out
enlightened self-interest is actually quite practical. But we all need to learn it for ourselves, and not have some self-proclaimed genius shove it down our throats, which describes Marx’s demeanor fairly well.
His ideas had to be executed on a grand scale . . . through revolution of the entire society. And what qualified Marx to be so resolute about society’s needs? Why he was a genius, he figured it all out, he knew what was best for all of us. He didn’t need the approval of other thinkers or the understanding of the masses; and his appeal has generally been to the downtrodden but quite ignorant masses. Of course, those masses were often led by opportunists who saw the perfect promise to make to aspiring revolutionaries.
Socioeconomically, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek and Bertrand Russell all effectively spoke of the inevitability of power abuse and inefficiency reflected by those 18 million trusting peasants who died of starvation under Mao’s “great leap” (was it supposed to be backwards?), the 14 million Stalin needlessly let starve, the million starvations under the leadership of Kim Sung, the millions who died due to the methods Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Antonescum, Karadzic, Ne Win, Milosevic, Pavelic, and then there’s Cuba’s booming economy to instill confidence. This is the legacy of communist leadership thus far.
I personally think sharing wealth more evenly and the elimination of class distinctions are enlightened ideas, but you can’t force enlightenment into people’s consciousness, which is what Marx seemed to think was the way to go. And of course, as a materialist, to Marx human consciousness needs are secondary (just the opposite of Maslow’s conception). Quoting from a philosophy source book, “Marx conceives the justice of economic transactions as their correspondence to or functionality for the prevailing mode of production. Given this conception of justice, Marx very consistently . . . concluded that the inhuman exploitation practiced by capitalism against the workers is not unjust . . . this conclusion constitutes no defense of capitalism, only an attack on the use of moral conceptions within the proletarian movement.”
Marx’s pompous, disdainful attitude is reflected throughout his life. German-born Carl Schurz, who within sixteen years after immigrating to the U.S. would be admitted to the Wisconsin bar, serve as a general in the Civil War, be elected U.S. senator, and help establish the New York Evening Post, recalled attending a meeting of "democratic associations" in 1848 where Karl Marx attended. Almost sixty years later, Schurz could still not forget the uneasiness of that experience: “I have never seen a man whose bearing was so provoking and intolerable. To no opinion, which differed from his, he accorded the honor of even a condescending consideration. Everyone who contradicted him he treated with abject contempt . . . he denounced everyone that dared to oppose his opinions.”
So is it to be an arrogant know-it-all who’s ideas, however poorly implemented, have brought so much misery . . . is that who we are to believe figured out what’s best for humanity? Give me George Washington and Adam Smith any day.
(BTW, if I were allowed to choose what sort of economic system we had, I’d want to fully socialize or subsidize things all humans need, such medicine, legal services, education [i.e., through college], housing, food . . . but I’d also want to allow people to make plenty of money. However we are talking about Marx, not creative socialist possibilities.)
I like your questions, so I thought I'd respond. I've sort of given up on posting too much on this board because of all the emotional, irrational 'shouting' that happens here - I began seeing it as a waste of time trying to discuss anything seriously. But your questions are different - and it will be nice to talk to someone who is calm and interested in exploring the topic for a change.
