06-14-2011, 10:52 PM
Hi,
No. Marxism is an economic model. Totalitarianism is a social model. They are quite separate. What is interesting is that, while many cases of totalitarianism without Marxism exist, there are no cases of Marxism without totalitarianism. Or, at least, none bigger than a few early Christian communities and some hippie communes. That brings up the question of why does it take an iron fist to attempt to force what is claimed to be a perfect economic solution.
In addition to being an economic model, Marxism is also a logical system. As with any logical system, all the conclusions are held within the hypotheses. Often these conclusions are difficult to tease out. Unlike a mathematical system, which is abstract and has no "correct" set of axioms, an economic model must reflect observed reality.
The problem with Marxism stems from its incorrect assumption about the nature of people. It shares this problem in form with Jeffersonian democracy, most forms of anarchy, Libertarianism, and too many other belief systems to list. The underlying error in Marxism is that people will work for the common good, putting aside their own desires and selfishness. While that may be true of a few people, the majority will not. Again, this is a small minded view. A "people are either selfish or altruistic" model. With that narrow outlook, one must pick an extreme. Only the "altruistic" extreme leads to Marxism. However, a realization that the actual nature of people runs the whole gauntlet and is not even consistent in most individuals, leads one to question that assumption.
In mathematics, when a poor postulate is used in building a system, the worse that happens is that the system is uninteresting. In social systems, a poor postulate often leads to unrealistic conclusions and expectations. When a government tries to impose those expectations, what happens is not the Utopia envisioned, but rather a very real disaster.
I'll grant you that feudalism was ugly. That's part of why it slowly faded away. Of course, to be self consistent, you should not be comparing a social system (feudalism) with an economic system (Marxism ). Or, you should not fault us for doing so, as you did above.
Capitalism didn't really turn ugly until the industrial revolution. (What, you didn't know that capitalism runs back to early medieval times when first the Jews and then the Italians started what became banking?) In Marx's time, the excesses of capitalism were being addressed by the emergence of a labor movement. Sure, in his days government and industry combined against labor often resulting in bloodshed. However, only a small minded and limited intellect would propose that the evils of one extreme could only be cured by the going to the opposite extreme. Nearly a hundred years of dynamic tension between labor and management, both supported and both restricted by government, shows that, once again, the solution is in the middle.
Ah, yes. A fine example of an open mind.
Real adults are capable of realizing that not all discussions are for the purpose of converting. Sometimes, the purpose of discussions is to examine our own views as well as those of people we disagree with. There are many potential results. By explaining and defending our viewpoints, it might strengthen our beliefs -- sometimes even clarify them. Sometimes it exposes gaps or errors in our thinking. Sometimes it forces us to reevaluate those beliefs. Sometimes, though very rarely, it even forces us to abandon some or all of them.
Refusal to discuss one's beliefs -- especially after a long post discussing ones beliefs -- is a strong indicator of immaturity or fear. Immaturity in that it is the equivalent of putting ones hands over ones ears and taunting, "Nya, nya, nya, I can't hear you." Fear in that one who does that either feels that his position is untenable or that he can't defend it. Joining in a discussion, presenting one's viewpoint, and then refusing to participate further, is not a particularly mature behavior.
Also, I do believe that no one is arguing that capitalism is perfect system. Indeed, the only one stating that there is a perfect system, that it is Marxism, and that that claim is beyond argument is you.
--Pete
(06-14-2011, 09:33 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: Again, you are confusing Marxism with Totalitarianism.
No. Marxism is an economic model. Totalitarianism is a social model. They are quite separate. What is interesting is that, while many cases of totalitarianism without Marxism exist, there are no cases of Marxism without totalitarianism. Or, at least, none bigger than a few early Christian communities and some hippie communes. That brings up the question of why does it take an iron fist to attempt to force what is claimed to be a perfect economic solution.
In addition to being an economic model, Marxism is also a logical system. As with any logical system, all the conclusions are held within the hypotheses. Often these conclusions are difficult to tease out. Unlike a mathematical system, which is abstract and has no "correct" set of axioms, an economic model must reflect observed reality.
The problem with Marxism stems from its incorrect assumption about the nature of people. It shares this problem in form with Jeffersonian democracy, most forms of anarchy, Libertarianism, and too many other belief systems to list. The underlying error in Marxism is that people will work for the common good, putting aside their own desires and selfishness. While that may be true of a few people, the majority will not. Again, this is a small minded view. A "people are either selfish or altruistic" model. With that narrow outlook, one must pick an extreme. Only the "altruistic" extreme leads to Marxism. However, a realization that the actual nature of people runs the whole gauntlet and is not even consistent in most individuals, leads one to question that assumption.
In mathematics, when a poor postulate is used in building a system, the worse that happens is that the system is uninteresting. In social systems, a poor postulate often leads to unrealistic conclusions and expectations. When a government tries to impose those expectations, what happens is not the Utopia envisioned, but rather a very real disaster.
(06-14-2011, 09:33 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: The history of feudalism and capitalism is much uglier than Marxism,
I'll grant you that feudalism was ugly. That's part of why it slowly faded away. Of course, to be self consistent, you should not be comparing a social system (feudalism) with an economic system (Marxism ). Or, you should not fault us for doing so, as you did above.
Capitalism didn't really turn ugly until the industrial revolution. (What, you didn't know that capitalism runs back to early medieval times when first the Jews and then the Italians started what became banking?) In Marx's time, the excesses of capitalism were being addressed by the emergence of a labor movement. Sure, in his days government and industry combined against labor often resulting in bloodshed. However, only a small minded and limited intellect would propose that the evils of one extreme could only be cured by the going to the opposite extreme. Nearly a hundred years of dynamic tension between labor and management, both supported and both restricted by government, shows that, once again, the solution is in the middle.
(06-14-2011, 09:33 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: You have a better chance at finding a cure for cancer than you do convincing me that capitalism is an ideal, fair and just system.
Ah, yes. A fine example of an open mind.
Real adults are capable of realizing that not all discussions are for the purpose of converting. Sometimes, the purpose of discussions is to examine our own views as well as those of people we disagree with. There are many potential results. By explaining and defending our viewpoints, it might strengthen our beliefs -- sometimes even clarify them. Sometimes it exposes gaps or errors in our thinking. Sometimes it forces us to reevaluate those beliefs. Sometimes, though very rarely, it even forces us to abandon some or all of them.
Refusal to discuss one's beliefs -- especially after a long post discussing ones beliefs -- is a strong indicator of immaturity or fear. Immaturity in that it is the equivalent of putting ones hands over ones ears and taunting, "Nya, nya, nya, I can't hear you." Fear in that one who does that either feels that his position is untenable or that he can't defend it. Joining in a discussion, presenting one's viewpoint, and then refusing to participate further, is not a particularly mature behavior.
Also, I do believe that no one is arguing that capitalism is perfect system. Indeed, the only one stating that there is a perfect system, that it is Marxism, and that that claim is beyond argument is you.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?