Happy B-day Karl Marx

[1549]

A strict idealists with good intentions, Marx underestimated human ambition in his philosiphies.

 

Marx is arguably one of the most influential persons in history. Though his influence was not seen until years after his death. Many people still believe in his theories, though several countries including the USSR have shown that human nature makes his 'utopia' impossible to achieve.

 

It is my belief that Marxist communism would only work amongst a group of people stranded on an island...otherwise it is useless.

[SoxFanForever]

A strict idealists with good intentions, Marx underestimated human ambition in his philosiphies.

 

Marx is arguably one of the most influential persons in history.  Though his influence was not seen until years after his death.  Many people still believe in his theories, though several countries including the USSR have shown that human nature makes his 'utopia' impossible to achieve. 

 

It is my belief that Marxist communism would only work amongst a group of people stranded on an island...otherwise it is useless.

After reading The Communist Manifesto and The Marx & Engles Reader I have a bit of a new appreciation for what he believed and thought. He had some odd and interesting ideas. BTW 1549, the reason the USSR failed, atleast in a Marxist way was because Marx felt it would take a worldwide revolution to succeed. Not just one country like Russia. I kinda think you are right about it only working on an island, unless everyone was put in a situation like Russia. But hey, that's just my 2 cents

[1549]

After reading The Communist Manifesto and The Marx & Engles Reader I have a bit of a new appreciation for what he believed and thought.  He had some odd and interesting ideas.  BTW 1549, the reason the USSR failed, atleast in a Marxist way was because Marx felt it would take a worldwide revolution to succeed.  Not just one country like Russia.  I kinda think you are right about it only working on an island, unless everyone was put in a situation like Russia.  But hey, that's just my 2 cents 

Well, even if the whole world was in the same situation as Russia cerca 1917, I don't think communism would succeed.

 

First of all it would take so much work by the world's new communist government to install equality that by the time equality was installed, the government would have so much power that it would never abdicate and turn the world over to anarchy as marx proposes.

 

Then people would always try to better themselves and certain people would stop working, and the whole "From each according to his ability--to each according to his need" thing would never work if half the population is too lazy to aqcuire an ability.

[1549]

by the way SoxFanForever, did you go to schamburg high school?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

A strict idealists with good intentions, Marx underestimated human ambition in his philosiphies.

 

Marx is arguably one of the most influential persons in history.  Though his influence was not seen until years after his death.  Many people still believe in his theories, though several countries including the USSR have shown that human nature makes his 'utopia' impossible to achieve. 

 

It is my belief that Marxist communism would only work amongst a group of people stranded on an island...otherwise it is useless.

Despite the flaws which his glorious ideology has it is good that people like him existed. If not for him and his vocal supporters, we would never know the folly of his way of thinking and may have tried it ourselves.

 

 

Yes, happy B-Day Marx, however the world is a better place without you.

[Be Good]

HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY FOR MARX

[SoxFanForever]

by the way SoxFanForever, did you go to schamburg high school?

No, I went to Hoffman Estates even though I technically live in Schaumburg.

[doubleM23]

There are a couple of points here that are glossed over that need to be readdressed... First, the USSR didn't collapse because it was a 1-man island... Look at any map of Europe between 1945 and 1989 and you'll see that the USSR was pretty cozy in fellow Communist regimes; the problem was that the the Soviet Union's economy was driven by a government too unimaginative and too late in its response to the growing demand for the high-tech industry. The USSR industrialized faster than any nation ever had or has when Stalin came to power, but that strength became detrimental to the economy's post-WWII success, especially once the global economy slowed, because it was too rigid and focused on industry to see the wave of the future. By the time of Brzehnev and Gorbachev's reforms it was already too late. Aside from that entirely, the Soviet Union, as it was established and run, is a pretty paltry example of a Marxist state anyway. Comparing the USSR to Marx's ideals is like comparing the US to Plato's; neither looks too good compared to the accepted ideal of the ideology they adhere to.

 

And, also, we owe a lot to the Soviet Union; first for pretty much single-handidly defeating the Nazis in World War II for a good number of years (this is debatable), but second, for posing as an imminent threat to US national security for so long, keeping us focused on one enemy politically, militarily, and economically. The Economic Miracle owes it success to the fact that the USSR and US were caught in an ideological blinking contest, and each wanted to rebuild its half of Europe as fast as possible to curb the spread of Communism in the West and liberal democracy in the East as well as to have strong military allies. Without the Soviet Union, it's not hard to imagine most of Europe still rebuilding from the carnage that was that war.

 

Happy Birthday, Karl.

[southsider2k5]

The Soviet Union failed for one simple reason. We you don't give people incentive, they get lazy. When you are guarenteed work, food, shelter, no matter how hard or little you work, why work hard? The propaganda of the good of all only gets you so far. When the best you can expect out of life is that state owned one bedroom apartment, while waiting on a list for a 3 cylinder car, and getting you stamps for food stuff staples-where is the incentive? The effecency of the Soviet industry became atrocious over the years. There is no way that system can survive long term.

[mreye]

There are a couple of points here that are glossed over that need to be readdressed... First, the USSR didn't collapse because it was a 1-man island... Look at any map of Europe between 1945 and 1989 and you'll see that the USSR was pretty cozy in fellow Communist regimes; the problem was that the the Soviet Union's economy was driven by a government too unimaginative and too late in its response to the growing demand for the high-tech industry.  The USSR industrialized faster than any nation ever had or has when Stalin came to power, but that strength became detrimental to the economy's post-WWII success, especially once the global economy slowed, because it was too rigid and focused on industry to see the wave of the future.  By the time of Brzehnev and Gorbachev's reforms it was already too late.  Aside from that entirely, the Soviet Union, as it was established and run, is a pretty paltry example of a Marxist state anyway.  Comparing the USSR to Marx's ideals is like comparing the US to Plato's; neither looks too good compared to the accepted ideal of the ideology they adhere to.

 

And, also, we owe a lot to the Soviet Union; first for pretty much single-handidly defeating the Nazis in World War II for a good number of years (this is debatable), but second, for posing as an imminent threat to US national security for so long, keeping us focused on one enemy politically, militarily, and economically.  The Economic Miracle owes it success to the fact that the USSR and US were caught in an ideological blinking contest, and each wanted to rebuild its half of Europe as fast as possible to curb the spread of Communism in the West and liberal democracy in the East as well as to have strong military allies.  Without the Soviet Union, it's not hard to imagine most of Europe still rebuilding from the carnage that was that war.

 

Happy Birthday, Karl.

Good points.

 

Thank you, Ronald Reagan.

[doubleM23]

The Soviet Union failed for one simple reason.  We you don't give people incentive, they get lazy.  When you are guarenteed work, food, shelter, no matter how hard or little you work, why work hard?  The propaganda of the good of all only gets you so far.  When the best you can expect out of life is that state owned one bedroom apartment, while waiting on a list for a 3 cylinder car, and getting you stamps for food stuff staples-where is the incentive?  The effecency of the Soviet industry became atrocious over the years.  There is no way that system can survive long term.

I must half-disagree. While the system the USSR used, based on equality and not merit, would probably make for a "lazier" workforce, the Soviet Union had deeper scourges than just a lack of ambition. First, the USSR never was able to fully adopt a strong peacetime patriotism. Outside of ethnic Russians, not too many others living in the USSR were too pleased with it, and once the ball started rolling, it could not be stopped.

 

Also, I believe a system like that can work, however, you also have to provide the workers with incentives; granted they may not be great ones, but by the 60s and 70s, the standard of living was much higher and coushier in the US than the USSR. I still say that if the USSR had been able to get over the "industrial" hump it had created within its post-Stalin economy and become as powerful a consumer economy that the US had and is, history books would have been written differently.

[southsider2k5]

I must half-disagree.  While the system the USSR used, based on equality and not merit, would probably make for a "lazier" workforce, the Soviet Union had deeper scourges than just a lack of ambition.  First, the USSR never was able to fully adopt a strong peacetime patriotism.  Outside of ethnic Russians, not too many others living in the USSR were too pleased with it, and once the ball started rolling, it could not be stopped.

 

Also, I believe a system like that can work, however, you also have to provide the workers with incentives; granted they may not be great ones, but by the 60s and 70s, the standard of living was much higher and coushier in the US than the USSR.  I still say that if the USSR had been able to get over the "industrial" hump it had created within its post-Stalin economy and become as powerful a consumer economy that the US had and is, history books would have been written differently.

I won't disagree with you at all about the ethnic angle playing a factor in the effecencies in the USSR. What does a Latvian care about Mother Russia? They don't.

 

But we will have to disagree on the second part. A true consumer economy is greed driven. Sounds ickey I know, but the drive to earn more to own more is an essential function of consumerism, which is capitalism. When there is no possibility of moving up the ladder through hard work and effort, there is no possibility of being able to make a better life for yourself. The only way you could move up was through increasingly high dedication and work in the Communist Party, the incentive to work harder was nonexsistant. With no abilty to earn more, how can you comsume more?