Intellectual Conversation of the Day

Yeah, I know, there's been something like this before. However, it is dead. Here's how this is going to work:

Each day, I will post a new topic for us to discuss. I will try to make each topic a question that cannot be answered through searching on the internet. For example, instead of saying "When did the American Revolution begin?", I'll say something like "When would the American Revolution have begun if the French and Indian War had never happened?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Conversation:

Is a pure-Marxist nation possible?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have any ideas for conversation topics, message me!

Hmmm...

Again folks, please be careful about this topic. I don't mind if it stays on the theoretical level, but just make sure we don't stray or this thread will be closed faster than you can say (All together now!) Here comes the Plum One. :)

Back on topic.

YS, is the question "possible" or really "sustainable"?

Not trying to flame, but when u say nation how large of a population are we talking about?
And could i assume for the sake of this argument that this nation could survive without exports and imports?

Well, by possible, do you mean that it could come about, or that it would work once in place?

Well, the Marxist nation is ideally one in which everyone is equal--period.



Honestly, I don't think that is possible for anything other than a small country, probably at most one the size of Monaco (BEFORE it gave the city of Nice to the French!!!)...

Clarification:

Could a nation based on pure-Marxist principles last once founded?

I'd have to say not. It'd be alright for a while, but then good old human selfishness would rear its head, and people would tear the system apart trying to get a leg up on their formerly equal brethren.

You just can't expect to overcome animal nature with morality.

If people were perfect, it would work flawlessly. But we're not, so the system would either totally collapse or become a totalitarian dictatorship very quickly.

A utopia is impossible because of man's greatest sin - greed.

*Runs out*

I'll expand on Joe's answer if you don't mind.

As most of us all know, its human nature to want more than we're given. Marxism is based on the fact that everyone is equal, which would mean that everyone is given the same amount of everything. If there was no greed in the world, it would work, but until then, there will always be those few people who just NEED to get more of everything. More rights, more money, more power. That little unsettling fact of human nature is why in theory, its the best, but in practice, it shall never work.

*Sighs*

Greed makes you want more and more. It consumes what righteousness you have in you, and then wants more. If a society was made based totally off of Marxism, then it would crumble within... oh, 20 years, give or take. People will want to climb higher up the social ladder eventually, because that's human nature. However, here's the catch - in Marxism, there is no ladder to climb up. So what will a person do? Simple - they'll bring down others, and stand on them to get higher and more powerful. Eventually, if this keeps up, everything will crumble, and the government will turn into an anarchy. It's an impossible government because of our need to be the best in anyway we can.

Now can you get this net off of me?

Edit: Dammit Acer. Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joemanf

Edit: Dammit Acer. Lol.

---

Quick Post McAce stikes again!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yellow Submarine

Clarification:

Could a nation based on pure-Marxist principles last once founded?

---

Define last? Any form of government can last, what really matters is if anyone would be happy with it. For example, communism lasted 70 years, although mainly out of totalitarianism. The main reason people vote for an extremist government is fear. Most far left or right wing governments have been caused by problems both economically and socially. If such problems were to last for a hundred years, it's possible that a marxist government could also last.

Well, it can't really last, e.g. if a revolution happens.
The people in charge can of course ignore most things like strikes, but a complete grand stand by the people, they can't really deny..or they could try.

^Just going on at the last bit..:)

A Marxist nation could last for one generation of leadership, if that person holds Marxist values above all else. After that, it would undoubtedly crumble, unless he spent a great deal of time looking for another like him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meglora

Define last? Any form of government can last, what really matters is if anyone would be happy with it. For example, communism lasted 70 years, although mainly out of totalitarianism.

---

The example that you are referring to (which I will not mention by name for fear of making this thread too political and getting it closed) was not founded on pure Marxist principles. Except that the government controlled what people could own it was pretty much a capitalist state in practice. The fact that it even HAD government shows it wasn't true Marxist. Which is the only reason it lasted as long as it did.

I don't necessarily think that a pure marxist nation can't have a government. A fairly elected representation of a group of people's opinions doesn't have to make the person acting as representative more important than the people he or she represents. As long as the people accept that their representative is acting in their best interests, and they actually are, of course, a marxist government could exist. It would take a very devoted group of marxists to make it work, but in all practicality a small state could easily live off marxist views. Conversely, a super-state made up of every person on the planet could also survive under marxism, becuase every single person would be acting in the best interests of eeryone else. One single community with everyone acting as equals could work. And leadership of this super nation could be defined by the aforementioned group of representatives.

Highly unlikely, but not necessarily impossible.

EO Wilson said it best.

"Communism: nice theory, wrong species.

But as has been pointed out: We are talking about Marxism, not communism.

Communism is what Marx called his theory.
Real-world communism, a.k.a. Stalinism or Maoism depending on context, doesn't hold true 100% to true to the as-of-yet entirely theoretical Marxist communism though.

There's a difference?

Quote: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
Marxism
Ideology and socioeconomic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The fundamental ideology of communism, it holds that all people are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour but are prevented from doing so in a capitalist economic system, which divides society into two classes: nonowning workers and nonworking owners. unquote

Nope. :)

Why is Marx being distanced from communism? It seems a bit strange to me. (Oh and I am not being trollish or flame-attractive, just confused). He had wonderful ideas that didn't work because...well...(Censored by poster) didn't help matters, or any of the other (censored by poster) regimes that espoused Marx's creed while urinating on his ideas.

Which is why a Marxist state would not be stable or sustainable. It relies on everybody working together for the common good. Some people think what they want IS the common good and are prepared to do anything to further their aims.

This is a shame, but utterly predictable (with the 20/20 hindsight of the 20th century of course).

ETA: typo correction.
ETA: I will be happy to take down this post if it offends anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armbarchris

Communism is what Marx called his theory.
Real-world communism, a.k.a. Stalinism or Maoism depending on context, doesn't hold true 100% to true to the as-of-yet entirely theoretical Marxist communism though.

---

crossed posts there, mate. sorry

hmmmm...have i overstepped boundaries here with my first three posts on this forum?

that would be a first :D

ETA: I have know RTFG and rea;ise that I am at least guilt of double posting. Apologies. I'll be adjusting my earlier posts to avoid being unduly inflamitory to those that think certain regimes mught not have been as bad as they have been painted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analgesic

there's a difference?

Quote: britannica concise encyclopedia
marxism
ideology and socioeconomic theory developed by karl marx and friedrich engels. The fundamental ideology of communism, it holds that all people are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour but are prevented from doing so in a capitalist economic system, which divides society into two classes: Nonowning workers and nonworking owners. unquote

nope. :)

why is marx being distanced from communism? It seems a bit strange to me. (oh and i am not being trollish or flame-attractive, just confused). He had wonderful ideas that didn't work because...well...(censored by poster) didn't help matters, or any of the other (censored by poster) regimes that espoused marx's creed while urinating on his ideas.

Which is why a marxist state would not be stable or sustainable. It relies on everybody working together for the common good. Some people think what they want is the common good and are prepared to do anything to further their aims.

This is a shame, but utterly predictable (with the 20/20 hindsight of the 20th century of course).

Eta: Typo correction.
Eta: I will be happy to take down this post if it offends anybody.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analgesic

crossed posts there, mate. Sorry

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by analgesic

hmmmm...have i overstepped boundaries here with my first three posts on this forum?

That would be a first :d

eta: I have know rtfg and rea;ise that i am at least guilt of double posting. Apologies. I'll be adjusting my earlier posts to avoid being unduly inflamitory to those that think certain regimes mught not have been as bad as they have been painted.

---

omg its the legendary triple post

dear lord god, save my backside

Personally I have not read the works of Marx/Engels and I have never seen first-hand any examples of their theories put into practice, so I simply cannot make any comment upon the efficacy of this system. I think we all need to remember that unless we have experienced something for ourselves then we are only relying on second-hand reports to form our opinions and those reports tend to reflect the attitude and opinions of the reporter. You could even say that for a normal person it is extremely difficult to understand or even comprehend all the details of events that are happening around them. After all, how many of us fully understand the true causes of the recent global financial crisis and all the underlying detail that led to that event? Or how many of us fully understand the way that crisis has affected our economies and the long-term repercussions of that event? And that is only a single event which, if viewed in isolation, could be said to prove the failings of the capitalist system as a whole.

Thank you Ghost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

Personally I have not read the works of Marx/Engels and I have never seen first-hand any examples of their theories put into practice, so I simply cannot make any comment upon the efficacy of this system.

---

You haven't seen true Marxism put into practice first hand because every attempt is corrupted into a complete failure. No one has every seen true Marxism, so we can only speculate about it. If every single person was a true believer in Marxism and not a selfish greedy SOB, then it might, possibly, potentially, theoretically work. But because people are selfish greedy SOBs, it gets corrupted into something quite a bit different from what Marx actually wanted. Something that inevitably fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

Personally I have not read the works of Marx/Engels and I have never seen first-hand any examples of their theories put into practice, so I simply cannot make any comment upon the efficacy of this system. I think we all need to remember that unless we have experienced something for ourselves then we are only relying on second-hand reports to form our opinions and those reports tend to reflect the attitude and opinions of the reporter. You could even say that for a normal person it is extremely difficult to understand or even comprehend all the details of events that are happening around them. After all, how many of us fully understand the true causes of the recent global financial crisis and all the underlying detail that led to that event? Or how many of us fully understand the way that crisis has affected our economies and the long-term repercussions of that event? And that is only a single event which, if viewed in isolation, could be said to prove the failings of the capitalist system as a whole.

---

You say that this shows the failings of capitalism, but surely capitalism has its failings because of the same reasons that everyone is saying that marxism would fail: human greed. If that is so, then surely the fact that capitalism has survived, despite these faults which are probably just as harmful to capitalism as communism, shows that a pure marxist state could survive?

No. I was saying that we simply don't have access to all the details regarding large events, so we rely on others to provide us with information that will help us understand but we may only ever get partial or biased information and never really fully comprehend what is happening and why. We also tend to already have our own viewpoints and tend to accept information that reinforces those viewpoints while rejecting or dismissing information that does not. That is just a natural part of being human.

it would never work people wanna make something out of there lives and advance in the world