. .Is Communism the Answer to the Crisis?

[Goshin]

Cuba. Venezuela.

Neither Cuba nor Venezuela could be said to be an actual, full-fledged Marxist Communist example. Nor the former USSR, nor China.

Attempts to implement Marxist philosophies tend to get stuck in the Socialist-Statist phase as dictatorships or oligarchies, and do nothing more than share the misery and poverty around.


Capitalism has its faults too, but not remotely on the same scale.

 

[zstep18]

What difference does it make ? Honestly the argument that it hasn't been applied correctly implies it's a legitimate System. Let me guess, it's so advanced we currently don't possess the intellect to correctly carry it out to it's eventual state, Nirvana.

It would probably require a whole new level of human thinking and mindset.

You can't really say it's an illegitimate system when there are no true examples of it.

 

[instagramsci]

Neither Cuba nor Venezuela could be said to be an actual, full-fledged Marxist Communist example. Nor the former USSR, nor China

Didn't mean to say they were. Sorry if I implied that.

do nothing more than share the misery and poverty around

People reply with this line all the time. It's less true than you might think. As a matter of fact, the standard of living dropped dramatically after the collapse of the USSR as did the male life expectancy. A drop of 7 years

Capitalism has its faults too, but not remotely on the same scale.

Wrong. Capitalism is implemented on a much larger scale than socialism ever was. You want to attribute the deaths of the people who died under Stalin and Mao to socialism? Fine. Then you should show capitalism the same courtesy. I.e. the Native American genocide, the British occupation of India, etc.

 

[Goshin]

Didn't mean to say they were. Sorry if I implied that.



People reply with this line all the time. It's less true than you might think. As a matter of fact, the standard of living dropped dramatically after the collapse of the USSR as did the male life expectancy. A drop of 7 years



Wrong. Capitalism is implemented on a much larger scale than socialism ever was. You want to attribute the deaths of the people who died under Stalin and Mao to socialism? Fine. Then you should show capitalism the same courtesy. I.e. the Native American genocide, the British occupation of India, etc.

:shrug:

Where is the highest standard of living, and the highest incomes to be found? In countries that are at least partially capitalistic. Even communist China has been incorporating some capitalism into their economy for quite some time now, and it is a big part of whey their economy has been booming.

I'll grant you capitalism needs a bit and bridle and some restraint, lest it trample the less fortunate under its hooves, but on the whole it creates more general prosperity than any other system.

 

[instagramsci]

on the whole it creates more general prosperity than any other system.

but at who's expense?

oh i know

the less fortunate

 

[Goshin]

but at who's expense?

oh i know

Economics is not a zero sum game. Wealth is creatable. Capitalism tends to create a lot of it.


Granted a lot of it stays up near the point of the pyramid, but a lot actually does trickle down to the lower levels. Also granted, one of the problems we've been having in recent decades is that the trickle has slowed to barely a drip... but that's correctible, whereas throwing out the whole system in favor of something that has failed over and over again hardly seems like a good idea.

Who had it better in 1980? The average American, or the average Russian? Answer is pretty obvious...

 

[instagramsci]

failed over and over again

ding dong u are wrong

Who had it better in 1980? The average American, or the average Russian? Answer is pretty obvious...

What are we basing that off of? Disposable income? Amount of material possessions?

 

[Goshin]

ding dong u are wrong



What are we basing that off of? Disposable income? Amount of material possessions?

Surely you aren't going to claim that life in the old USSR was one big rollicking joyride? My understanding is that for the average person it was a rather grim lifestyle of endless shortages and bureaucratic bs. As one Russian worker put it, 'they pretend they pay us, and we pretend we work.'

not exactly a formula for prosperity.


Critique prosperity all you like, but I can tell you from hard experience when you're struggling to provide a family with the necessities of life it is no fun.

 

[instagramsci]

Surely you aren't going to claim that life in the old USSR was one big rollicking joyride? My understanding is that for the average person it was a rather grim lifestyle of endless shortages and bureaucratic bs. As one Russian worker put it, 'they pretend they pay us, and we pretend we work.'

not exactly a formula for prosperity.


Critique prosperity all you like, but I can tell you from hard experience when you're struggling to provide a family with the necessities of life it is no fun.

Oh no, I realize prosperity is a good thing. But there are more than enough resources for everyone in the world to live comfortably. But they don't. And capitalism is partly to blame for that.

 

[Goshin]

Oh no, I realize prosperity is a good thing. But there are more than enough resources for everyone in the world to live comfortably. But they don't. And capitalism is partly to blame for that.

(Sigh) Yes and no.


It isn't simply a matter of the rich having too much. Frankly, I've done the math, and you could skin the rich to the bare bones, and it still wouldn't make poor prosperous... for more than a short while. And if you skin the sheep this year, you can't shear him next year (no skin, therefore no wool.... no capital, therefore no profit).

Yes, the tendency for too much capital and wealth to accumulate in the hands of too few has indeed become a bit alarming in recent decades, and the wealth is not trickling down like it used to, and greed is sending industries that used to pay Americans a good wage overseas to dollar-a-day 3rd world sweatshops, etc.

But in point of fact the reason so many countries are poor is due to dictatorships, excessively pointy pyramids more closely resembling Feudalism than Capitalism, resource mismanagement, inadequate education, insufficient technology, lack of infrastructure... many things. It is more complicated that simply blaming it on either capitalism or communism.

 

[Papa bull]

Cuba. Venezuela.

My father's side of the family still lives in Cuba. We don't want that kind of success any more than they want it. Everyone being equally poor with no hope of ever doing any better isn't Utopia.

 

[German guy]

Cuba.

Cuba has one of the worst human right track records of all countries on this planet, somewhere around the level of North Korea. Homosexuals are imprisoned. So are people who voice disagreement with the government.

And it's not even doing well materially. Sure, there is less inequality than in Western countries, but on a rather low level.

Never understood where this Cuba romaticism comes from.

 

[German guy]

What are we basing that off of? Disposable income? Amount of material possessions?

Aren't you the materialist here?

 

[German guy]

My father's side of the family still lives in Cuba. We don't want that kind of success any more than they want it. Everyone being equally poor with no hope of ever doing any better isn't Utopia.

Half of my father's family was trapped in East Germany after the Berlin Wall was built. It sucked and was totally inhumane.

 

[babilfish]

This just in, some morons are still holding out hope for an impractical and flawed economic system.

These wonderful people ask if communism is the "answer" to the "crisis" without actually going into why. Bizarre, but what can you do?

 

[instagramsci]

Cuba has one of the worst human right track records of all countries on this planet, somewhere around the level of North Korea.

Yeah, I'm sure any accusations made by HRW and the EU are infallible.

Homosexuals are imprisoned.

Source?

So are people who voice disagreement with the government.

Same thing happens in a lot of countries to an extent.

And it's not even doing well materially. Sure, there is less inequality than in Western countries, but on a rather low level.

And there are reasons for that. It's not an island with plenty of natural resources. And the embargo certainly didn't help.

Never understood where this Cuba romaticism comes from.

It's not romanticism.

 

[Medusa]

My father's side of the family still lives in Cuba. We don't want that kind of success any more than they want it. Everyone being equally poor with no hope of ever doing any better isn't Utopia.

they are getting poorer because there still exists an embargo imposed on cuba by USA

where is teh human right now ?

if a collective welfare was provided for teh people by the capitalist imperialist system nobody would need to look for new socio politic systems

 

[Papa bull]

they are getting poorer because there still exists an embargo imposed on cuba by USA

where is teh human right now ?

if a collective welfare was provided for teh people by the capitalist imperialist system nobody would need to look for new socio politic systems

So you feel that trading with the United States is the only thing that keeps a country from being in abject poverty? You do realize that the rest of the world, including Canada, trades with Cuba, right? The fact of the matter is that communism fails every single time. It eats away at the human spirit because people are locked into a system that destroys any opportunity to stand out or excel or to lift oneself to a higher level by one's own actions and achievements. It is a system where even the house you live in is determined by the government. The work you do is determined by the government. The schools you go to are determined by the government. That things you can and cannot say are determined by the government.

If you love that, then why don't you just keep it for yourself.

 

[Gardener]

If communism is the answer, we sure aren't asking the right question.

 

[jag2594]

I disagree. Marxism is outdated, if it ever was viable in the first place. And it has been proven wrong by history in the last 120 years or so. A "working class" or "proletariat" does no longer exist, there is much more social mobility, much more political inclusion and plurality in Western societies, and importance has shifted from the producing to the service sector. None of the basics Marx referred to still exist. Also, the 20th century has proven that ideas shape reality much more than Marx assumed.

Also IMO, Marxism is inherently authoritarian and can never be realized in a non-authoritarian form, because it fails to take the human condition into account sufficiently. But that's just my opinion.

That said, I think the crisis has spectacularly proven that the "neo-liberal" Hayek-Friedmanian/Reagan-Thatcherian approach to economic policies has failed. Totally and utterly. It's time to focus on the question again how markets can be tamed in a manner that does not suffocate their potential and energy, but keeps them from a meltdown that destroys entire societies.

But when you're looking at Marx or Lenin or 20th century "really existing socialism" for answers, you're looking in the wrong place.

Actually marx theory on media is being used to study how "new media" can effect lifestyles and culture. Terminology is being use from marx...


http://www.twobenches.com/pdf/criticalTheory4studs.pdf

Check out page 2

New Media in the Context of Critical Theory
What is this lecture about?
Marx(ism)
is dead !?
“Marxist theory (...) still helps us to explain why certain things don't seem to get better faster."
Belsey 2002
2

Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks - Google Books

Representation is found at the heart of mediation,” writes Siapera, so “without representation neither production nor consumption would have any meaning” (p. 111). By examining processes of media production, representation, and consumption as they engage with cultural diversity, she explains that “cultural diversity in this particular historical juncture must be seen as mediated, that is, traversing processes of the production, circulation, representation and reception/consumption of meaning that characterize late modern, technologically evolved societies” (p. 75).

Mediation (Marxist theory and media studies) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Common misconceptions is that his work was based only on economics. But this is false, Marx had theories for many institutions like theory of discovery, politic science, evolution and so forth. Marxism is not a economic system; communism is the practice of Marxism. But Marxism covers more range than just economics. His most known is dialectical materialism; which other believes that is the cause of oriental, latin and eastern european countries to lean a towards a more marxist culture.

Though the libertarian socialists do not advocates his materialistic ideology.

 

[German guy]

Actually marx theory on media is being used to study how "new media" can effect lifestyles and culture. Terminology is being use from marx...


http://www.twobenches.com/pdf/criticalTheory4studs.pdf

Check out page 2

New Media in the Context of Critical Theory
What is this lecture about?
Marx(ism)
is dead !?
“Marxist theory (...) still helps us to explain why certain things don't seem to get better faster."
Belsey 2002
2

Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks - Google Books

Representation is found at the heart of mediation,” writes Siapera, so “without representation neither production nor consumption would have any meaning” (p. 111). By examining processes of media production, representation, and consumption as they engage with cultural diversity, she explains that “cultural diversity in this particular historical juncture must be seen as mediated, that is, traversing processes of the production, circulation, representation and reception/consumption of meaning that characterize late modern, technologically evolved societies” (p. 75).

Mediation (Marxist theory and media studies) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Common misconceptions is that his work was based only on economics. But this is false, Marx had theories for many institutions like theory of discovery, politic science, evolution and so forth. Marxism is not a economic system; communism is the practice of Marxism. But Marxism covers more range than just economics. His most known is dialectical materialism; which other believes that is the cause of oriental, latin and eastern european countries to lean a towards a more marxist culture.

Though the libertarian socialists do not advocates his materialistic ideology.

Yes, you are right. I was referring to his theory of historical dialectics and economy, or even moreso the vulgar understanding of this as is often advanced in politics.

On many fields, I think, Marx was an important philosopher in his time who laid the basics for many fields, but in most details, he's been corrected by newer findings (much like, i.e. Sigmund Freud, who laid the basis for psychology, although only few psychologists today still ascribe to classic, original Freudian theories).

 

[Medusa]

So you feel that trading with the United States is the only thing that keeps a country from being in abject poverty? You do realize that the rest of the world, including Canada, trades with Cuba, right? The fact of the matter is that communism fails every single time. It eats away at the human spirit because people are locked into a system that destroys any opportunity to stand out or excel or to lift oneself to a higher level by one's own actions and achievements. It is a system where even the house you live in is determined by the government. The work you do is determined by the government. The schools you go to are determined by the government. That things you can and cannot say are determined by the government.

If you love that, then why don't you just keep it for yourself.

l am not communist because l know humans are selfish .l am social democrat and no l really dont want to keep it to myself like the greedy capitalism

get it now ?:lol:

you wont believe but everything we have in this system is already determined by the ruling powers


money governs us

 

[jag2594]

Yes, you are right. I was referring to his theory of historical dialectics and economy, or even moreso the vulgar understanding of this as is often advanced in politics.

On many fields, I think, Marx was an important philosopher in his time who laid the basics for many fields, but in most details, he's been corrected by newer findings (much like, i.e. Sigmund Freud, who laid the basis for psychology, although only few psychologists today still ascribe to classic, original Freudian theories).

The problem is that people put a spin on Marx and Engels ideas. The original idea was that economics is an important part of human history; not just a single entity. Engels thought that the communist revolution would be the last revolution for the people, viewing economics as a whole. However the marxist idea of reflection was a was a way for a person to connect to the world without the mechanistic ideas of the west. They're view on dialectics is that there was no over seeing god; and class warfare was real institution, while The Hegel Dialectics was about metaphysical.

Russia scientist during the soviet union base their ideas on Marxism. Leontyev and Alexander Oparin his discovery of coacervates, Trofim Lysenko and probably others. Pavlov and Marx had more in common then he suspected.

 

[Papa bull]

l am not communist because l know humans are selfish .l am social democrat and no l really dont want to keep it to myself like the greedy capitalism

get it now ?:lol:

you wont believe but everything we have in this system is already determined by the ruling powers


money governs us

You're right. I don't believe that. Because it's complete bullcrap.