Is Marxist socialism a viable economic/political theory

[russ_watters]

This question just brought itself back onto my front-burner due to recent conversations...

 

[loseyourname]

Marxism is flawed on so many levels, I don't know why you would even ask this. The most blatant mistake made by Marx is his assumption that humans are nothing more than the product of their socioeconomic class. The rest of his theory rests on that axiom.

 

[russ_watters]

Marxism is flawed on so many levels, I don't know why you would even ask this.

You assume an obvious answer. We shall see.

 

[wasteofo2]

Marxist Socialism? Didn't Marx only see Socialism as the step between Capitalism and Communism?

I voted assuming you meant the economic system outlined in the Communist Manifesto, and I voted no, since he somehow assumes that there will be a magically benevolent government whose sole interest is helping the people, but no role for government is actually spelled out. In order for his dream to come true, you need a very strong central government, which just turns into a powerful dictatorship without fail.

Though it is interesting to note, Marxist Communism has never actually been tried. In his theory, full industrialization would have taken place, and Capitalism would have set up the infrastructure already. Only once Capitalism had been sucessful would Communism take over, as Communism couldn't build the same infrastructure etc. that capitalism could. Though I guess he thought Communism could keep improving it, you just needed Capitalism for that first huge step getting your country industrialized. You'd need a country like Japan or America, which already was a sucessful Capitalist country, to really try Communism the way Marx wanted it. Though it would have just degraded into a particularly powerful dictatorship anyway.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, it gets down to that one issue. Marx thinks that human beings act according to socioeconomic class. Adam Smith says that human act in their own rational self-interest. By resolving this one issue, we can answer the question of which system is more likely to work. I do think there are degrees of both, but the brilliant thing about capitalism is that Smith allows for this. Rational self-interest can account for anything important to an individual, including the well-being of any group that individual identifies with. Marxism is not so flexible; to be a viable system it requires that human beings give up their individuality, something that will never happen.

 

[polyb]

Hey wait, that's right Karl wasn't a brother. Just kidding!

On a more serious note, I personally do not think any of the "-ISMS" will work in the real world because they all share the same fatal flaw-"idealism". That's right, I think that communism will not work because it fundamentally requires an ideal world in order to work. But we do not live in an ideal world, con men and scoundrels abound and they flourish in any system. Though Karl Marx had some very excellent criticisms about the capitalist system as well as the fact that the manifesto was written to protest child labor practices, his solutions were idealistic at best. He is probably better thought of as having started the labor movement/collective bargaining and he should be credited for these movements that has improved the lives of the working class.

Going back to the other thread, russ, I have to say that you and aquamarine are promoting an ideal of capitalism that just does not work in the real world, though it does just fine in an Aynd Rand novel. Ironically you guys are making the same mistake as Marx, you are assuming an ideal world. At least you're in good company!

Unfortunately, russ, people will lie, cheat, steal and even kill in order to get wealth or power. So regardless of the proposed socio-economic system one has to directly contend with the very human characteristic of greed, etc. or said system will be overcome by those very people. Animal Farm written by George Orwell dealt with that in response to what he saw as the corruption of the communist party way back when. Fortunately we can refer back to the founders as a guide for dealing with the problems of corruption and greed and how to best organize our system. Either way you look at it there is always a lot of work to do and there must be vigilance to protect the system from the scoudrels. Personally, I think this generation is about to see their handiwork bare fruit.

Do we have "socialism" per se in this country right now? You bet we do, except that it only benefits those upper socio-economic stratas that paid those politicians to insure such benefits. Of course the rest of us are basically screwed! I'll cite a real easy example: the revamped "star wars" program. There is no way in hell that thing will ever work and you don't even have to be a physics guy to realize that. Shooting a bullet with a bullet, give me a break! But the companies that are working on this are collectively getting what, 200-300 billion dollars. That is one hunk of chunk of change. Now this would not be bad if there were no other proposals that would work, but guess what? There is and it was made back in the 70's. Here is the idea: Take a small rocket, attach it to say a F-16 as a launch platform and arm it with an explosive device that has a bunch of pellets or BBs in it. Design it to ensure a sufficient density of pellets covering an area that would basically shred the internal components of the incoming warheads and there you go. Problem solved and a bunch of people don't get vaporized. One major problem though, too cheap!

Perhaps the best system would be one that incorporates elements of capitalism, socialism, or any of the other -isms and provides a flexible system to deal with good times as well as bad. Of course keeping the scoundrels in check is always the hard part though!

 

[Smurf]

Here is the idea: Take a small rocket, attach it to say a F-16 as a launch platform and arm it with an explosive device that has a bunch of pellets or BBs in it. Design it to ensure a sufficient density of pellets covering an area that would basically shred the internal components of the incoming warheads and there you go. Problem solved and a bunch of people don't get vaporized. One major problem though, too cheap!

The actual reason why this idea was scrapped is that ICBMs can get from Siberia to Washington DC in less than 5 minutes. Scrambling F-16s takes more time than that, the only way for it to be marginally effective is to have many air fields on constant red alert 24/7, 360 days a year.

 

[polyb]

Adam Smith says that human act in their own rational self-interest.

Well I have to disagree with Smith, Human Beings are not necessarily rational, only vulcans are rational!

 

[Smurf]

Well I have to disagree with Smith, Human Beings are not necessarily rational, only vulcans are rational!

I also have to disagree with him on the grounds of self interest, there are so many examples of how people can be quite selfless. Greed is not in our nature, just our culture.

 

[polyb]

The actual reason why this idea was scrapped is that ICBMs can get from Siberia to Washington DC in less than 5 minutes. Scrambling F-16s takes more time than that, the only way for it to be marginally effective is to have many air fields on constant red alert 24/7, 360 days a year.

OK smurf, then just put them on some ICBMs! Either way, the "star wars" system is farce as far as I am concerned!

 

[Smurf]

OK smurf, then just put them on some ICBMs! Either way, the "star wars" system is farce as far as I am concerned!

Not disagreeing with that. Just that I havn't heard of any reasonable alternatives.. except for.. oh what was that.. something about disarmament.. some crazy hippie types must've come up with it.

I mean, no reasonable human being would think that if you have no enemies you'll be safe, we need those nukes to save us from the Killer bees and Y3k and.. and.. and.. TERRORISTS!

 

[polyb]

I mean, no reasonable human being would think that if you have no enemies you'll be safe, we need those nukes to save us from the Killer bees and Y3k and.. and.. and.. TERRORISTS!

...or even worse: Liberal Secular Humanists!

 

[loseyourname]

I also have to disagree with him on the grounds of self interest, there are so many examples of how people can be quite selfless. Greed is not in our nature, just our culture.

I think you guys are underestimating how flexible the concept of rational self-interest is, and by extension, how flexible capitalism is. Interest in another's well-being is certainly included. Excessively irrational behavior is largely discounted, as Smith assumes that this accounts only for a very small proportion of human economic decisions.

 

[ray b]

PURE anything can and does go bad

Socialism on a limited scale works fine
like would you want privately owned and controlled ARMYS??
somethings should be owned and controlled by the goverments

co-opts are an other good form of public control
with or without the goverment

PURE CAPITALISUM IS PURE EVIL TOO
moderation is the key

 

[Janitor]

... ICBMs can get from Siberia to Washington DC in less than 5 minutes...

As a pure guess, I would have said 40 minutes. Do you have a source for your statement?

 

[Smurf]

Heard it in my history class actually.

edit: i just tried working it out myself but I can't find any accurate distances to compare so someone who's better at physics will have to do it instead.

How far do you think it is between Khabarovsk and Washington?

edit2: I'm posting something about this in the debunking subforum

 

[Janitor]

How far do you think it is between Khabarovsk and Washington?

Without a globe to look at, I will hazard a guess that the great circle route goes kind of close to the North Pole, and that the distance is roughly 6,000 miles. I could be pretty far off, though.

 

[Smurf]

Well, according to Wikipedia, 40 minutes would be quite on target, but I'm not ready to retire my 5 minute theory yet. I'm sure a SLBM or some other kind of ballistic missile could make it in that time, athough it would be quite a bit more expensive, even short-burst ICBMs would shorten the flight time quite a bit.

 

[Dayle Record]

In case you haven't heard, this country is full of private armies.

 

[Smurf]

Which is why we need to nuke them before time runs out!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Excessively irrational behavior is largely discounted, as Smith assumes that this accounts only for a very small proportion of human economic decisions.

I don't know why he thinks rationality is so overwhelmingly commong. There is a good deal of irrational self-interest, and there is some rational other-interest, and there is a great deal of irrational actions without much in the way of an objective.

 

[russ_watters]

Going back to the other thread, russ, I have to say that you and aquamarine are promoting an ideal of capitalism that just does not work in the real world, though it does just fine in an Aynd Rand novel. Ironically you guys are making the same mistake as Marx, you are assuming an ideal world. At least you're in good company!

Unfortunately, russ, people will lie, cheat, steal and even kill in order to get wealth or power.

Didn't you assert the same thing in that thread and didn't I correct you there? Aquamarine and I are not saying anything like what you are implying. We know that capitalism requires some government intervention to prevent abuse.

 

[russ_watters]

Marxist Socialism? Didn't Marx only see Socialism as the step between Capitalism and Communism?

I voted assuming you meant the economic system outlined in the Communist Manifesto...

You're right - stupid mistake because we've been talking about socialism lately.

 

[polyb]

Didn't you assert the same thing in that thread and didn't I correct you there? Aquamarine and I are not saying anything like what you are implying. We know that capitalism requires some government intervention to prevent abuse.

You could have fooled me russ! You guys are coming across like you have just read "Atlas Shrugged" or "Fountainhead" and it is coming across as an idealism or worse, an elitism. Perhaps you missed my post stating that in order to properly gauge the complexity of economic systems more robustly all the '-isms' needed to be dropped and a systems approach would be more insightful into the 'game' called economics.

Perhaps you should look into the work of a russian economist that studied capitalistic economic cycles and the 'boom and bust' involved. http://faculty.washington.edu/~krumme/207/development/longwaves.html. His perspective is quite insightful and well researched.

oh yeah, one more thing: GET OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSE. You postings come across in a belligerent manner and that is not acceptable.

 

[Aquamarine]

You could have fooled me russ! You guys are coming across like you have just read "Atlas Shrugged" or "Fountainhead" and it is coming across as an idealism or worse, an elitism. Perhaps you missed my post stating that in order to properly gauge the complexity of economic systems more robustly all the '-isms' needed to be dropped and a systems approach would be more insightful into the 'game' called economics.

Perhaps you should look into the work of a russian economist that studied capitalistic economic cycles and the 'boom and bust' involved. http://faculty.washington.edu/~krumme/207/development/longwaves.html. His perspective is quite insightful and well researched.

oh yeah, one more thing: GET OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSE. You postings come across in a belligerent manner and that is not acceptable.

Who have said anything about 'Atlas Shrugged' or the rest of the objectivistic system. It is not an economic theory but a complete philosophical system. A rather poor one in all aspects.

Capitalism is best defended looking at the real world, using empirical methods. With the help of economic theories provided by Mises, Hayek and others. Look at this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

Regarding your links, the Kondratiev cycle have failed miserably, with the previous peak supposed to be in 1970 and supposedly ever growing economic misery since then.

World poverty is being reduced thanks to capitalism. So we are looking down at the other systems and their poverty, violence, genocides and misery.

 

[russ_watters]

You could have fooled me russ! You guys are coming across like...

Instead of 'reading between the lines, ' read what we actually say at face value. To do otherwise assumes we are lying about our opinions or motives.

 

[russ_watters]

My reason for starting this thread (loseyourname) is statements like this...

The Vietnam war was started by greedy capitalists in an attempt to prevent a successfull communist regime from gaining control in South East Asia

... and several recent threads on globalization (ie., the Monsanto seed lie being spread by "environmentalists"), which reflects several points from THIS link from Aquamarine (Smurf's statement alone hits 4 of them!):

...you can with absolute confidence predict that the curriculum [of any university] will be suffused with themes such as[abridged]:

-capitalism is inherently unjust, dehumanizing, and impoverishing;
-socialism, whatever its practical failures, is motivated by the highest ideals and that its luminaries -- especially Marx -- have much to teach us;
-globalization hurts the poor of the Third World;
-natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate and that human industrial activity is an ever-increasing threat to "the environment";
-the pathologies of the underclass in the United States are due to racism and that the pathologies of the Third World are due to the lingering effects of colonialism;
-Western civilization is uniquely oppressive, especially to women and "people of color," and that its products are spiritually inferior to those of non-Western cultures;

Every single one of these claims is, in my view, false; in some cases demonstrably so. At any rate, in every case the opposite point of view can be, and has been, defended powerfully by thinkers as worthy as any the Left can muster. Yet you will, in the modern university, rarely hear these assertions seriously challenged...

Now, the article was talking about universities, the problem isn't just limited to universities. These ideas are being espoused here as if there is merit to them. Communism/socialism are discussed or mentioned in passing as if they were/are viable systems of goverment/economics. The phrase "successful communist regime" is a historically factual and philosophically/theoretically provable oxymoron, yet it is stated and read as if it should be taken seriously.

My purpose was to gage how pervasive such ideas are here, though as wasteofo2 pointed out, the question was poorly conceived. I wanted a poll because its tough to tell what someone really thinks just based on a flippant rhetorical remark. But perhaps a dialog on the problem: why is communism mentioned in passing (and no-one bats an eyelash!) as if it ever was more than an idle daydream of a malcontent?

The reason I post so much in politics (and I start very few threads) is I feel compelled to respond to these things that are not being responded to. I see it in almost the same terms as others have said about our TD section: if these things go unchallenged, then the impressionable among us may not realize that they are baseless and/or just plain wrong.

Minor rant: there is danger too in the west's recent (acceleration of the last 10-20 years) move toward socialism and I see that as a reflection of the problem above. There is a catch-22 that people don't see here. All they see is 'we can afford it, so we should do it' (social security, medicare, national healthcare, etc.). But wait: we can afford these things because we don't do them. When SS was concieved, it sounded wonderful, didn't it? Well it was nice for a few decades, but now we know that it is a long, slow death for our economy if we don't do something about it soon. But the pendulum hasn't swung back the other way yet- people want more(!). Will it take an implosion before people accept the already proven fact that that's where this path leads? The difference between us and the USSR is in the baseline: the US is starting high because of capitalism whereas the USSR started with mediocrity and went down from there. Our economy is still growing - and fast. But there are cracks and everyone sees them even if most don't want to fix them. As surely as socialism destroyed the USSR, it will destroy us if we don't do something about it soon. And unlike the USSR, ours won't be a long, slow decline, but a spectacular implosion if we don't turn from this path soon.

Heck, even the Chinese know it: they're moving to the right while the west is moving to the left!

 

[Artman]

I also have to disagree with him on the grounds of self interest, there are so many examples of how people can be quite selfless. Greed is not in our nature, just our culture.

Greed is not the point of the statement. The point is motivation. Socialist/Communist systems lack motivation for the participants. This leads to falling away of necessary elements for a society to sustain the populations of today's world. Look at the USSR: Why should a country of that size, covering that geographical region, lack suficient cereal crops to feed its people as it did in the 70's? As soon as you start relying on countries outside of your own for your major food source, you are going to fall.

 

[selfAdjoint]

When SS was concieved, it sounded wonderful, didn't it? Well it was nice for a few decades, but now we know that it is a long, slow death for our economy if we don't do something about it soon.

False. There is nothing wrong with Social Security, and it doesn't need fixing. The problem we have is the national debt which is set to grow to horrendous proportions in the next decad. THAT needs fixing, THAT will sink our economy, not SS.

 

[russ_watters]

Greed is not the point of the statement. The point is motivation. Socialist/Communist systems lack motivation for the participants.

Though I agree with your characterization, the argument between "greed" and "motivation" is hair-splitting rhetoric. Call it something nasty-sounding and it doesn't change the fact that it exists and is part of what it means to be a living organism. Though greed itself may be cultural (but an irrelevant, rhetorical characterization), competitiveness most certainly is not.

False. There is nothing wrong with Social Security, and it doesn't need fixing. The problem we have is the national debt which is set to grow to horrendous proportions in the next decad. THAT needs fixing, THAT will sink our economy, not SS.

What happens when the amount of money being spent on Social Security begins to exceed the amount being taken in due to the aging of the population? That hole is much, much bigger than the commonly cited national debt of $10 trillion. We're in debt for upwards of $40 trillion on SS and medicare alone and the debt continues to increase while our ability to pay decreases.

To be fair, I guess in the '30s, since you couldn't expect someone to collect Social Security for more than about 10 years before dying, it may very well have been viable. But that still doesn't mean that people shouldn't have thought ahead to a time when the average 65 year old would live to 90.

Not even AARP attempts to spin it:

What Is the Current and Future Status of the OASDI Trust Funds?

The Trustees, using the intermediate, or best estimate, assumptions in the 1999 Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Trustees Report, project that the OASDI trust funds will accumulate assets for the next 15 years.

However, the Trustees project that beginning in 2014 some of the interest earnings will need to be combined with tax revenue to cover benefit payments. By 2022, income (including contributions and interest) will fall short of expenditures, and it will be necessary to start redeeming the trust fund securities. The Trustees report projects the OASDI trust funds will be depleted in 2034.

http://research.aarp.org/econ/fs40r_ss_trust_1.html

Right now, SS runs a surplus of about $100 billion a year that (supposedly) goes into a trust fund. In 10 years by the above estimate, that will drop to zero. In 18, the trust fund will no longer be able to support itself and will begin to decrease, and in 30 years, it will be depleted and the shortfall will need to be made up with general funds. This means, if we keep going without changing the way SS operates, sometime in about the next 30 years (not all estimates are that good), there will be a sudden shortfall of $250 billion a year to be absorbed by the budget.

Now, it is true that if we could hypothetically wipe out the debt (btw, I am in favor of paying down the debt), we'd have about $300 billion a year extra to play with. But you and I both know that play, we will - even without having the money to play with, Clinton tried to start a national healthcare program.

As bad as SS is, it isn't really an income redistribution program. If done right, its an investment account and the more you pay into it, the more you get back (an if managed correctly, you get back more than you pay in without taking money from anyone else). Income re-distribution programs are much, much worse because they don't requrie those who get the money to pay into it.

 

[Smurf]

What happens when the amount of money being spent on Social Security begins to exceed the amount being taken in due to the aging of the population?

What do you mean by aging of the population exactly? I assume you mean when the baby boomers all get on SS. Then the system will of course have a large increase in the amount of money being used with little change in the amount of money being put in. Now I havn't seen the population pyramid for the US but after they're gone won't it just even out again?

 

[Artman]

Though I agree with your characterization, the argument between "greed" and "motivation" is hair-splitting rhetoric. Call it something nasty-sounding and it doesn't change the fact that it exists and is part of what it means to be a living organism. Though greed itself may be cultural (but an irrelevant, rhetorical characterization), competitiveness most certainly is not.

Motivation can be just the desire to not fail. This is a far cry from greed, which is the desire for more than your fair share.

 

[russ_watters]

What do you mean by aging of the population exactly? I assume you mean when the baby boomers all get on SS. Then the system will of course have a large increase in the amount of money being used with little change in the amount of money being put in. Now I havn't seen the population pyramid for the US but after they're gone won't it just even out again?

Due mostly to medical science and increased longevity, no, it won't. The Baby Boom generation is not a one-time bubble - the decline in the ratio between people giving and people getting has been going on since SS's inception. Its just taking so long because the ratio was so big. It was near 100:1 - in a few years it'll be 2:1. Its been a long, slow fall - Baby Boomers will just accelerate it.

Motivation can be just the desire to not fail. This is a far cry from greed, which is the desire for more than your fair share.

Again, I agree, but that still requires defining "your fair share." What you may see as your fair share (or, at least, a fairly won reward for hard work), others may (do) see as greed. Greed is still borne out of competition - the desire "not to fail" becomes the desire to succeed, becomes the desire to succeed more, becomes the desire to succeed at all costs. Its a question of where the line is drawn.

And in life, there are always cases where a win for you is a loss for someone else. The military officer heirarchy is the most basic example: You compete with your peers for promotions. Those who win move up and those who lose (more than twice) are forced out. If, instead, no one is promoted, then everyone can be employed at "fair" level. Isn't that more "fair"? (No, I don't think so either...) Communism attempts to avoid this by allowing no winners, but the end result is that everyone loses.

In fact, the biggest flaw I see in capitalism is that it does require some losers. Since there is a ready supply of people who choose to lose, I'm ok with that, but if every janitor suddenly decided to go to college, thigs could get wierd. I think capitalism could probably handle that, but it would be strange to see janitors making $20 an hour.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't know why he thinks rationality is so overwhelmingly commong. There is a good deal of irrational self-interest, and there is some rational other-interest, and there is a great deal of irrational actions without much in the way of an objective.

Rational self-interest just means that a person actually knows what she wants. The only people excluded here would be people with severe mental illnesses and children. They are excluded from the capitalist model, but anyone else can be fit in, even if you find their behavior "irrational." Smith does not use the term the same way you do.

 

[Artman]

Again, I agree, but that still requires defining "your fair share." What you may see as your fair share (or, at least, a fairly won reward for hard work), others may (do) see as greed. Greed is still borne out of competition - the desire "not to fail" becomes the desire to succeed, becomes the desire to succeed more, becomes the desire to succeed at all costs. Its a question of where the line is drawn.

I see your point.