I personally find the most fascinating thing about Marxism in theory is the idea of man in relationship with his labour, not disconnected and radically isolated from it.

What I find funny about Stalinist and other totalitarian pseudo-communist ideals, is that they actually increase the disconnect between man and his labour, by mandating massive projects and jobs for people.

The idea of common ownership is a means to the end of man in union with his labour, which is why its hilarious that the attempt to use it for that end has been so mis-applied as to have achieved the opposite.

I smell a Putin coming :)

I think the likes of Stalin and Mao are the societies they created are the result of the attempt to transform the theory into practice. It is hard to radically transform a society. It takes power. Had Stalin not be such a despot the Soviet Union would have failed, due to competing power interests, both internally and externally. (that's my theory today anyway).

I would disagree. The reason the USSR turned out the way it did was the economic and political isolation it suffered. One of the basic tenets of Marxism is internationalism, classes transcend national boundaries, and any socialist state will most probably find itself isolated. That is what happened when the Italian and German revolution failed, and the USSR was invaded by around 14 countries during the civil war.

I don't consider Maoism Marxist at all. Marxism is based on a revolution by the working class, they can create a classless society beccause they don't own the means of production. Maoism is based on a revolution (and armed insurrection) by the peasantry, a land-owning class.

Finally, a nice joke regarding internationalism. Two Bloshevoks were on a roof looking at the stars. One said "I bet somewhere out there another planet has achieved communism." The other looked at him and said "What are you saing comrade, socialism on one planet?"

lol, Bolsheviks, not Bloshevoks. Maybe Bloshoivoks?

Splitter!!!

"I would disagree. The reason the USSR turned out the way it did was the economic and political isolation it suffered."

But that is what I mean by competing power interests. Those threats were external - for example international ostracism. But also internal such as reactionaries, and also those within the revolution but who different ideas about things should be run.

I don't think it was just isolation though (even though this a factor). The Soviet Union was massive. It had its own resources. I think another problems was its command economy. Aside from the fact the most economist consider command economies to be inefficient, the Soviets had no experience in actually making a command economy. They were learning on the job.

USSR collapsed because Trotsky did not take Lenin's position after his death. Trotsky was the better candidate for the job.

I think Marxism is a fantasy of what capitalism would be like if it was exactly the same (lots of things being produced) without having to work - it is a fantasy of the good life. A spectre.

Is there any reason why it *can't* work in practice?

And please don't just cite all the cases where it *hasn't*

What goes wrong, and why? Can the theory be modified to make it more successful in real circumstances?

Generally speaking, any politician that promises to make your life or society better, such as left-wing politicians, should be shot.

Politicians that honestly say they can't make your life better, but have some modest proposals to organize a more efficient and better-serving public service deserve to be listened to before they're shot.

Is there any reason it can't work? I don't think it aligns with human psychology, which is individualist. I don't think individualism is solely socially constructed, I think the history of human beings is that people feel individual ownership over their experience. I also think that individualism is part of the ontological condition.

I also don't really see the need for such a system. Fact: my unemployed neighbors have bigger tv's than I do.

Ow and @dD_ShockTrooper, the problem was not that Trotsky didn't succeed Lenin. The problem with communism is that in case of a power-transfer, it can be so crucially dependent on one single person.

There is something to that greg, but humans (and primates!) also demonstrate altruistic behavior that increases the common welfare (grooming for bugs, e.g.), because that also serves their own best interest.

Clearly, a marxist philosophy is a LARGE step down that path, but hey isn't that one of the benefits of sentience? Let's assume for a moment that we should be able to, if focused, overcome our more selfish instincts to adopt a philosophy that serves the greatest common good.

I guess what I'm asking is, is it *possible* to implement a "marxist" doctrine to government where the quality of life actually improves for the masses like it's supposed to?

I really know very little about it, but as has been mentioned previously, it sure *sounds* like a good idea :)

I never liked this "Marxism is so beautiful in theory, but it doesn't work in practice"-ideology quite so much.

I don't believe "it works in theory" as much as I don't believe "it works in practice." For people to go out and do something useful, you need rewards of some kind. Money simply regulates this reward system better than Lenin Medals and Marx Awards do.

redhouse: I think if Marxism could promise a particular standard of living *and then deliver*, it would be reward enough for many people, especially if that standard of living was higher than capitalism can provide.

Due to the vast differences in SOL that capitalism DOES provide (lots to the few, little to the many i.e.) I don't think it would be difficult to convince people that marxism *could* raise the SOL of the many by lowering that of the few.

My question is, why DOESN'T it in practice work (it seems everybody's SOL drops), and could it be "fixed" so that it would?

Redhouse-Politicians have demonstrably made life and society better. The GI Bill, Child Labor laws, Social Security, all of these have improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people. So your basic premise is kinda flawed.

People constantly forget that Marx advocated for capitalism.

He acknowledged that capitalism creates wealth and increases the standard of living.

However he viewed capitalism as a transition period to communism, that we use capitalism and competition to increase technological expansion and create wealth, and once we have the wealth and technology to provide for all without competition, then we do so.

Marx wouldn't have supported the USSR, or Cuba, and wanted the communist revolution to start in Prussia, France or England, the three most advanced capitalist economies, simply because they were closest to having the wealth to provide for everyone.

The socialists often forget this and/or try to ignore it.

Gregoire-Cooperation is exactly why we as a species have placed ourselves atop the food pyramid. Without cooperative hunting techniques and the spread of domestication of plants and animals, we would essentially be a variant gorilla species.

Gregoire-Cooperation is exactly why we as a species have placed ourselves atop the food pyramid. Without cooperative hunting techniques and the spread of domestication of plants and animals, we would essentially be a variant gorilla species. The successor species to homo sapiens sapiens will most likely cooperate more closely than we can imagine in manners that would shock the hell out of us. So no, I do not accept the premise that our psychology is individualistic. We succeed precisely because our psychology allows for easy group interaction and cooperation.

The mere fact that we're conducting this epistolic exchange on the internet should stand for the proposition that man is an innately cooperative animal, psychologically speaking.

As for whether Marx was right. Ignoring all the extreme parts of his views and his theories of equality yeah, he was essentially right.

Today, the amount of welfare programs are vastly superior to any in history, for the first time in history our poor (in Europe and Canada's case) can expect healthcare and education on par with that of the rich.

The life expectancy is so high that people are now dying of cancer, and getting dementia (diseases which are essentially caused by aging cells), more then that of starvation.

I once heard (haven't confirmed the accuracy though) that 2011 was the first year in history that more people died due to diseases linked to obesity then famine.

We are slowly becoming a world that our wealth is sufficient to provide for all, and every time we move closer, our politics becomes more left wing.

Bob, yellow, I am not against cooperation, empathy or altriusm, of course these are important features of the human landscape. I am saying, can Marxism work in practice? No, because the abolition of private property makes it impossible, because private property is an extension of individually oriented human psychology.

@BG true, although these laws are not so much to make people's lives better, as they are to make people's lives less horrible. I believe a child having to work and a person who fought for his country not being able to create a living for himself in that same country are injustices in itself and to me they fall under the category of what is simply the decent thing to do. If I had a neighbor who had a child that worked, I'd give him a little something to get him schooled. If I had a neighbor who has having psychological problems due to a war he fought him, I'd talk to him and see if I can help him in some way. If I have a neighbor who wants a better SOL just for the sake of it, we're done talking.

PS BG I think the trend that Vaftrudner observed in more diplomacy games on this site ending in draws since the start of webdip could well be related to the evolution of mankind into a more cooperative being.

trollolol

gregoire-The abolition of private property is premised upon scarcity. Remove that element, e.g. through robust nanotechnological production and access to the resources of the solar system as opposed to merely those of earth, and scarcity disappears.

But universal education of children, for example, has made society as a whole better in ways other than merely ameliorating the damage caused by peculiarity of situation (such as being born into a family where it is economically necessary to start mining coal at age 6). The universal education of children has promoted opportunities for advancement, fulfillment, and contribution to society for literally hundreds of millions of children, some of whom seized upon those opportunities and helped create, e.g., drought resistant wheat and corn which helps keep us relatively well fed regardless of the weather.

Redhouse-So what you're saying is that if I buy into my own argument, my relatively admirable record of being part of draws but my terrible record of actually achieving wins is a sign that I'm more evolved than many of the alpha dogs of this site? Yeah, I buy it.