Substitute Marxist with Nazi. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/13/marxism-forever/ Marxism has certainly killed more people. But I guess the ends justify the means.
I think both manifested terribly in our world, and both had horrible men in charge. However, the idea that all men are created equal and should be given equal wage is somewhat kindhearted, if inaccurate. But the idea that the Jews are to blame for all of our problems and one race is superior, is not kindhearted.
One could argue, other than the elimination of my people, that Hitler and Mussolini did more good for their people that Lenin or Mao did for theirs. As for your thesis, the basis for National Socialism is more than just scapegoating.
Having never really studied the question, can you (or someone else) explain the basic political/economic tenets that comprised the Nazi party platform? Also, isn't pointing out the number of people killed by Nazi & Marxist regimes the equivalent of an ad hominem attack on them ("adherents killed people, therefore Marxism is inherently bad")? Can't one discuss the merits (or pitfalls) of the ideology separate from the manner in which it was misused? Or is the contention that genocide is part of true Marxist philosophy?
Marxism has as its end nothing short of reshaping the way people think and behave. It is not the celebration of the individual, but the primacy of the community. Those that resist are eliminated. Of course, they never mention that little transition phase between what exists and the glorious future. When you take a look at Nazism (a variant of fascism with a racial overlay), you'll see they're remarkably the same (putting the group in front of the individual). So, why is Marxism acceptable and Nazism isn't? Hell, Anita Dunn said one of her favorite philosophers was Mao Tse-Tung, and she wasn't run out of town on a rail. Could you imagine if Karl Rove said one of his favorite philosophers was Adolf Hitler? I hate both, but am amazed that Marxism isn't just as shunned. And that's the point of the piece. Marxism has caused more human misery simply because it has been allowed to continue. If Nazism is worth driving from the face of the planet, why not Marxism?
So what you're saying is that true Marxism can't exist without the violent elimination of detractors?
That is the problem. Too many people thought that is what communism meant. Oh how wrong. Deadly wrong.
There were those in the U.S. that wanted to. Unfortunately, FDR was (secretly) very ill and in no shape to make a run at Stalin. Is it a wonder we betrayed Eastern Europe so badly. What if the opposite had happened? Imagine if the U.S. had taken that chance during WWII and taken out Stalin (and all the communist leadership). There is no doubt that it would have been very messy and a big risk. If successful: No cold war in Europe. No nuclear arms race. No Mao. No Korean War. No Cuba. No Vietnam. No worldwide cold war and all the effects it had on Africa and the Americas. Other bad things would undoubtedly have happened, but it is hard to imagine anything like what we lived through: the postwar ear dominated by the worldwide march of communism and its conflict with the West was one of constant massive arms buildup, constant cold war and regular hot wars.
Government is the holder of power. Power is force. A government that has as its design Total Power will use that power. Elements that are in conflict with the government will be dealt with. Force will be used against those elements. Those elements will resist. Force will be increased until those elements submit. It is not rocket science. It is simple logic and this outcome was predicted by intellectuals who studied communist theory before there had ever been a communist ruled country. Claiming that the communism this world experienced was the "wrong" communism and it would be fine if we just do it "right" is one the true great lies of this world perpetuated by the Left.
Marxist Communism has never really been implemented anywhere, nor has Capitalism. Both are poorly talked about and simply misrepresented consistently. Communism does not at all mean equal wages for everyone. To each according to his needs implies some people need more than others, even if it's because they have more children to feed. But it also means that those who can do more with more also get more. Communism seems to work well in small settings like Kibbutzes in Israel. There are no mass murders of people in that setting. I prefer Capitalism, but I could see Communism being an excellent form of government for certain 3rd world nations. Mein Kampf was full of racist bullshit. It's not a shock Hitler murdered so many millions - it was his philosophy. Mao and Stalin were malevolent dictators. Stalin had a decent sized middle class to work with. Mao had a lot of dirt poor farmers to care for. They both ran command economies. Their nations were not communist by any stretch. They more resembled social democracies with one political party. China and Russia had the longest border in the world between the two for decades and they weren't peaceful or friendly. You'd think that actual communists would get along fine with other communists. They weren't actual communists.
Communism simply breaks down when you go above a certain number of people (50? 100?) because the sociopaths that eventually crop up can easily game a system that's based on trust and empathy; however, given our tribal pasts (~10,000 years ago or more), it seems to have been our natural default at one time. Because of this, I'd never recommend it as a form of governing anything larger than a village.
I always thought Marx's philosophies were sort of fascinating even though I thought they were definitely wrong. Not because communism the way he envisioned it was ever inherently evil or oppressive, but because Marx seemed to utterly fail to account for human nature and communist governance failed to scale up to large populations. As Denny said it works for Kibbutzes and the like where everybody is already committed to a common cause or ideal, it breaks down quickly when it's used as a truncheon to compel obedience or remove dissent.
Well said. Repped. I'm not opposed to communalism, where you have a choice whether or not to participate. I am, however, deeply opposed to communism for the reasons you stated above and several others.
It seems to me that any utopian philosophy is going to be far too flawed for our complexities. Marxism, Nazism, anarchism even libertarianism and capitalism all paint a picture that is beautiful but too simplistic to really work. The best form of governance will end up being something that takes bits and pieces from everywhere and builds a complex backdrop like our current constitution. It's not done, it's not perfect, but what we have is pretty darn nice and better than any utopian ideal would turn out.
I guess that any system that minorly ticks off everyone fairly equally without royally pissing off too many of one type of person is the best system of governance possible. Perfect is the enemy of good, and in government, it's impossible to achieve, anyway.
I believe in aligning incentives in government that make all the good things easy and pleasant and all the bad things hard and sucky. Therefore, if you want to serve your countries in the armed forces, you should receive all sorts of lifetime benefits. If you want to participate in welfare or some kind of government assistance, you should feel shackled and limited, meaning you eat the food you're given or there's a limited menu, you live in the housing provided, you have to do something if you get welfare (work, training, etc.) all of which incentivizes you to get the hell out of the system.
Fascist and Communist are both socialist-Marxist forms of government. Fascist focus on a Nation to make superior, Communist strive for a global system which is really odd as it only works well when everyone is personally know to each other. (like the Kibbutz referenced above). Benito Mussolini was the first Fascist and he was a member of the Communist Party before he focused on the Nation of Italy to up its standing in the world. Hitler came behind him in Germany/Austria following the same idea converting all the Communist to his National Socialist Party to use the Fascist model to make Germany the principle Nation and the German People supreme race on earth. Benito Mussolini enlisted the help of Maria Montessori to educate the children differently than there fathers, to be members of society rather than individuals. Woodrow Wilson, the first Progressive(self acknowledged) was quite enamored with Benito's methods. I believe it was he that wanted education to teach the children to be as different from their fathers as possible. Individuals must become member of the greater society. I could go on for many pages but I gather you get the drift.
I get tired of seeing this said. Communes and Kibbutz's are not Communism, they are not government. They are merely family substitutes. You can't learn anything from them about how a type of government type might work for this simple reason that it isn't a government. Without the power of force (jail, death), you learn nothing about human behavior in those systems. And as others have pointed out, scaling becomes an issue.
Except communes, etc are not governments. They don't "scale" because a non government doesn't scale. A government has the power of force over a given geographical area. If it doesn't, it isn't a government. Communes are not governments. They are voluntary family substitutes. And just like families, lots of communes are run is a "each according to his need" philosophy. So what? That has got nothing to do how to design a government. As for Marx not being inherently evil, I disagree. You say he didn't account for human nature. Right. Let's say Marx prescribed that all humans should live in the ocean. That would be an evil idea, regardless of his good intentions or how many great arguments he came up with. The idea is evil because it is counter to human nature.
