"i Am A Marxist," Says The Dalai Lama

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' date='24 May 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1274758340' post='2117028']
If by that you mean that they are wrong, then I agree.
[/quote]
Not only that they're wrong, but that the "arguably, redeemable elements of Marxism" that you mentioned, are in fact either contrary to pure Marxism, or if not, iredeemable.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 May 2010 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1274759621' post='2117047']
Not only that they're wrong, but that the "arguably, redeemable elements of Marxism" that you mentioned, are in fact either contrary to pure Marxism, or if not, iredeemable.
[/quote]

I'm sorry?

[jeffpugh]

I'd be afraid of the pure-capitalism venture. It would inevitably be destructive against humans in the name of profit gain.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='24 May 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1274764663' post='2117094']
I'd be afraid of the pure-capitalism venture. It would inevitably be destructive against humans in the name of profit gain.
[/quote]

some regulation is always required. for example, the recent disaster in the Gulf with BP, the meat and food industry, etc

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' date='24 May 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1274760193' post='2117054']
I'm sorry?
[/quote]
Sorry. Maybe I'm unclear.

The way I see it, anything that could be salvaged from Marxism, anything that could be construed as a good element is in fact either contrary to pure Marxism, or actually not a good element, but rather just as evil as the entire philosophy.

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='nunsense' date='24 May 2010 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1274706390' post='2116484']
To hear him speak costs $100 per ticket? He very adroitly side steps this issue by saying that he has nothing to do with it and yet still it costs a hundred bucks...... hmmmm .... doesn't sound very Marxist to me, sounds very capitalist.
[/quote]

That's because Marxism is for the people, not the Marxist.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 May 2010 - 01:19 AM' timestamp='1274764776' post='2117096']
Sorry. Maybe I'm unclear.

The way I see it, anything that could be salvaged from Marxism, anything that could be construed as a good element is in fact either contrary to pure Marxism, or actually not a good element, but rather just as evil as the entire philosophy.
[/quote]


I think that is much to broad. Marxism's worldview is, eschatologically, structurally a sort of secularized, quasi-Hegelian Christianity. After the revolution, Marxisms replacement of the return of Christ, we will have a world free of class exploitation, social injustice and the like. Marxisms vision of a moral economics is vaguely noble. Analytically Marx did make genuine contributions. He helped pioneer a scientific, economic interpretation of social phenomena. He helped establish demonstrate how a subjugated class can be socially indoctrinated or persuaded to actively work against its own self-interest.

The morally laudable aspects of his world view are simultaneously generic and Utopian to be sure, but they are there. The genuine analytical insights he has given to the social sciences are also there, though buried among many mistaken ones. It is just when these genuine analytical tools and insights are merged with his generic Utopianism into an intellectually vapid and pseudo-scientific ideology that the problem occurs.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='24 May 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1274726215' post='2116619']
because Communism in russia, china, etc has been a distorted view of Marxism, taking what it likes from it, then filling the rest in with tyranny.[/quote]
Yes, undoubtedly if the Communists had only followed the letter of Karl Marx more closely, everything would have been beautiful.

[quote]so far, political systems affecting Marxist policies havent really worked out, but then capitalism hasnt exactly been a bucket full or roses and rainbows either, it just happens to have sucked less.[/quote]
The fact is that Marxists countries have been a disaster on every level, while "capitalism" (eg. free market economies) has produced the greatest material prosperity the world has ever known. There is a proven correlation between economic freedom and a country's standard of living.

No, there is no country in this fallen world where everything is perfect, but trying to say that free market capitalism works no better than Marxism is just plain ignorant.

[quote]To which you might say "well thats because it hasnt been pure capitalism, they are doing it wrong etc" at which point you should realize that is what people are saying about marxism, and at least try and figure that out.
[/quote]
I really don't like the word "capitalism," as it's a loaded and ill-defined term. I prefer to talk about free market economies, which is not some "superior" ideology program of economic planning, but simply the acknowledgment of the fact that free agreements between buyer and seller in the market works more effectively towards the economic benefit of all than government planning and price-setting.
It is true that we do not currently have a true pure free market system. In fact, centralized government banking in the form of the Fed is the single greatest cause of our economic crisis, which was caused essentially by government price-setting on money (Fed lending and interest rates), creating an artificial boom and subsequent bust in the housing market.
I don't think giving the government more power over economics is going to clean up the mess it created.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='25 May 2010 - 01:19 AM' timestamp='1274764746' post='2117095']
some regulation is always required. for example, the recent disaster in the Gulf with BP, the meat and food industry, etc
[/quote]
Because government can never screw anything up.

If only management of BP's oil-drilling operations had been in the hands of the government, we would have never had that disaster.

If we could only just place all industrial operations directly under the direction of the government, all such operations would be models of safety, efficiency, and environmental soundness. Just like in the old USSR.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' date='25 May 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1274810100' post='2117322']
Yes, undoubtedly if the Communists had only followed the letter of Karl Marx more closely, everything would have been beautiful.


The fact is that Marxists countries have been a disaster on every level, while "capitalism" (eg. free market economies) has produced the greatest material prosperity the world has ever known. There is a proven correlation between economic freedom and a country's standard of living.

No, there is no country in this fallen world where everything is perfect, but trying to say that free market capitalism works no better than Marxism is just plain ignorant.
[/quote]

lol, sarcasm. no i doubt it would have been beautiful, but a good bit of the things that were wrong with communism would have likely been smaller or not happened.

i wouldnt say every level. while in many cases communism has brought the average level of living down, it has also fed, clothed and housed the lowest among them, something our glorious free market is moving farther away from.
its probably the only thing making sure most of China doesnt starve, however terrible the rest of it is over there.

i did say that capitalism has so far sucked less. which means marxism has worked out worse. no ignorance there.

[quote]
I really don't like the word "capitalism," as it's a loaded and ill-defined term. I prefer to talk about free market economies, which is not some "superior" ideology program of economic planning, but simply the acknowledgment of the fact that free agreements between buyer and seller in the market works more effectively towards the economic benefit of all than government planning and price-setting.
It is true that we do not currently have a true pure free market system. In fact, centralized government banking in the form of the Fed is the single greatest cause of our economic crisis, which was caused essentially by government price-setting on money (Fed lending and interest rates), creating an artificial boom and subsequent bust in the housing market.
I don't think giving the government more power over economics is going to clean up the mess it created.
[/quote]

dont forget how all the freedom to trade money and debt that didnt actually exist helped out with that mess. that made a lot of short term money, something free markets love, but royally tanked in the long term.

[quote name='Socrates' date='25 May 2010 - 11:00 AM' timestamp='1274810439' post='2117324']
Because government can never screw anything up.

If only management of BP's oil-drilling operations had been in the hands of the government, we would have never had that disaster.

If we could only just place all industrial operations directly under the direction of the government, all such operations would be models of safety, efficiency, and environmental soundness. Just like in the old USSR.
[/quote]

just cause they screw some stuff up doesnt mean they shouldnt try other things. would you be happy with no regulations on food products, or energy, etc where screwups damage or end lives?
i wouldnt be happy letting the free market sort out how well butchers should sterilize their tools, etc. cause enough people would need to die before boycotts would eventually force them out of business that it would not be worth it.
Companies will only ever do the least amount of good/safety/etc as possible without something keeping them in line.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' date='25 May 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1274810100' post='2117322']
Yes, undoubtedly if the Communists had only followed the letter of Karl Marx more closely, everything would have been beautiful.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it would have been considerably better because here never would have tried to build a proletariat revolutionary class in an agrarian society with almost no proletariat. Many of the worst excesses of the communist regimes came from the attempt of the leaders to force their nations into the mold of what Marx hypothesized would be a state fit for the proletariat dictatorship.


[QUOTE]The fact is that Marxists countries have been a disaster on every level, while "capitalism" (eg. free market economies) has produced the greatest material prosperity the world has ever known. [/QUOTE]

Actually, Russia is a counterexample to both these claims. The Soviet union was able to force industrialization and development in a way never before possible in Russian history. Russia's rapid development from an agrarian society to a major industrial power was the result of the Soviet system. Same for the widespread access to education, health care and the basic necessities of life. It is not an exaggeration to say that absent the factor of the Soviet system of collectivization it is not entirely clear how WWII would have been resolved. I don't know who can say how America would have fared against Nazi German absent the Soviet factor on the eastern front. It certainly would have been a much more protracted and bloody war for America.

That does not, in my opinion, outweigh the horrors of Stalinism and Leninism, however your categorical claim is historically unfounded.

As regards to capitalism. If Russia has yet recovered the standard of living that Russian citizens enjoyed under the Soviet Union, then this was accomplished in the not to distant future. The mass privatization and 'shock-therapy' programs introduced by free-market fundamentalists unto Russia was an economic disaster of almost unprecedented proportions.

Free markets can be vital to producing wealth, enabling social mobility and preserving individual liberties. Ideologically driven free-market fundamentalism, however, can be morally and materially disastrous. Anyone who doubts this need only study Russia during the 90's.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='25 May 2010 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1274812668' post='2117346']
lol, sarcasm. no i doubt it would have been beautiful, but a good bit of the things that were wrong with communism would have likely been smaller or not happened.[/quote]
Could you explain with examples, please?

[quote]i wouldnt say every level. while in many cases communism has brought the average level of living down, it has also fed, clothed and housed the lowest among them, something our glorious free market is moving farther away from.
its probably the only thing making sure most of China doesnt starve, however terrible the rest of it is over there.[/quote]
Oh, indeed?

The poor's standard of living in "capitalist' countries remains considerably higher than those in most Communist countries.
In North Korea, one of the very few remaining countries with a purely Communist Marxist economy, starvation has been a reality for the poor in recent years following bad crops.

I'd like to see where you get your information regarding comparative poverty in free-market vs. Communist countries.

China has abandoned old-style economic Marxism, and has adapted many "capitalist" economic policies, being now economically Communist-in-name-only (though its government remains oppressive and abusive). China's increased economic freedom has actually led to a significantly higher standard of living for many Chinese citizens, and has one of the world's fastest-growing middle classes.
China still has plenty of problems, but greater economic freedom, not Marxism, is what has helped improve the lot of its poor.

Your claim that Marxism is the only thing keeping its people from starving is just bizarre.
In neighboring North Korea, which still practices doctrinaire Marxist communism, plenty of people do starve (not to mention those languishing in gulags).

Of course, at least in America, we're moving more and more away from a "glorious free market," and moving more and more towards statist socialism. That's very bad news in the long run.

[quote]
i did say that capitalism has so far sucked less. which means marxism has worked out worse. no ignorance there.[/quote]
Agreed.



[quote]dont forget how all the freedom to trade money and debt that didnt actually exist helped out with that mess. that made a lot of short term money, something free markets love, but royally tanked in the long term.
[/quote]
And where did that money that really didn't exist come from?

That's right, kids, the Federal Reserve.
The fed essentially creates money out of nothing by "lending" to the major banks by buying securities from the banks. It sets the interest rate, which is essentially a government price control on the money supply. By keeping interest rates artificially low, the Fed created excessive demand for housing loans, which did not reflect the actual market housing demand and the supply of saved resources, and this led to excessive investment in the housing bubble, which soon burst. In a true free market, interest rates would reflect actual This problem was compounded by the government-backed Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which insured loans not backed up by anything real.
When major banks and businesses failed, the government bailed them out by lending them more money not backed up by anything in reality.
For details, you should read, [url="http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274898141&sr=1-1"][i]Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse[/i][/url], by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Thus, the government acts as an enabler for big businesses to engage in unsound and unethical practices which would lead them to fail in a true free market.
That's a reason I prefer to use the term "free market" instead of "capitalist." I'm no fan of the currently-practiced "crony capitalism," also known as "corporate welfare."


[quote]just cause they screw some stuff up doesnt mean they shouldnt try other things. would you be happy with no regulations on food products, or energy, etc where screwups damage or end lives?
i wouldnt be happy letting the free market sort out how well butchers should sterilize their tools, etc. cause enough people would need to die before boycotts would eventually force them out of business that it would not be worth it.
Companies will only ever do the least amount of good/safety/etc as possible without something keeping them in line.
[/quote]
But government employees, on the other hand, will act according to only the highest and most noble standards.
Of course.

The recent disaster is certainly not benefiting BP in anyway, and will likely severely hurt the company in the long run (unless government decides to bail them out).
I sincerely doubt government "oversight" of their rigs would have changed anything (other than increased tax dollars). Government employees are just as much prone to incompetence, laziness, and stupidity as those in the private sector, if not more so. Increasing government authority won't prevent costly screw-ups. After all, government-funded NASA blew up space shuttles.

But, yeah, you can always keep believing . . .

Edited May 26, 2010 by Socrates

[Jesus_lol]

[quote]
But government employees, on the other hand, will act according to only the highest and most noble standards.
Of course.

The recent disaster is certainly not benefiting BP in anyway, and will likely severely hurt the company in the long run (unless government decides to bail them out).
I sincerely doubt government "oversight" of their rigs would have changed anything (other than increased tax dollars). Government employees are just as much prone to incompetence, laziness, and stupidity as those in the private sector, if not more so. Increasing government authority won't prevent costly screw-ups. After all, government-funded NASA blew up space shuttles.

But, yeah, you can always keep believing . . .
[/quote]

well, enforcing some things would have helped with the BP disaster. ie, they stated they had the capabilities to take care of a spill of this magnitude, which was obviously false. if the govt. had its croutons together it could have checked that out and hopefully finding it lacking, then denied them the right to start drilling the oil there.

of course, the current govt sure has its share of corruption issues and not acting in the good will of the people. however, at least in design the Govt is set up to be more accountable to the good of the public, than to the good of the shareholders. Companies will not act in the good of the public unless it happens to be profitable, Government ocassionally will. but they arein the pocket of the corporations pockets as well, some of them. Reform could hopefully minimize the corporate run government.

Government funded NASA also did a whole raft of amazing things. most worked out and manyhave benefitted mankind as a whole. it isnt always best to classify something by its failures only.

just home at lunch for now, ill try to get to the rest of your post later.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='26 May 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1274902244' post='2118362']
well, enforcing some things would have helped with the BP disaster. ie, they stated they had the capabilities to take care of a spill of this magnitude, which was obviously false. if the govt. had its croutons together it could have checked that out and hopefully finding it lacking, then denied them the right to start drilling the oil there.[/quote]
Yes, it's very easy to sit back after the disaster and say, "if only the government had done such and such . . ."
However, there's no good reason to believe that government bureaucrats would have done any better a job of finding and fixing the problem with the rig.
Nor is there any reason to assume they would have more interest in doing so that BP.
An oil rig is an immensely expensive investment on the part of the oil company, so obviously it is in the company's best interest that it be in good working order and not leak. BP is paying dearly dearly for this problem, and the rig is certainly not currently bringing them any profit, but huge loss.
So blaming the problem simply on "corporate greed" in need of correction by government oversight does not make sense. There's no reason government officials would be more invested in preventing the problem than BP.
I'm not sure [i]anybody[/i] actually has the capabilities to take care of a spill of that magnitude.
And what exactly makes you think the government would have its c[font="Arial"]ra[/font]p together?

[quote]of course, the current govt sure has its share of corruption issues and not acting in the good will of the people. however, at least in design the Govt is set up to be more accountable to the good of the public, than to the good of the shareholders. Companies will not act in the good of the public unless it happens to be profitable, Government ocassionally will. but they arein the pocket of the corporations pockets as well, some of them. Reform could hopefully minimize the corporate run government.[/quote]
In a sense, shareholders are the public, as almost half of American citizens own shares in public stock. However, private businesses are indeed accountable to the public at large - not just the stockholders, but all stakeholders, which include customers/clients, employees, and anybody affected by the business. If these stakeholders feel a business is not satisfying them, or is screwing them over, they will simply abandon that business, and it will lose business to competitors, lose money, and go bust.
Thus, a private company's very survival depends on them providing effective goods and services to the public.
Government bodies and agencies, on the other hand, usually continue in existence and grow whether they are providing satisfactory service or not, all at taxpayer expense. They do not have to deal with the threat of competition. It's not like citizens can choose to put their tax money elsewhere, if a federal agency is doing a poor job.

Lofty campaign rhetoric to the contrary, politicians are every bit as self-interested as businessmen. There's nothing about being in public office that makes people noble unbiased servants of the common good. Quite the opposite is often true in reality. One need only look at the rampant scandals involving politicians and public officials in both parties. More political "reform" and constant growing and expanding of the federal government has done absolutely nothing to make it better or more just. Trusting in government to watch over business and the economy is trusting the fox to watch over the henhouse.

[quote]Government funded NASA also did a whole raft of amazing things. most worked out and manyhave benefitted mankind as a whole. it isnt always best to classify something by its failures only.[/quote]
My point there wasn't to bash NASA, or belittle its achievements, but simply to point out how government management does not provide any kind of guarantee against costly and dangerous accidents or mechanical failures.
Thinking more government oversight of everything will fix all our problems is naive.

[Innocent]

A related news-item:

[url="http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/28/stories/2010052861681600.htm"][i]THE HINDU[/i], Friday, May 28, 2010: [b]Signs of change emanating within China: Dalai Lama[/b][/url]

Edited May 28, 2010 by Innocent