Libertarian versus Marxist- equally unreal?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by gnome

Again Libertarians, stop me when I lie.

I believe the response there is that if the company does not offer accident insurance while on the job as a stated benefit of employment, the person is free to seek a job from a competing company that does offer it.

Which is one of those points at which we get to a "Wouldn't it be nice if..." fantasy of that particular ideology.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which is one of those points at which we get to a "Wouldn't it be nice if..." fantasy of that particular ideology.

Correct me if I´m wrong, but was the situation "Take this job, or you are reducing to begging, and your daughters to prostitution" rather than "Take the horrible job at this mine, or the wonderful job at the other mine"?

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which is one of those points at which we get to a "Wouldn't it be nice if..." fantasy of that particular ideology.

Indeed. That hypothetical also presupposes that there are competing companies that offer accident insurance. How that would make that company competitive with those companies that don't off insurance is another matter entirely.

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by Virus

I would say that Marxists are worse because they killed 100,000,000 people and capitalism is superior to the laughably inefficient and retarded economies that Marxists created.

Stop with how many people Marxism killed. Arguably capitalism has just as much blood on its hands. However, in terms of economic efficiency, capitalism is far better than communism, and when cheap labor is available it can also provide an affordable high standard of living. I would also like to add that Nazi Germany practice a commonly abused word in American politics "fascism." Fascism is the combination of state and corporate power under the guise of hyper nationalism. Fascism is indeed a nationalistic form of capitalism. So if you want to argue that Marxism is responsible for "x" amount of deaths then you must also argue that capitalism is also responsible for "x" amount of deaths. Not to mention the extermination or captivity of several hundreds of millions of indigenous deaths, ESPECIALLY when Leopold was over the Congo that was a humanitarian crisis if I ever saw one.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Correct me if I´m wrong, but was the situation "Take this job, or you are reducing to begging, and your daughters to prostitution" rather than "Take the horrible job at this mine, or the wonderful job at the other mine"?

No other mine would have taken him after his accident since he couldn't mine (that's ignoring the fact that it was usual at the time that if you were dismissed by any mine you would not be employed by another mine - blacklisting). But even prior to his accident his choice would have been between criminal activities, starving or taking any job he could. Which in the area pretty much meant a choice between the mill or pit.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Massive famines were caused by people trying to stop Marxism? Care to back that up?



It's not Stalin's paranoia that concerns me. It's what actually happened to people. And people actually starved to death in vast numbers. So your comparison in nonsense.

Well, then make up your mind, I should say. Either you care enough about the causes to blame Marxism and then yes, it matters if it actually was Marxism that caused it or what, or you don't care about the causes and then you can also stop it with the blaming Marxism as a cause. One or the other. Just doing canned talking points while refusing to be concerned with the actual causes and conditions isn't a valid analysis any way I want to slice it.

Not being interested in what caused it, but just wanting to link it to Marxism because it happened in an... erm... actually Stalinist state, is at best the guilt by association fallacy.

The fact is that Stalin's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism. There isn't a single paragraph in Marx or even Lenin that says "starve one population to industrialize another", not the very least, because Marxism assumed that any country which switched to socialism would be already massively industrialized.

What it does resemble however is other acts of oppressive dictators and puppet governments that happened regardless of political orientation. E.g., the genocide of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia in the mid 60's was done in the name of stopping communism, and definitely not by Marxists. E.g., the Phoenix Program in South Vietnam, with the US's blessing, actually demanded more people be killed (most without any trial or any checks to make sure they were even communists and not just revenge on political opponents) per capita and year than even Stalin's purges. And again it was done in the name of stopping communism.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Beat

Cool. I've already read it. Now, past your assumption, I was answering your assertion that Hong Kong's free market is very productive (you brought up GDP). What you are forgetting to include is the a lot of the products and services in Hong Kong are sold illegally. You (hopefully) and I both know that bootleg products are at least a little bit of a problem in HK. Giving people a book to help them find scams isn't really working, either. Do you think they should do anything else about it, and if so, what?

Do you have any evidence that Hong Kong's economy grew BECAUSE of bootlegging? There are many, many countries that have little or no controls over knock-offs being produced, but none of them have experienced the incredible economic growth that Hong Kong has. What Hong Kong has, that the other countries don't is an economy ranked as the world's most free.

Originally Posted by Toke

I were referring to the Irish famine, there were no government ban on food exports. The food merchants "motivation to care for themselves and their loved ones" by exporting food gave a less than perfect outcome for the rest of the population.

How? How do you feel that this motivation caused famine?

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Yes, you've stated that, but it doesn't make it true. It's actually wrong. Full tilt communism is supposed to work that way. Socialism even as imagined by Marx, plus in every single country that called itself socialist, was always still supposed to work by incentives, including different incomes, bonuses, promotions, etc. So yes, you actually described socialism too. It's that generic and uninformative.

Nope. In practice, pay in communist countries was not linked to performance...but instead to fulfillment of quotas that were not adequately researched, assigned or enforced. That's why hotels in China, for one example, tended to claim to be fully booked even when they were half-empty. You're also confusing the pre-communist stage that most "communist countries" were stuck in with the end-goal of Marxist theory. It's cute though, that in the process of arguing you're attempting to define socialism out of existence.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

How? How do you feel that this motivation caused famine?

Are you being deliberately dense?

How about you explain the libertarian ideological merits in not banning food exports from a starving country.
Or are you some kind of socialist that would have mitigated the starvation by interfering in the food merchants right to do business as they saw fit?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, then make up your mind, I should say. Either you care enough about the causes to blame Marxism and then yes, it matters if it actually was Marxism that caused it or what, or you don't care about the causes and then you can also stop it with the blaming Marxism as a cause. One or the other. Just doing canned talking points while refusing to be concerned with the actual causes and conditions isn't a valid analysis any way I want to slice it.

A consistent pattern of brutal oppression exists with every single Marxist revolution. Attempts to blame those consistent results on something other than their common feature of Marxism don't really interest me. It's just a way to avoid the obvious.

Quote:

The fact is that Stalin's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism.

And Mao's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism. And Castro's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism. And Che Guevara's Marxism had nothing to do with Marxism. And Kim Il Sung's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism. And Pol Pot's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism.

Quite the coincidence we've got here. Maybe next time it will work out OK.

Quote:

There isn't a single paragraph in Marx or even Lenin that says "starve one population to industrialize another", not the very least, because Marxism assumed that any country which switched to socialism would be already massively industrialized.

And yet, it just keeps working out that way. Poor Marx.

Quote:

What it does resemble however is other acts of oppressive dictators

That might be relevant if I was trying to claim that Marxism is unique in its brutality. But since I didn't...

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That might be relevant if I was trying to claim that Marxism is unique in its brutality. But since I didn't...

You get thinking about Allende and Pinochet, one were somewhat pink, the other a brutal dictator. Iran is another example.

I think you are getting confused because revolutions tend to be violent and most recent ones have been marxist inspired. They have also been big countries and there have been great effort to vilify* them in the west.

If you abandoned the ideological bias you would likely find that all dictatorships abuse their populations and that facistoid capitalism is quite common among them.


*And a tendency to ignore the excesses of allied dictatorships.

[Darat]

Could it be explained why Somali can't be used to illustrate problems with the ideology of libertarianism but Hong Kong can be used to illustrate the success of the ideology of libertarianism?

I thought the objection against using Somali is that there was no attempt to create a society based on the ideology of libertarianism? If that is so the same objection can be applied to Hong Kong i.e. there was no attempt to create a society based on the ideology of libertarianism.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Toke

You get thinking about Allende and Pinochet, one were somewhat pink, the other a brutal dictator. Iran is another example.

I think you are getting confused because revolutions tend to be violent and most recent ones have been marxist inspired. They have also been big countries and there have been great effort to vilify* them in the west.

If you abandoned the ideological bias you would likely find that all dictatorships abuse their populations and that facistoid capitalism is quite common among them.


*And a tendency to ignore the excesses of allied dictatorships.

Umm... what?

This response makes no sense. It's like you're arguing with a totally different person, even though you quoted me. I've never claimed that only Marxists are brutal. I'm quite aware of the fact that dictatorships of pretty much every stripe are brutal. But the thing is, every single Marxist implementation ends up as a brutal dictatorship. The obvious conclusion is that there's something intrinsic to Marxism that leads it there every single time. You have not presented any counterargument to this argument of mine.

As to capitalism, first off, capitalism is not synonymous with libertarianism, and this thread was started to compare Marxism with libertarianism, not capitalism. But even if we're comparing Marxism with capitalism, the fact is that capitalist implementations, while sometimes dictatorships, are frequently not. Capitalism may not preclude brutal oppression, but it's also quite clear (by many counterexamples) that such brutal oppression is in no way intrinsic to capitalism. And this distinguishes it from Marxism.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

I thought the objection against using Somali is that there was no attempt to create a society based on the ideology of libertarianism? If that is so the same objection can be applied to Hong Kong i.e. there was no attempt to create a society based on the ideology of libertarianism.

Sure. Hong Kong is an illustration of the success of capitalism, not libertarianism. There's significant overlap, but they aren't synonymous.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

A consistent pattern of brutal oppression exists with every single Marxist revolution. Attempts to blame those consistent results on something other than their common feature of Marxism don't really interest me. It's just a way to avoid the obvious.

As opposed to what? As opposed to your refusing to even discuss anything that could contradict your guilt by association attempt?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And Mao's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism. And Castro's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism. And Che Guevara's Marxism had nothing to do with Marxism. And Kim Il Sung's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism. And Pol Pot's brutality had nothing to do with Marxism.

Quite the coincidence we've got here. Maybe next time it will work out OK.

Requiring one to not notice that similar atrocities were committed by Diem, and by Sukarno, and by Papa Doc Duvalier, and by Augusto Pinochet, and by Ion Antonescu, and by a bunch of other self-proclaimed ANTI-communists. And for that matter that the only actual common denominator is unchecked power in the service of some agenda (which, again, for Stalin it wasn't even particularly about Marxism), rather than any particular economic ideology.

But generally, by that logic, Stalin was a man, Mao was a man, Castro was a man, Che Guevara was a man, and Kim Il Sung was a man, and Mussolini was a man, and Papa Doc Duvalier was a man, and so on. Quite the coincidence you have there, eh?

Do you understand now why you can't just pick whatever trait you wish and do a cum hoc ergo propter hoc?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And yet, it just keeps working out that way. Poor Marx.

It keeps working that way because that's what happens when you give an extremist unchecked power, regardless of economic views. When someone is extremist enough about an ideology to lead an armed revolt or coup in its name, big whopping surprise if they still keep being an extremist afterwards.

It worked just as well for any extremists, and any ideology, including

- communism

- anti-communism (see Augusto Pinochet in Chile and several others)

- nationalism (see Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti)

- religion (see the Taliban or Iran)

Etc.

Tarring all Marxists with the same brush as Stalin and Mao is just as silly as tarring all right-wingers with the same brush as Pinochet, Sukharno and Diem.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That might be relevant if I was trying to claim that Marxism is unique in its brutality. But since I didn't...

It is relevant if the actual common denominator in brutal dictatorships is something entirely different.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure. Hong Kong is an illustration of the success of capitalism, not libertarianism. There's significant overlap, but they aren't synonymous.

Then that would mean it should be discounted as an example to illustrate the ideology of libertarianism, if the same logic is applied to both countries.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Then that would mean it should be discounted as an example to illustrate the ideology of libertarianism, if the same logic is applied to both countries.

I would say so.

Does that surprise you? I said from the beginning that I think libertarianism fails in the real world. But I also said that the failure mechanism for libertarianism is completely different than the failure mechanism for ideologies like Marxism. Libertarian states will simply stop being libertarian. No bloodbath is necessary, people just start implementing non-libertarian policies and that's it.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Umm... what?

This response makes no sense. It's like you're arguing with a totally different person, even though you quoted me. I've never claimed that only Marxists are brutal. I'm quite aware of the fact that dictatorships of pretty much every stripe are brutal. But the thing is, every single Marxist implementation ends up as a brutal dictatorship. The obvious conclusion is that there's something intrinsic to Marxism that leads it there every single time. You have not presented any counterargument to this argument of mine.

As to capitalism, first off, capitalism is not synonymous with libertarianism, and this thread was started to compare Marxism with libertarianism, not capitalism. But even if we're comparing Marxism with capitalism, the fact is that capitalist implementations, while sometimes dictatorships, are frequently not. Capitalism may not preclude brutal oppression, but it's also quite clear (by many counterexamples) that such brutal oppression is in no way intrinsic to capitalism. And this distinguishes it from Marxism.

I were trying to point out how revolutions tend to be violent, and point to examples of elected "Marxist" who did not suppress their populations.

BTW: I understand libertarianism to be capitalism without a government to limit the excesses resulting from e.g. uneven power distribution between employer and employees.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I would say so.

Does that surprise you? ...snip...

No.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I would say so.

Does that surprise you? I said from the beginning that I think libertarianism fails in the real world. But I also said that the failure mechanism for libertarianism is completely different than the failure mechanism for ideologies like Marxism. Libertarian states will simply stop being libertarian. No bloodbath is necessary, people just start implementing non-libertarian policies and that's it.

The strikes and lockouts were sometimes rather bloody.
There are still places where union organiser is a risky job.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

As opposed to what? As opposed to your refusing to even discuss anything that could contradict your guilt by association attempt?

I'd be fascinated to hear your explanation for why every single example of Marxism ends in violence and oppression. Please, do tell us all about how it's just a coincidence, it's never been done right, but next time they're sure to pull it off without all that violence.

Quote:

Requiring one to not notice that similar atrocities were committed by Diem, and by Sukarno, and by Papa Doc Duvalier, and by Augusto Pinochet, and by Ion Antonescu, and by a bunch of other self-proclaimed ANTI-communists.

You can notice it all you want to. But it contradicts nothing I've said. And it doesn't absolve Marxists of their own violence either.

Quote:

But generally, by that logic, Stalin was a man, Mao was a man, Castro was a man, Che Guevara was a man, and Kim Il Sung was a man, and Mussolini was a man, and Papa Doc Duvalier was a man, and so on. Quite the coincidence you have there, eh?

It might be, if not for the fact that George Washington was a man, Winston Churchill was a man, etc. Notice what I can do with your comparison: I can provide counterexamples. Those counterexamples disprove the claim that being male leads heads of state to become oppressive tyrants. Where are the counterexamples of Marxists who got it right? There are none.

Quote:

It keeps working that way because that's what happens when you give an extremist unchecked power, regardless of economic views.

Evidently the only Marxists who ever come to power are extremists with unchecked power. You've come up with a mechanism for how Marxism fails, but since that failure is still consistent, we're still back to concluding that there's something wrong with Marxism that it always fails by this same mechanism. The fact that other ideologies can also fail by this mechanism doesn't actually fix Marxism. Nor does it matter to my argument that Marxism is not unique in being a failure.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Toke

BTW: I understand libertarianism to be capitalism without a government to limit the excesses resulting from e.g. uneven power distribution between employer and employees.

Mainstream libertarianism still requires government to protect property rights and enforce contracts. These are noticeably lacking in Somalia, for example.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Mainstream libertarianism still requires government to protect property rights and enforce contracts. These are noticeably lacking in Somalia, for example.

Yes, I agree on that one. Somalia is more An-Cap paradise than libertopia.

I was wondering if Marxist can't be True-Marxist^TM if they are elected?

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I said "most" of the prisons, come on, you can do it, quote someone accurately for once without trying to sneakily delete words to make their statement less reasonable. Then you might make a worthwhile reply.

Which word did I sneakily delete? I quoted "most". My quote was an exact quote, compare them again if you have to.

Quote:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=netherlands+runs+out+of+criminals

Doesn't lead directly to any reliable source. It took some effort to find the original source of the claim. Looks to me more like a modest readjustment in prison capacity rather than a dramatic "running out of criminals". We had some problems with under capacity in the 90s, new prisons were built and prison policies were changed, and now we have a slight over capacity. There is also no connection at all with drug policy or prostitution; the decriminalisation (not legalisation!) of cannabis and the legalisation of prostitution happened way before this "running out of criminals" and did not even prevent the minor crime wave in the 1990s.

Quote:

Stopped offering them medical help?

What else does "victimless crime" mean then? In the Netherlands drug related crimes are not considered "victimless crimes"; we consider drug addicts victims. And that's why they are offered medical attention, just like we do to accident victims or victims of disease. If we were to stop considering them as victims, what do you expect us to do then?

Quote:

From each according to his contribution provide nothing to those who can contribute nothing. That's not socialism according to any functional understanding, neither in theory nor in practice

It is what Marx called socialism; he believed that it would provide such effective incentives to produce that soon most workers would have enough to voluntarily provide for those who contribute nothing.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Toke

BTW: I understand libertarianism to be capitalism without a government unable/unwilling to limit the excesses resulting from e.g. uneven power distribution between employer and employees.

Clarified.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Toke

Are you being deliberately dense?

No, I'm trying to understand your dense question. It's not always clear what your silly misunderstanding and assumptions are.

Quote:

How about you explain the libertarian ideological merits in not banning food exports from a starving country.
Or are you some kind of socialist that would have mitigated the starvation by interfering in the food merchants right to do business as they saw fit?

Not banning food exports from a starving country? WHY is the country starving in the first place? Did you ever bother to think about that? Do you understand the role of charity in a free market economy?

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Darat

Could it be explained why Somali can't be used to illustrate problems with the ideology of libertarianism but Hong Kong can be used to illustrate the success of the ideology of libertarianism?

Yes, and I did so in a thread called The Fundamental Myths of Liberal Economics. It's the very first myth. Re-read it and make an effort to understand and stop repeating it.

Originally Posted by Toke

BTW: I understand libertarianism to be capitalism without a government to limit the excesses resulting from e.g. uneven power distribution between employer and employees.

You don't understand libertarianism. At all. Which doesn't surprise me in the slightest given your question.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Which word did I sneakily delete? I quoted "most". My quote was an exact quote, compare them again if you have to.

I'm going to explain this ONE point to you, because I'm not wasting my time when you fail, purposefully or otherwise, to grasp a single thing that's said to you, and attempt to bog down conversations with willful ignorance, and semantics that are ignorant of the definitions of the words you're trying to quibble over, then once the person has wasted their time linking you to definitions and sources, you try to ignore it and bring other useless nonsense. So I will EXPLAIN one thing and I will not move on until you demonstrate an understanding.

I said that they ran out of criminals to fill most of their prisons...you replied...

"I live in the Netherlands. I even live in a town where recently a prison has been converted to a luxury hotel (the rooms are kinda small though). I still want to see your evidence that we have run out of criminals to fill our prisons... I was under the impression that the old prison was no longer used because of the big newly built prison just outside of town."

You saying that you have a prison that was replaced in place of a new prison is NOT a response to my claim, because my claim does not make a statement about ALL PRISONS in the Netherlands. If I said "most cats chase mice" and you replied, "my cat doesn't," I would point out that is irrelevant because I was not making a claim that would be counter-evidenced by a SINGLE EXAMPLE. It's a waste of time and a failure to grasp the basic structure of how to respond to something someone says. On top of your "request for evidence" which is nothing but another tactic to waste someone's time since you refused to take 10 seconds to look it up.

Quote:

Doesn't lead directly to any reliable source. It took some effort to find the original source of the claim. Looks to me more like a modest readjustment in prison capacity rather than a dramatic "running out of criminals". We had some problems with under capacity in the 90s, new prisons were built and prison policies were changed, and now we have a slight over capacity. There is also no connection at all with drug policy or prostitution; the decriminalisation (not legalisation!) of cannabis and the legalisation of prostitution happened way before this "running out of criminals" and did not even prevent the minor crime wave in the 1990s.

And here is where you unwittingly acknowledge that you hadn't even bothered to google it in the first place. No more time-wastey for you.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

No, I'm trying to understand your dense question. It's not always clear what your silly misunderstanding and assumptions are.

The problem is in your end.

Quote:

Not banning food exports from a starving country? WHY is the country starving in the first place? Did you ever bother to think about that? Do you understand the role of charity in a free market economy?

Would you mind actually reading the provided link and then elaborate on how/if the disasterous handling of the famine differ from libertarian principles?

And forget private charity, it is a poor substitute for real social policies.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure. Hong Kong is an illustration of the success of capitalism, not libertarianism. There's significant overlap, but they aren't synonymous.

Hong Kong shows the effects of a freer market. I also have questions about some libertarian and an-cap policies, ironically though I never get to discuss it very much because of all the strawmen. It wouldn't actually be feasible to have a real discussion of the libertarian theory's strengths and weaknesses on this board without banning or ignoring about a dozen or more people from the thread.

[EGarrett]

Originally Posted by Toke

The problem is in your end.

No, it's not, actually, because I already saw your extraordinarily ignorant interpretation of libertarianism. It's not my role to waste my time teaching you things that you can find for yourself.

Quote:

Would you mind actually reading the provided link and then elaborate on how/if the disasterous handling of the famine differ from libertarian principles?

If a bad government policy creates the famine in the first place, then that is not a situation that would likely occur in a libertarian country. Secondly, if there's a demand for something and a proper market is able to exist (though I already know that you have no grasp at all of what I mean by "proper market" and I won't be wasting more time explaining it). Re: The article. As I've said to others, why should I spend my time when you don't even know the basic tenets of libertarianism that can be found in a minute? I wrote a thread called "the fundamental myths of liberal economics," you would do well to skim through it. If you thus demonstrate that you are not willfully ignorant, then I will be happy to clarify the issues for you.

Quote:

And forget private charity, it is a poor substitute for real social policies.

No.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

No, it's not, actually, because I already saw your extraordinarily ignorant interpretation of libertarianism. It's not my role to waste my time teaching you things that you can find for yourself.

If a bad government policy creates the famine in the first place, then that is not a situation that would likely occur in a libertarian country. Secondly, if there's a demand for something and a proper market is able to exist (though I already know that you have no grasp at all of what I mean by "proper market" and I won't be wasting more time explaining it). Re: The article. As I've said to others, why should I spend my time when you don't even know the basic tenets of libertarianism that can be found in a minute? I wrote a thread called "the fundamental myths of liberal economics," you would do well to skim through it. If you thus demonstrate that you are not willfully ignorant, then I will be happy to clarify the issues for you.

No.

I did read your "manifesto".
You are spewing a load of blather to avoid explaining why a million people starved to death in perfect accordance with your minimal government and trust in the marked and private charity instead of government intervention.

(How would a good/bad government cause a potato blight?)

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

You saying that you have a prison that was replaced in place of a new prison is NOT a response to my claim

I said no such thing.

Quote:

If I said "most cats chase mice" and you replied, "my cat doesn't," I would point out that is irrelevant because I was not making a claim that would be counter-evidenced by a SINGLE EXAMPLE.

My response would be more similar to "my cat does chase mice, but I still want evidence that most cats do".

The example of the prison in my home town is not a counter example; it is an example that might support your claim that prisons are being converted to other purposes. I fail to see why you are making such a big deal out of it.

Quote:

And here is where you unwittingly acknowledge that you hadn't even bothered to google it in the first place. No more time-wastey for you.

It looks like you didn't bother to look it up either, and it was your claim.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

What exactly then is YOUR realistic poltical outlook?

Personally, I favor a mild socialism where there is private enterprise, but a safety net for health, retirement, and basic human dignity, and sufficient regulation to be certain that excess greed does not hurt the individuals or the society. It would be a balance of allowing financial incentives (exploiting the mild greed we all have) to encourage enterprise and creativity, but avoiding the excesses that lead to disasters. It's an approach that has worked pretty well in various forms, sometimes more capitalistic and sometimes more socialistic. Pretty boring, huh?

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Marx's statement was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

By definition, you receive the amount you are believed to need no matter how much you actually create for others. My characterization was, you receive the same amount no matter how much you provide for others.

How is that a strawman?

Marx's position is ridiculous enough without you misrepresenting it. His idea was that in a post-scarcity society, people would produce because they enjoy producing, and there would be no need to have something like capitalism or a state to divide goods between people.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'd be fascinated to hear your explanation for why every single example of Marxism ends in violence and oppression. Please, do tell us all about how it's just a coincidence, it's never been done right, but next time they're sure to pull it off without all that violence.

Marxism with modifications, i.e. social democracy, has worked well in this placec called "Europe". There's good reason for why most social democrats don't call themselves Marxist and that's because they disagreed with Marx on a few key issues, but also because people like Lenin made Marxism a somewhat dirty word. Thus only the extremists would be willing to call themselves Marxist. You might argue that Social Democracy is not pure True McMarxism, but on the other hand Leninism, or god forbid, Juche, isn't either.

So what we really have is that Marxism with SOME modifications (e.g. regulated private sector) works terrifically, while Marxism with OTHER modifications (e.g. Lenin's vanguard) work terribly.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by EGarrett

...snip...

I'm asking in this thread so please either provide a link to or a quote of the relevant reasoning.

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Marxism with modifications, i.e. social democracy, has worked well in this placec called "Europe". There's good reason for why most social democrats don't call themselves Marxist and that's because they disagreed with Marx on a few key issues, but also because people like Lenin made Marxism a somewhat dirty word. Thus only the extremists would be willing to call themselves Marxist. You might argue that Social Democracy is not pure True McMarxism, but on the other hand Leninism, or god forbid, Juche, isn't either.

So what we really have is that Marxism with SOME modifications (e.g. regulated private sector) works terrifically, while Marxism with OTHER modifications (e.g. Lenin's vanguard) work terribly.

Truth

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Marxism with modifications, i.e. social democracy, has worked well in this placec called "Europe". There's good reason for why most social democrats don't call themselves Marxist and that's because they disagreed with Marx on a few key issues, but also because people like Lenin made Marxism a somewhat dirty word. Thus only the extremists would be willing to call themselves Marxist. You might argue that Social Democracy is not pure True McMarxism, but on the other hand Leninism, or god forbid, Juche, isn't either.

So what we really have is that Marxism with SOME modifications (e.g. regulated private sector) works terrifically, while Marxism with OTHER modifications (e.g. Lenin's vanguard) work terribly.

Of course, one could also argue that social democracy is Capitalism with some modifications, i.e. wearing a leash and muzzle.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Evidently the only Marxists who ever come to power are extremists with unchecked power.

Actually, no. The only Marxist who have come to power so far, really came to power via a bloody revolution that installed a dictator who's been leading the killing to that point. Whop-de-do big flipping surprise that they weren't nice guys.

But extrapolating from a biased and limited existing sample to every possible Marxist is bogus.

E.g., equally in the ancient times you could say that each time the slaves overthrew their masters, it ended up a chaotic bloodbath, so clearly it's wrong to not continue slavery. Every single example they had, was supporting that idea. Extrapolating would still be false though, as history later showed.

E.g., in the 18'th century you could conclude that every railroad ever tried (A) is slower and smellier than a horse, and (B) unprofitable for carrying people. But you now know that an extrapolation would be false.

E.g., in the early 20'th century one could conclude, and many HAVE concluded that it's impossible to make a car that's safe for people in an accident, because, you know, the human body tends to be more fragile than steel. Every car that had been ever tried, tended to be a deathtrap at any speed above what you could do on foot. But then it turns out that one can do things differently. An extrapolation based on what has been, would have still been wrong.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You've come up with a mechanism for how Marxism fails, but since that failure is still consistent, we're still back to concluding that there's something wrong with Marxism that it always fails by this same mechanism. The fact that other ideologies can also fail by this mechanism doesn't actually fix Marxism. Nor does it matter to my argument that Marxism is not unique in being a failure.

But that's the whole point: that mode of failure is not specific to Marxism and has nothing to do with Marxism. The real moral is: don't install a dictator, regardless of ideology.

Sure, if you can't figure out another way than a dictatorship for Marxism, then refrain from Marxism too, because you'll end up disliking the dictatorship real fast. But that's a different issue at its heart than Marxist vs non-Marxist. It's simply dictatorship vs democracy.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Of course, one could also argue that social democracy is Capitalism with some modifications, i.e. wearing a leash and muzzle.

Yes, and there seem to be general agreement that a mixed economy is the way to go, as the two extremes works rather poorly.
As for the topic.
Ziggurat is arguing that marxism is by far the worst due to spectacular failures of the dictatorships trying it.
Egarrett appear to argue that libertarianism would actually work well, in spite of history showing otherwise.