Comment by Sassan K. on April 1, 2011 at 12:01am

Bottom line is that Marxism and communism in itself was a manifest of religion in its blind following and required faith in a "Utopian system" which defies the logic and nature of human beings.

Comment by Gaytor on April 1, 2011 at 12:11am

Nice.

Marxism is much closer to Jesus than capitalism.

"It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven."

"Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions"

"..when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” 

You speak against a system of group ownership, but what is giving to the Church other than group ownership of capital? What system would you advocate that fights against wealth and poverty at the same time? Where in the Bible does it show Jesus working for a living as an example? In the Good Teacher parable he tells a man to give away his wealth and simply follow him. He doesn't say, "Work hard and save your wares." Clearly sir, either you don't know about the teachings of Jesus, or you simply don't believe him.

Comment by Gaytor on April 1, 2011 at 12:13am

Sassan, how does a Utopian system defy logic?

Comment by Sassan K. on April 1, 2011 at 12:47am

Absolutely not. Communism is definitely a manifest of religion itself. Albert Einstein himself said: "One strength of the Communist system ...is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion and inspires the emotions of a religion." 

 

In addition, communism goes against the basic human instinct of drive and competition. Communism system or "Utopian" system defies logic (to gaytor) due to the fact that is an idealistic system that is not based on rationality, logic, and the basic evolutionary and psychological drive of the human species. Communism limits this drive of hard work, creativeness, innovation, and the progress and advancement of societies. In addition, communism would HAVE to be by force as there is no way people in a society would welcome it ideally and all be honest in this "Utopian" dream. Therefore, it defies logic, rationality, and common sense and is against the nature of human beings. The drive of competition increases all of the aforementioned, taking this drive away creates oppression, tyranny, and eventual dictatorship.

Comment by Sassan K. on April 1, 2011 at 1:37am

You can call it propaganda my friend, but it is the truth. You are right, humans did not possess resources like they did today and were actually much more ruthless in the wild. Instead of the "resources" of such things we value today with our money and wealth, in our primitive times it was manifested through food, power within social group, and women to an even greater extent. Therefore, competition was necessary and is actually the root of natural selection and evolution. Competition and adaptation coincided together for survival and reproductive success. And no, "those" drives are not disputed. They are a part of who we are and as mentioned, contributed to our evolution and progression as a species.

 

As for Einstein, he may not be an authority on communism but he was very intelligent in political matters as well. In fact, he was a sympathizer of communism and his quote wasn't really putting it down. He was putting it as a matter of fact truth.

We can disagree, but that was my 2-cents on the issue and it isn't "propaganda". I study psychology and neuroscience and not only based on my studies but through life experiences and independent reading have come to conclude that the only effective economic system is one that is capitalistic (albeit with regulations) but one that does not punish the rich to give to the poor. This is why America has been the beacon of the free world for so long and our ways are shifting which is causing our downturn to some extent. It is no surprise that countries like China, Russia, and Vietnam are now taking a capitalistic approach through capitalistic measures in their own countries. Communism in the end results in inevitable totalitarianism and suffering. In fact, the great Christopher Hitchens used to be a very socialist leaning man but through maturation and evolution of his life, he has realized (and states so) of the unrealistic and idealistic nature of extreme socialism and communism.

Comment by Kenneth Montville D.D. on April 1, 2011 at 10:10am

Sassan, I don't know what studying psychology and neuroscience gives you some supreme insight into political science (it seems like another appeal to authority to me) but you seem to have a relatively weak understanding of Communism. I assume it is because you connect Communism with the flawed State Capitalism of Soviet Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism. These are not forms of Communism that any serious Communist theorist not looking for a personality cult would approve of (Kropotkin, Bakunin or Proudhon to name a couple). It reminds me of the falling out that Camus and Sartre had over the Spanish Civil War. Camus supported the anarchists while Sartre supported the Soviets. Anarcho-Syndicalism and Libertarian Communism are much more in line with what the actual theories behind Communism are than the personality cult totalitarian societies we have seen. As for the claim that Communism "limits this drive of hard work, creativeness, innovation, and the progress and advancement of societies" I suggest you read up on how the Anarcho-Syndicalists of Catalonia were the driving force behind the entire Spanish economy in the 1930s. The only reason that it came to an end is because the Spanish Civil War became a proving ground for Fascist Italian, Nazi German and Soviet military power.

Comment by Alejandro M on April 1, 2011 at 10:29am

Cass, some of what you wrote is a fallacy: "capitalism is a system built on exploitation, even at the most basic level and on the smallest scale. "I'll sell an item to you for more than it's worth and make a profit." Not true. If I buy an iPod, for me its value is more than the value I pay for it. That's why I buy it. For Apple it's the other way around. It's a win-win equation, and that's why it works (people can whine all they want about it, but evidence shows the countries which applied it in a degree or other are better that the countries which tried to eradicate it in a way or other).

Comment by Sassan K. on April 1, 2011 at 2:49pm

I will respond to you guys on this later tonight if I get the chance. I want to get deep into it but I don't have time right now. I will be spending the night home studying so I will take a break and respond to you then. Haven't forgotten or ignored this thread!!

Comment by Arcus on April 1, 2011 at 2:50pm

Psychology is not a bad starting point to use to condem Communism in ts applied forms. Psychologists tend to know a lot about motivation (especially organizational psychologists), and much of the weakness with capitalism lies exactly between microeconomic incentive issues driven by psychological motivational issues.

Communism demands a full alignment between the motivation of the individual and that of the state, and that every individual accepts that they must contrubite to their full extent and be provided with what they need. The issue here is that it has proven impossible to figure out a system that makes this work, and Communism is therefore even more deeply mired in pricipal-agent problems than capitalism. Even within capitalist governments and corporations this is a cause for major concern, and corporations has proven themselves more adept at finding resolutions (i.e. stock options, bonuses, democratic ownership etc.) that even governments took note of and the last two decades of New Public Management proves just this.

Capitalism is based on an assumption that humans tend to be more greedy and selfish than sharing and altruistic. The system designed to exploit those vices has proven itself more successful than all the other competitors. There have been experiments of worker run factories, most notably Volvo, but the expected results never came to fruition.

In addition it seems we are quite fond of private property, and having ownership of the results of our labor is more motivational than having the ownership of the means of production (though I would claim that todays knowledge workers also has this). We are a highly materialistic species who prefers convenience, and even if a system based upon the dismissal of these aspects is theoretically better, we are unable to reject them. The downside of Communism is the emergence of a substantial unregulated black economy for products in short supply which always leads to organized crime.

Communism is not all bad or do hold some good solutions, similarly to capitalism not being all good or having all the answers. Communism has definately left its mark on the social-democratic countries of Europe, and I believe that at the current stage, it is the best system to ensure social stability and widespread prosperity.

Comment