Marxism Is Easy

Prologue:

As evidence that everything that is old is new again, I’ll re-post something from July 9, 2012 as Joe and Komrade Karl re-debate the evil that is socialism/Marxism/communism. I would just point out that in a capitalistic, free market society, the socioeconomic model is driven by what people want and aspire to – if there is a cool product that is desired (like the iPhone, for example), then there are assets that voluntarily align to produce what the people want and through each transaction, it immediately sends signals through prices of goods that immediately realign the worth of “value” of a good or service to the consumers. Through these “signals”, it constantly self-monitors and adjusts. It is the same with social structure, society reorders itself to respond to the desires of the individuals in it – this isn’t always good for society, that’s why we have laws to prevent us from falling victim to fads.

In short, society and the economy voluntarily reacts to desires, wants, aspirations and needs of the people – freedom.

In a socialist/Marxist/communist society, the directions of economies and societies are NOT decided by democratic votes as Karl proposes because direct democracy on a macro scale is simply not practical – no decisions would ever get made if we had to call a referendum in a country of 312 million people. In these unholy triumvirate of ideologies, there is a structure created to decide for the people what they can have based on what some committee or controlling entity decides what would be best. Rigid prohibitions are put in place to assure that people conform to the expectations of the “plan”. There are no immediate adjustments of value as there are no price signals in a collectivist socioeconomic system – nothing changes until the central planning authority decides it will – therefore no innovation or change in the system is possible no matter how much the people want – or need- it without the intervention of some arbitrary authority. 

In short, people are forced to react to desires, wants, aspirations and needs of society and the economy as determined by some controlling entity – autocratic rule and tyranny.

The original post from July 9, 2012:

Last week, Stuart Jeffries of the UK Guardian presumed to explain: “Why Marxism is on the rise again”.

Capitalism is in crisis across the globe – but what on earth is the alternative? Well, what about the musings of a certain 19th-century German philosopher? Yes, Karl Marx is going mainstream – and goodness knows where it will end…

Class conflict once seemed so straightforward. Marx and Engels wrote in the second best-selling book of all time, The Communist Manifesto: “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”

That hope, perhaps, explains another improbable truth of our economically catastrophic times – the revival in interest in Marx and Marxist thought.

Jeffries never really pins down the exact reason but it seems to be that young people and those hammered by the financial crisis are looking for an answer to the dual questions of equality and security.

Aren’t Marx’s venerable ideas as useful to us as the hand loom would be to shoring up Apple’s reputation for innovation? Isn’t the dream of socialist revolution and communist society an irrelevance in 2012? After all…the bourgeoisie has failed to produce its own gravediggers…

I ask Jaswinder Blackwell-Pal, a 22 year-old English and drama student at Goldsmiths College, London, who has just finished her BA course in English and Drama, why she considers Marxist thought still relevant. “The point is that younger people weren’t around when Thatcher was in power or when Marxism was associated with the Soviet Union,” she says. “We tend to see it more as a way of understanding what we’re going through now. Think of what’s happening in Egypt. When Mubarak fell it was so inspiring. It broke so many stereotypes – democracy wasn’t supposed to be something that people would fight for in the Muslim world. It vindicates revolution as a process, not as an event. So there was a revolution in Egypt, and a counter-revolution and a counter-counter revolution. What we learned from it was the importance of organisation.”

Sounds so scientific and philosophical coming from an English and drama student, doesn’t it?

Well, I’m obviously not as qualified to speak on this as an English and drama student in London as I’ve only clawed my way from being so poor that we didn’t even have dirt floors (those were reserved for the upper class in Mississippi) to being reasonably successful, so my retort perhaps will be a little less erudite but…

I can think of two reasons that have very little to with science and more to do with my observations of human nature. These are:

  1. Communism is easy.
  2. Capitalism is hard.

To be a communist today, the only requirement one needs to meet is to be able to sustain this thought process in their heads: “There are people out there who have things that my degree in English and drama will not provide for me and that is unfair because I really, really like English and drama, so they must give me what they have so that we are equal.”

All you need is envy and the perception that because you value what you do, everybody should feel the same way…and the desire to use government to force everybody to pay for your skill whether it is valued or not.

To be a capitalist involves risk. You have to create something of value to others. It might be a product or service to be sold in the open market or it could be your talent or a particular skill that a company needs and is willing to pay you for. You have to put yourself in a position to fail…but in doing so, you are only limited by yourself…if you possess a skill that is oversubscribed or one that is not valued highly, like say, a degree in English and drama, then you will not be compensated as much (or at all) as an in-demand skill like an engineer or a similar skill.

The market sets the value of your product at the point where you are ready to sell and the buyer is ready to buy. If you are good, you get paid, if you aren’t, you don’t.

Marxism is enjoying resurgence because it is easy and we have a nation of ill prepared, low skilled and in some case unemployable adults, who grew up in our entitlement society where we don’t keep score, every kid gets a trophy and we all go to Pizza Hut after the game.

Marxism is just an easy excuse for failing at producing value in society. It is no answer to any problem.

Just for reference, below are the ten planks from Marx’s Das Kapital:

  1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  8. Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

How many can you see in today’s America?

51 thoughts on “Marxism Is Easy

  1. Young people are MORONS, they have had things handed to them and expect even more. Send them to Cuba and let them experience real Marxism………………………In 6 months they would be embracing Capitalism as if they had the latest Playboy bunny in their arms…………….

    • Never has George Santayana’s famous quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, had more currency. Even the author of the Guardian article recognizes that the “yutes” of today are ignorant of the brutal and bloody history of Marxism. They never knew the USSR and for them, China has always been open…

      In such uneasy times, who better to read than the greatest catastrophist theoriser of human history, Karl Marx? And yet the renaissance of interest in Marxism has been pigeonholed as an apologia for Stalinist totalitarianism. In a recent blog on “the new communism” for the journal World Affairs, Alan Johnson, professor of democratic theory and practice at Edge Hill University in Lancashire, wrote: “A worldview recently the source of immense suffering and misery, and responsible for more deaths than fascism and Nazism, is mounting a comeback; a new form of leftwing totalitarianism that enjoys intellectual celebrity but aspires to political power.

      “The New Communism matters not because of its intellectual merits but because it may yet influence layers of young Europeans in the context of an exhausted social democracy, austerity and a self-loathing intellectual culture,” wrote Johnson. “Tempting as it is, we can’t afford to just shake our heads and pass on by.”

  2. I would point out that founding father Thomas Paine was among those opposed to “rights of inheritance.” His masterpiece “Common Sense,” which helped spawn the Revolution, was largely in reaction to the problems with royal rule–including through wealth inherited by those who had themselves done nothing to earn it.

    As someone not part of “the upper class,” you should be able to appreciate that. One problem withmany modern “capitalists” is that they want to create so many exceptions for themselves–reward without much of the “risk” that you write about.

      • If they or their families earned it, yes they are. It’s called inheritance of private property and is wealth, not income. It is enshrined in the Constitution, a little thing called the 5th Amendment:

        ”… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

        I’m guessing that you haven’t really read it.

        • No. We don’t know how to read in my state anymore. We learn everything off Biblical themed DVDs that tell us what to think. The Bible tells us all property should be redistributed every 7 years and all debts forgiven. I’m glad we are a Christian nation. When do I get your stuff? Deuteronomy 15:1

          • I’m going to assume that you are cruising the web for quotes that support your position and perhaps you missed that is from the old covenant and also includes 15:6 -“For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you.

            Sort of puts Obama on the spot, huh? What of government, are they supposed to not collect taxes every 7 years?

            How do you reconcile your apparent affection for quoting scripture when you follow an ideology that believes that there is no God but the state and religion is the opiate of the masses?

            • LOL. Same as you and everyone else. I quote the parts I like and ignore the parts I don’t. Incidentally I never claimed to be a godless heathen, but thank-you for that. I think you should check out my Republican 10 commandments. They’re a riot if I do say so myself.

        • That’s one interpretation–not mine (or perhaps Paine’s). If YOU work for it, it’s your property, and I’m not even saying it should automatically be taken away. If your grandparents worked for it, why are you entitled to it? Inherited weath makes a mockery of the idea that all men are created equally.

          • OK, where should we start?

            First, you are misstating the founders’ notion of “Created equal.” This is straw man. The term must be understood in the context with which it was used: natural rights, natural law and the social contract as LOCKE espoused them. Thus, what the founders were saying is not that all men are equal in ability or things, but that we are all CREATED EQUAL IN THE EYES OF GOD! This is implicit in the Declaration of Independence, so my assertion should be as self-evident. From there, the founders argued that it follows all men should be treated equally under the law, as well, as the law was God’s law and we owed equal treatment to others as a derivation of our duty to God.

            Next, I believe you have an incomplete or flawed understanding of how the founders viewed the issues your discussing. If we take Jefferson (because he wrote so much and so clearly, his views are the most easily accessed), then we would see that Jefferson did not begrudge a person disposing of their property as they saw fit upon their death SO LONG AS THEY DID SO EQUALLY! To NOT allow the person to dispose of their property would be to claim they never really owned it. There is no way you can say ANY of the founders argued this – not even Paine. Nor will you find them arguing that the govt. should or even could lay claim to it upon your death unless you had no heirs. However, it should be noted that Jefferson did distinguish between personal property and land. He also made clear that land ownership, though it was to be treated as personal property for the sake of good stewardship, was subject to more public controls as it is a function of public creation: it is impossible to claim land as personal property without the support of society.

            Finally, the reason Jefferson said he advocated equal distribution of property was to allow for the natural prevention of a dynasty through accumulated wealth. basically, Jefferson argued that, even if the heirs were given huge sums of unearned wealth, sooner or later, due to natural talents or the lack thereof, that wealth would be lost because an heir would be ill equipped to maintain it. So, by allowing the market to function as it should, huge sums of money and wealth would, eventually, return to the general economy. In essence, Jefferson was saying that natural law implies form of s economic Darwinism. HOWEVER, once corporations were legally declared to be people and given the same rights – in spite of what the modern conservative may claim – this system was destroyed.

          • James,
            I take it you’ve never read Kipling’s “THE PALACE” He’s a boyhood favorite of mine. It wasn’t until I had my son that I fully understood ‘THE PALACE’ Since then, I can’t understand why every one doesn’t.
            Not every man builds for his own consumption

              • Kells,
                I think Kipling’s “The Female of the species”

                “And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
                Must command but may not govern — shall enthral but not enslave him.
                And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
                THAT THE FEMALE OF HER SPECIES IS MORE DEADLY THAN THE MALE..”

                May more accurately describe you!
                😉

          • JM, before the American Revolution, it was against the law for a landowner in the America’s to divide up his land between his heirs. He had to give it whole to his eldest son. That forced younger sons to become landless laborers. One of the firs things our founders did was make it possible for a landowner to divide his land anyway he chose to do it.

            THAT’S the correct interpretation of property rights in America. It’s what our Founders established. All men are created equal and they own the produce of their labor and can give it to whomever they want.

    • And they can just carve those little breaks out for themselves without the aid of a complicit entity in government?

      Actually, they can’t. Government (or politicians more accurately) are the catalyst in the two part solution that creates cronyism and corporatism…and the liberal solution to that?

      More government.

      Sounds fun.

      Paine’s views were based on the belief that God’s earth was a gift to all mankind, not that government should replace god as the arbiter. Paine was also speaking against a monarchy and heraldic system that passed unearned wealth through generations as a result of only bloodline. As far as I have read, he never spoke this in terms of people who actually earned the money.

      His views are legitimate to debate whether they qualify as socialist or not, as are similar views by Adam Smith and Jefferson – but they are illegitimate to debate with regard to the compatibility of Marxism to America because none of those views made it into the Constitution.

      • So if we give our wealthy people fancy titles we can tax them? The money is still transfered by blood and families. FYI most royal people “earned” their money somewhere historically by being successful Knight, perhaps, and some serious endorsement deals from a king or someone. They may have created their own line of grieves or something.

  3. I can’t speak to Paine, but I can speak to Franklin and Jefferson (and, therefore, very likely Madison as well). They did believe in the right of inheritance, however, they held that a person’s property should be divided equally among all heirs. The reasoning being to prevent the building of a dynasty.

    Unfortunately, Utah, I suspect this would work in your favor when it comes to personal property, but against your defense of the modern corporate system because, as an artificial entity, the modern corporation is potentially immortal and, thus, would violate the founders’ principle of forbidding the establishment of a dynasty that could rival popular rule.

    Still, nothing about the founders can be said to have been Marxist. In fact, it would be difficult to argue that they even had socialist tendencies – in the modern sense of the word, anyway.

  4. This is related to this and Utah’s other post about Marx, so I will cross-post this comment to both.

    The real world has repeatedly proven that Marxism and Marx’s dialectic materialism (a fancy way of saying I reject God) simply do not work; and they do not work because they ignore both human nature and the natural law of the universe. History tells us that the ideas Marx spun out of thin air – in reality, its own refutation of his dialectic materialism paradigm – fail every time they are tried. Now, the evidence that they will fail again, here, in the U.S., is there for the knowing – we just have to have interest enough to look for it, then courage enough to accept it when we do. Once case in point is this story:

    Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

    Now, do you suppose the “geniuses” who developed this brilliant stupidity we call Obamacare even bothered to consider that those who spent their entire lives sacrificing to build successful medical careers might actually decide to quit if they were suddenly told they could no longer run them as they see fit, nor benefit from the fruits of all their labors? Apparently, they must not have, as there doesn’t seem to be any provision for compulsory servitude on the part of these medical professionals in the health care law, which then proves my assertion: Marxists have absolutely no understanding of human nature. but then, they don;t see a need to worry about human nature as they have no use for morality, either – so it is a small thing to simply kill any and all of those individuals who “give them trouble” in their pursuits of building there utopian dreams. History tells us this is true, as well, as these same people have killed over 100 MILLION in the past 100 years – and all in the name of making things better for the people they killed.

    With friends like these, you have enough enemies.

    • Joe, since I know you’re concerned about the strength of your argument, so I’ll note that your link above seems to be dead. And as for the “83 percent”–it would be tough to find a statistically weaker number.

      “The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16, 227 faxes were successfully delivered… The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys.” Even at that, the respondents were nearly as critical of insurance companies as they were of government intervention (88/81 percent in one category, 65/50 percent in another). http://www.doctorsandpatients.org/images/files/DPMA_SurveyResults.pdf

      As for the folks behind the survey, “The DPMA’s co-founder, quoted here, is Kathryn Serkes. She’s ‘non-partisan’ in the sense that she worked for a conservative Republican in the 2010 Washington state race for U.S. Senate, and appeared alongside Republican members of Congress at Tea Party rallies against the Affordable Care Act. Her partner at the top is Mark Schiller, M.D., who’s also a fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, and the author of a classic 2009 column about how ‘Obamacare’ would succeed by helping to kill sick people.”
      http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/09/about_that_83_percent_of_doctors_hate_obamacare_so_much_they_might_quit_poll.html

      • James. I believe the technique you were using was called “can of whoop-ass.” (2. (v.) The metaphorical act of beating someone up. )

        “This technique is often used by more mentally capable opponents against weak minded ones who think they are “all that.” It is known to be even more satisfying when the recipient of the “whoop-ass can” is someone who likes to use petty arguments and big words to make themselves appear smart as if by associating an argument with an argument technique they have proven said argument “fallacious” (this is often referred to as the micro-phallus approach) rather than address the actual argument at face value, ipso facto e pluribus unum amen. “

      • Well, since she’s a Dem she’s a socialist/communist/fascist, anyway, right? And somehow I don’t think we’ll miss her. One of many inexcusable things Bill Clinton did was to pardon her crooked ex-husband.

        So she’s leaving now, while her taxes are far lower than they were under Bill Clinton, “so that she can be closer to her family and to Peter Cervinka, her long-time partner.” If it’s related to taxes, it’s obviously clear to her that Obama is going to be re-elected.

      • Are you suggesting that we will not see it on Huff, MSNBC, CNN? Saddens me actually. I was getting all excited to see if she cast a tingle down Matthew’s leg, or if Wasserman Schultz was going to wage war on this one.

        Damn.

  5. Thanks for bringing this post back to the fore front. After reading all the comments that followed it then, I would like to point out one single thing….

    “There are people out there who have things that my degree in English and drama will not provide for me and that is unfair because I really, really like English and drama, so they must give me what they have so that we are equal.”

    Now that’s really the crux of the issue, now isn’t it? Do you think that Karl, McPherson, Melfamy, Rezzy, and any of the other proto-Marxist supporters of the Free Shit Army agenda would be happy to give up their favorite items under duress to the Federal Government for the purposes of making “everyone equal”?

    Simple answer … McPherson wouldn’t give up his favorite Linus blanket, Melfamy would cry foul if they came for the bricks on his $70,000 dollar home (this actually happened to your local physician(s) ..the brothers Vu), Karl would not give up his Hukkā , and Rezzy couldn’t part with his favorite rug.

    All would cry foul, and have an existential meltdown and blame the shit on George Bush (having gotten the correct last name wrong). You see, it is easy for them to exsanguinate the rewards of Capitalism … as long as it’s not their assets being exsanguinated.

    • Ergo the quote attributed to Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

      I look at Karl’s philosophy like Limbaugh sees feminism. Remember his 35 Undeniable Truths of Life? Number 24 was: “Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.”

      It is the same for me with respect to anything that carries the stench of collectivism or statism – they were established as to allow the unserious, the cowards, the unproductive and the envious easier access to the mainstream of society.

      Guess what “vocations” the father of Marxism pursued? Komrade Karl’s namesake was a “journalist” and an academic, two vocations that were not terribly valued during the industrial revolution.

      When I think about Marxie, I think about one of his contemporaries (born 7 years after him), Andrew Carnegie. Marx was born into a wealthy middle-class family in Trier in the Prussian Rhineland and studied at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin. He was supported by Engels (who left his 4.8 million dollar estate to Marx’s daughters) and died stateless and penniless – it is said that 9 people attended his funeral.

      Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland, in a single room in a tenement (I’ve personally seen it, it is about the size of an average bedroom). He emigrated to the United States with his parents in 1848. He was never formally educated and started as a telegrapher and by the 1860s had investments in railroads, railroad sleeping cars, bridges and oil derricks. He built further wealth as a bond salesman raising money for American enterprise in Europe. He built Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Steel Company, which he sold to J.P. Morgan in 1901 for $480 million, creating the U.S. Steel Corporation. Carnegie devoted the remainder of his life to large-scale philanthropy, with special emphasis on local libraries, world peace, education and scientific research.

      The “Andrew Carnegie Dictum” is said to be:

      To spend the first third of one’s life getting all the education one can.
      To spend the next third making all the money one can.
      To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.

      I’ll let the readers decide which of these men did more for “the people” during their time on this Earth and whether communism or capitalism is the better choice based on actual historical results.

  6. The one common thread I’ve noticed among all supporters of marx, Is they never lived it, never visited it, and definitely never have conversed with any one who had.

    I challenge all you supporters of marx to spend a minimum of six months in the socialist/communist paradise of your choice, then come back here and tell us how great it was!

    Until then, your arguments are too hollow to even be academic.

  7. “In short, people are forced to react to desires, wants, aspirations and needs of society and the economy as determined by some controlling entity – autocratic rule and tyranny.”

    the bourgeoisie are the controlling entity right now, Except they claim that their profit seeking behavior is good for society. I fail to understand how producing for a profit and having production be decided on the movement and distribution of capital, would be better than have the workers manage production.

    Socialism is a basic struggle for society to directly control production, capitalism is the bourgeoisie trying to justify their unnecesarry position as owners of the means of production.

    • If the knowledge, experience, innovation and drive of the bourgeoisie is so unnecessary, then why isn’t socialism the natural system selected by humans? Why must collectivist systems be forced on society if this is such an easy, inherently fair system for everybody? Why are governments built to control and forcefully redistribute wealth if it is such an undisputed success? Why do you have to explain it?

      Because it is the farthest thing from man’s natural state as an amoeba is from a bull.

      The natural impulse of man is to be free, which means the ability to do and achieve whatever they want or more importantly, are able, to achieve. Socialism is a system for losers who are to cowardly to compete, too lazy to achieve and too envious to see the lie of “security” that they sell to themselves, and that means you, Komrade Karl.

      • A monarchist could have said the exact same thing 500 years ago. Saying feudalism is natural. “it’s the way it is because it is the best way” is the worst argument.

        Collectivist systems aren’t forced onto a majority, because it is a majority rules system.

        Socialism doesn’t impede accomplishment. You can be brilliant scientest, thinker or daring test pilot. I fail to see how wealth means accomplishment and value to society. Are the bankers who got bailed out, an asset to society? They are wealthy, does that not automatically imply they are providing a great service to society?

        • Virtually ALL of the Technological Achievements and Scientific advancements and improvements in Productive capacities ( that would improvements in “Factories” for the marxists) have come from the Free Capitalist Democratic Republics. All of Russia’s Space program was piggybacked on German Technology and most important German Scientists who were FORCABLY taken to Russia After WWII. China didn’t have ANY forward momentum in either Computers OR rocketry until the Traitorous actions under Bill Clinton of giving them the Tech and allowing their Agents at Los Alamos to steal secrets in the 1990’s…….. I give these two examples because they would be the first brought up.

          In addition….NO ZIP NADA improvements in Oil extraction have come from Socialist countries…..and virtually ALL Pharmacological improvements have come from the Companies in the FREE Democratic Republics……The Communist / Socialist world just Copies the Technology and even the Capitalist system from the West ( as in China today ).

          The REASON … is because there is NO individual incentive in Socialist / Communist systems … it is THAT simple. The Socialist Regimes do exactly what Obama ( and Karl here) verbalize….they Steal others Ideas aa well as property….in this case Technologies, Ideas and Systems produced by Free people in Free sovieties…..Their States are Paracitical upon the Productive Capitalist Staters just as the Freee Stuff Army that supports Obama is paracitical in America…..they are Takers NOT maklers…..Because their Philosophy itself is one of TAKING rather than Making……..It is a Philosophy of ENVY and Anger from it’s very precepts…..Listen to Karl’s words.

          “….Collectivist systems aren’t forced onto a majority, because it is a majority rules system…..”

          Tell that to the 10’s of Millions of Ukranians who where forced to starve by the ‘majority” Soviet Communists because they didn’t want Socialism….or to the 20 Million Kulacks murdered by Stalin’s regime……..or the 2 Million Killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia because they didn’t support Communism.

          But the Real issue is that the Constitutional Republic was established to insure the Rights of the Minority Political Group and the individual from the Majority………..And this is the great Disconnect between what Karl is saying and the American Way.

          In essance Karl ( and ALL Socialists / Communists) say THEY have a right to say what happens to you….based on Majority oppinion.

          In the American Constitutional Republic…it was established that the Law protects the Individual and his /her rights from Majority ( Mob ) rule.

  8. Socialism is a system for losers who are to cowardly to compete, too lazy to achieve and too envious to see the lie of “security” that they sell to themselves

    Bravo!

  9. karl: Socialism doesn’t impede accomplishment.

    You keep coming here spouting this tripe, but WHERE has this been proved true?
    Not that long ago more than half the worlds population lived your dream.
    Where are their accomplishments? Those shot running toward the Berlin wall? Tienanmen square? People on rafts built of scraps of wood braving the open ocean to escape “your dream”? how many died fleeing Vietnam, and Cuba this way?

    Who put a man on the moon? Invented the computer you use? The MRI? The countless drugs and vaccines that save millions daily?
    What system, collectivist/ or capitalist feeds the world hungry?
    Russia has more than twice the land mass as the U.S. with less than half the population. Yet during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s relied on U.S. food exports.

    Your THEORY isn’t even valid.
    Examples nonexistent.

    Which explain why you and all like you won’t take my challenge to go to where you “perfect system” is practiced, and try it on for size! Where’s your faith in the goodness of collectivism?
    You think the collectivist will take from those above YOU, and give it to YOU.
    The problem is…
    There’s someone below you on the totem pole that’s thinking the same thing about what YOU got!

    • Communism / Socialism is nothing more than another Hierarchical system ….. putting a new Good Ole’Boy system where the new boys are the Communist or Socialist Party … it’s really nothing more than that…..EXCEPT….under Socialist / Communist systems ..it is LAW that individual achievement and reward for such is ILLEGAL …. according to definition…Just listen to Karl’s words.

      Thus nobody DOES achieve or most importantly even Stive to or Desire to because it has been criminalized.

      The Crucial Difference is that in a Capitalist Free-market and a Constitutionally established Republic system the individual is allowed and encouraged to achieve and prosper in spite of Good ‘ ol Boy systems which may exist along side them.

  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

    Also it can be easily claimed that the U.S.A space program was built upon German engineering.

    Who put the first man in space?

    http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101029-30839.html

    from the link above

    In contrast with capitalist West Germany, GDR patents were available for use by all of the country’s socialist firms, and while inventors received a premium, they could not benefit from any profits garnered due to their creation, according to Leipzig historian Matthias Wießner.

    “They could be used by all of the state businesses,” he said.

    But inventors such as Mosemann were at least honoured by state officials – he received a medal for his innovations on the country’s national day in 1977.

    Profiled by Zeit Wissen magazine earlier this year, he said he was motivated by a love of invention and not money, finding the later adjustment to capitalism a challenge because he “didn’t know how to sell things.”

    In spite of the benefits of reunification, Mosemann admited that he sometimes misses his time at as an inventor in former East Germany.

    “Before engineers were paid less, but there was more room to be creative.” he said. “Nowadays this kind of freedom is a little hard to come by.”

    about the MRI
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging#History
    In 1952, Herman Carr produced a one-dimensional MRI image as reported in his Harvard PhD thesis.[14][15][16] In the Soviet Union, Vladislav Ivanov filed (in 1960) a document with the USSR State Committee for Inventions and Discovery at Leningrad for a Magnetic Resonance Imaging device,[17] although this was not approved until the 1970s

    • We didn’t FORCE those German’s to come ….. and our Computer Technology was developed entirely on our own…..and the Russians NEVER did put Men on the Moon…..and the US caught up to Gagarin in the Blink of an eye.

      The movie “The Lives of Others” produced in Germany, based on a True story….describes the epidemic of Suicides in East Germay…just part of the sick culture that eventually broke it apart…..in addition to it’s nonexistant dependent economy , slave to the USSR. You mention one person , the member of a Pampered Group who benefitted from the misery of the East German people…..The Leader of North Korea lives in a PALCE while his PEOPLE starve.

      So what you described is EXACTLY what I said….a Subgroup flourishes as members of the Party elite at the expense of the rest of the population……it was the EVIDENCE of the higher standard of living in the West that the Soviet people saw that finally made them realize the reat of the world DID NOT live in squalor like they were told. They saw their Communist Overlords had been lying to them for 70 years and popular support fell away almost instantaneously.

      To quote that some Union Bosses and the Party elite miss having all the perks they got by stealing it from the people, really only supports what an Evil system it was. It also shows what others have highlighted about your “philosophy”…..that those so called “experts” CAN’T compete. That they only thrived by being insulated from the world by the Arms and Force of the Communist Party………The question is .What REAL genius was squelched in the Population…..because they didn’t fit the Mold of the Socialist ideology.

      You MISSED the entire point ……”IN HIS HARVARD Ph.D THESIS “…..the Development came HERE …. because the USA has the best system to Reward and thus Develop technology……….And Medicine in the USSR and in Russia today is still far behind the US.

  11. Also it can be easily claimed that the U.S.A space program was built upon German engineering.

    But not at the point of a gun!

    Herman Carr -AMERICAN physicist.

    No one said that the Russian people aren’t intelligent, The argument is what system, Capitalism, or Collectivism has done more for mankind.
    You argue that Collectivism is better for man. Once again, where are the people fleeing Capitalism to communist countries?(why aren’t you?)
    Who feeds the world?
    Who is there first in a disaster?
    Why is modern medicine called “Western medicine”?

    • The Working Class as you call them implying “Farm Workers” here obviously)……..DO NOT feed the world.

      Most of the Calories consummed are Grain and Bean…………….And those my friend are Planted and Harvested and tended by A small amount of farmers with MACHINES !!………….And they are Transported by a small amount of Transporters by MACHINES……and they are Processed by a relatively small amount of people using MACHINES.

      Further many of those Small amounts of People are small Framers ie; Small Business owners…….and others are BIG Business owners ( Agri-Business so called….Con Agra for instance…and many others here and throughout the world).

    • Who feeds the world?
      Who is there first in a disaster?

      The working class.

      The AMERICAN working class with the tools and supplies that exist ONLY in a Capitalist system!

      You still here? Shouldn’t you be catching a plane somewhere? ( or at least ridding your self of that American capitalist imperialism machine, we call a personal computer?

      Money where the mouth is, karl, money where the mouth is.

    • “Who feeds the world?
      Who is there first in a disaster?

      The working class.”

      Well, it was never Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Chavez, or Obama. So you are right. It is the working class ….

      Well, the one’s who are free to actually cross regional lines without papers that is.

      • Actually, the correct answer is “the US Armed Forces…who, somewhat uncoincidentally, are attached to the greatest capitalist state the world has ever known.

    • Karl, actually, America’s working class, yes. Who aren’t going anywhere. Surprisingly, they are not headed to Cuba on open rafts to embrace the workers’ utopia. They aren’t applying for workers visas to get into China or North Korean. The working class of America seem awfully comfortable sitting in their warm homes watching ESPN sports and driving their cars to work 5 days out of 7. Capitalism seems to be working for them within tolerable limits.

      The working class of China, however, is committing suicide fairly regularly. The working class of North Korea is trying to sneak across the border into South Korea, which is a capitalist country. The working class of Cuba is taking to open rafts on hostile seas in hopes of getting to Florida, which I believe is also a capitalist society.

      Please, do tell us where the working class are beating down the door of a communist economy to get in?

  12. The REAL and TRUE History of the MRI is much more complicated than the Socialist Told Us…..But this is ALWAYS the case with Communists.

    I’m not going to go into detail…..But the Research WAS done in the US and looks to have been first successfully tested at the University of Illinois- Urbana. Research going back as far as the 1930’s in the US and in the UK. Paul Lauterbur, Peter Mansfield(UK) and finally Raymond Damadian (Born in USA Armenian-American) is credited with the first real MRI……

    • BTW Karl the Communist…..

      This wonderful Creation…MRI….that has done so much for so many people throughout the ENTIRE world…..that has allowed Physicians to extend both their Craft and their Science…. was Created in Large part by a Christian and a believer in some form of Creation Science……

      Because ….HE….was….FREE….to do so………………….FREE WILL……Brought to us from God….articulated in Judeo-Christian values….and Codified for Secular law in the Declaration, Consritution and Bill of Rights of these Great United States of America.

      May God Bless those who fight to preserve us .

  13. The Soviets take half of Germany in 1945,
    In 1961 the Berlin wall goes up
    The Berlin wall is torn down in 1990.
    In only 45 years, the people of east Germany have a life expectancy 5.9 years LESS than their neighbors on the other side of the wall.
    Within two decades since the fall of the wall,(And the end of collectivism) the life span in once again equal to their neighbors for the other side of a WALL!

    What more of a comparison do you need between two competing systems!
    One wall, 45 years, loss of 5.9 years life expectancy!

    What side of the wall do you want to live on, karl?

    • When I was an adolescent, I was obsessed with having many commercial things, cars, clothes, stupid things. Now that I have all that, I include/understand that the superfluous things can turn to you into a very stupid idiot-type. In East Germany there were very few things, but there was also a feeling of solidarity that no longer exists. Now we are up to the neck in consumption, the ego, the individualism. Now before friendship, it is merchandise.

      Till lindeman – lead vocalist of Rammstein.

  14. “How do you tell a communist? He reads Lenin and Marx. And how do you tell an anti-communist?
    Someone who understands Lenin and Marx.”
    -Ronald Reagan

    Says it all, doesn’t it!

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.