Marxisms inherent flaw

[beeman]

Marxism has an inherent fatal flaw: it fails to take into account human grasping and ambition. Instead of levelling the playing field, so that all might have the same starting point, it levels the end zone, so that all come to rest at the same place regardless of their intellect, luck, or station in life when born. Humans are social creatures, yes, and, naturally, they are also ambitious in many cases, and a social philosophy that ignores this fact is doomed to fail.

This is common sense. Marxism/Communism appeals to common sense in a seemingly true way, but it does not take into account the truism that the cream rises to the top of the milk pail. Thus, ALL societies founded on Marxism become dictatorships of the politically able lording it over the masses as if they were kings and queens born to living on the hardship of the unenlightened (read "serfs", peasants, and pissant-peons).

Capitalism has major flaws; I don't need to tell you, the reader, this. But what I do need to tell you is that every system of government must take into account the disparity among its citizens in intellect, luck, talent, and all else that stratifies our society.

Finally, Marxism makes the great mistake of looking at the archetypal human being as being inherently altruistic, as being oblivious to his/her own self interest. Sure, I would put my faith in such a vision willingly, were I not old enough to know better. No, our Founding Fathers took the opposite view. Hence, our government of checks and balances. Both sides of human nature must be considered when weighing whether one system of government--read control of one's self by an entity we all term "THE STATE"--is superior to all others. I have found it best to take a cynical, stoical view in such debates, and I do agree with our American predecessors, that men are beasts with intellects.

I advise you all to consider governments as man-made creations, thus, inherently inequitable. The most efficient government is based on a system that takes into account each human's strengths and weakness's, with the weaknesses underscored as being factual issues that rear their ugly heads in one way or another all the time, bar none.

[Rafiq]

you don't know what marxism is.

[28350]

it fails to take into account human grasping and ambition.


stopped reading here

[cogar66]

http://adaptershack.com/m/files/_tmp_phpbxsnYu_This_thread_is_bad_and_you_should_f eel_bad.jpg

[Libertador]

http://icb.s2games.com/1/717/1717483/1.cai

You're one of those "natural aristocracy" goons aren't you?



http://adaptershack.com/m/files/_tmp_phpbxsnYu_This_thread_is_bad_and_you_should_f eel_bad.jpg
I love you.

[beeman]

How about trying to pick it apart, im very well read. Im sure I know what Marxism is... and most likely understand its fundamental concepts better than most people on this board.

[Le Socialiste]

stopped reading here

Hey, me too! :D

[beeman]

Are you actually trying to say humans aren't ambitious?:lol:

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Why are you here at this forum, I don't get it when people come to Revleft who aren't revolutionary leftists and come to debate us stupid points that have been repeated thousands of times but act like it's something new. Like we don't know people are different, some are stupid and some are smart. Great fucking analysis!

[Libertador]

How about trying to pick it apart, im very well read. Im sure I know what Marxism is... and most likely understand its fundamental concepts better than most people on this board.I'll humor the troll.


Marxism has an inherent fatal flaw: it fails to take into account human grasping and ambition. Instead of levelling the playing field, so that all might have the same starting point, it levels the end zone, so that all come to rest at the same place regardless of their intellect, luck, or station in life when born. So others have a natural right to be unfairly placed at another starting point? It's perfectly fine that children die everyday to treatable diseases because they're just not born in a right "station in life?" Humans are social creatures, yes, and, naturally, they are also ambitious in many cases, and a social philosophy that ignores this fact is doomed to fail. Ambition - "Having or showing a strong desire and determination to succeed." Succeeding in terms of Capitalist materialism you mean? Humans became behaviorally modern about 50,000 years ago and Capitalist social hierarchies have only existed roughy for the last 7,000 to 10,000 years. That means for 40,000 years or so humans lived fine without this inherent 'ambition' in the sense you're describing it.

This is common sense. Marxism/Communism appeals to common sense in a seemingly true way, but it does not take into account the truism that the cream rises to the top of the milk pail. I assume this cream you speak of is the natural aristocracy? Bullshit. People lived communally for tens of thousands of years without gender/resource biased social hierarchy. Thus, ALL societies founded on Marxism become dictatorships of the politically able lording it over the masses as if they were kings and queens born to living on the hardship of the unenlightened (read "serfs", peasants, and pissant-peons). Unenlightened because they had the means stolen from them.

Capitalism has major flaws; I don't need to tell you, the reader, this. But what I do need to tell you is that every system of government must take into account the disparity among its citizens in intellect, luck, talent, and all else that stratifies our society. You're describing classical Fascism.

Finally, Marxism makes the great mistake of looking at the archetypal human being as being inherently altruistic, as being oblivious to his/her own self interest. Sure, I would put my faith in such a vision willingly, were I not old enough to know better. No, our Founding Fathers took the opposite view. Hence, our government of checks and balances. How's that working out for you? Both sides of human nature must be considered when weighing whether one system of government--read control of one's self by an entity we all term "THE STATE"--is superior to all others. I have found it best to take a cynical, stoical view in such debates, and I do agree with our American predecessors, that men are beasts with intellects. You're the beast of the worst kind.

I advise you all to consider governments as man-made creations, thus, inherently inequitable. The most efficient government is based on a system that takes into account each human's strengths and weakness's, with the weaknesses underscored as being factual issues that rear their ugly heads in one way or another all the time, bar none. Write your manifesto then. Please. If your most efficient government is logical and plausible then it should be easy to write out volumes on its effectiveness and social makeup.

[Dunk]

So it's the human nature argument and the assumption that even with the advent of common ownership and control of productive property, some kind of dictatorial nightmare will result.


It is not consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

Human nature has great plasticity, and what motivates us is based on our social circumstances.


From a socialist perspective, there is such a thing as human nature, but its most prominent feature is its changeability. What makes us distinctly human is our ability, not only to change as our circumstances change, but to create new and different social relations and then adapt to them. Socialists argue that if humans could create capitalism, humans can create socialism.

Your assumption that socialism or communism leads to some kind of dictatorial, nightmare, reemergence of class presupposes socialism or communism do not exist. Of course, if you could understand how little sense that makes, you'd probably be a communist.

But I'll explain anyway, and we'll see if you'll get it. If common control of productive property exists and production occurs for use instead of exchange, the strength of a person's personality is not going to magically grant them power to enthrall the producers. Privilege like that is possible only when the majority lacks control, not when it has control.

[#FF0000]

How about trying to pick it apart, im very well read. Im sure I know what Marxism is... and most likely understand its fundamental concepts better than most people on this board.

ahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha

[#FF0000]

Finally, Marxism makes the great mistake of looking at the archetypal human being as being inherently altruistic, as being oblivious to his/her own self interest

Listen if you say a thing like this then you don't know a goddamn thing about Marxism, sorry.

Actually let me quote the parts in particular that betray your total ignorance of our ideology in this next post:

[PolskiLenin]

we've all heard this a billion times? who volunteers to rewrite their argument...again :)

[beeman]

"So others have a natural right to be unfairly placed at another starting point? It's perfectly fine that children die everyday to treatable diseases because they're just not born in a right "station in life?"


Notice i said instead of having the same starting point, we have the same endpoint. Therefore this point is null.


"I assume this cream you speak of is the natural aristocracy? Bullshit. People lived communally for tens of thousands of years without gender/resource biased social hierarchy"

Absolutely not. The "cream" I speak of is naturally more intellectual people. Smart people make more money. I agree we should have the same starting point, I like that concept and wish it could be done, although I do not see it to be possible.

"How's that working out for you?"


Touche



"You're the beast of the worst kind. "

Insults over "teh interwebz" are for children and/or cowardly peoples.

"Write your manifesto then. Please. If your most efficient government is logical and plausible then it should be easy to write out volumes on its effectiveness and social makeup."


Intriguing, although you will not like what I say.

[#FF0000]

[B][SIZE=2][COLOR=darkred]Marxism has an inherent fatal flaw: it fails to take into account human grasping and ambition.

This is some variation of the "human nature" argument. If you use this argument, you are dumb and wrong.


This is common sense.

Appeals to "common sense" are a sign of big dumb babies.


Marxism/Communism appeals to common sense in a seemingly true way, but it does not take into account the truism that the cream rises to the top of the milk pail.

This is demonstrably false and doesn't necessarily happen in society now.


Finally, Marxism makes the great mistake of looking at the archetypal human being as being inherently altruistic, as being oblivious to his/her own self interest.

No, wrong, holy shit pick up a book if you think this. If anything, Marxism is entirely about self-interest -- it is in my best interests as a worker to demolish a system that relegates me to the position of a tool in a factory.


I advise you all to consider governments as man-made creations, thus, inherently inequitable.

Please tell me what you think Marxists think about the state. This should be fun.

[¿Que?]

He sounds like he read the Bell Curve or something...

[beeman]

He sounds like he read the Bell Curve or something...


This has nothing to do with my post but im interested in yours and others here's opinions on the bell curve. P.S. guys quit being so damn hostile debates are a good thing.

[#FF0000]

guys quit being so damn hostile debates are a good thing.

Yeaaah don't get this twisted guy -- we're not hostile because we don't like debate or differing opinions. We're a little hostile here because the points you've made betray a complete and total ignorance of our ideas, which you've already dismissed.

[Pretty Flaco]

Socialism is really just the application of democracy to economic control. The "marxist" dictatorships didn't utilize a socialist economy.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

This has nothing to do with my post but im interested in yours and others here's opinions on the bell curve. P.S. guys quit being so damn hostile debates are a good thing.

It's hard to not be hostile when someone new comes in here, tells us they know more about Marxism than a board full of Marxists, then proceeds to say very ignorant things about Marxism which you claim to know so much about. It's annoying.

[beeman]

Yeaaah don't get this twisted guy -- we're not hostile because we don't like debate or differing opinions. We're a little hostile here because the points you've made betray a complete and total ignorance of our ideas, which you've already dismissed.


A classless and stateless society based on common ownership? How did what I say show an ignorance to your ideas? To simplify, people on the nurture side of the argument are going to support Communism. People on the nature side generally arent. Ill respond to all responses in the morning. Goodnight and peace to all.

[¿Que?]

This has nothing to do with my post but im interested in yours and others here's opinions on the bell curve. P.S. guys quit being so damn hostile debates are a good thing.
Well, when you say "smart people make more money" it sounds like your towing the same line. That's all I was saying.

[beeman]

It's hard to not be hostile when someone new comes in here, tells us they know more about Marxism than a board full of Marxists, then proceeds to say very ignorant things about Marxism which you claim to know so much about. It's annoying.


In order to know where you stand politically/ideologically etc you need to study all sides of different things. Not just capitalism/communism.

[beeman]

Well, when you say "smart people make more money" it sounds like your towing the same line. That's all I was saying.

More intelligent people generally do make more money. Ok now im off to bed for real this time. good night. Ill post rebuttals in the morning.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

A classless and stateless society based on common ownership? How did what I say show an ignorance to your ideas? To simplify, people on the nurture side of the argument are going to support Communism. People on the nature side generally arent. Ill respond to all responses in the morning. Goodnight and peace to all.

Anybody can go to Wikipedia and read that, it doesn't take much time to do that. But to get to the finer points, to the details, it's going to take more time than the five seconds it took to scan over some webpage.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

In order to know where you stand politically/ideologically etc you need to study all sides of different things. Not just capitalism/communism.

Okay...what are you getting at?

[AnonymousOne]

Marxism has an inherent fatal flaw: it fails to take into account human grasping and ambition.


First, learn to format. My eyes feel raped from having to read in that color. If you want to be special write in Impact or something but don't change the color.

Second, you have no idea what you're talking about. I have ambition that isn't related to money. I'm working right now with a few friends on a project to create a wireless network service through text messaging, so you could buy an unlimited text plan and get data.

I don't plan on making any money, or it improving my material condition. I'm doing it because it's fun and I love using my skill sets in unique and interesting ways.

[CommunityBeliever]

men are beasts

And here you show your true colors. All you got is one of those cynical human nature arguments. Your thinking is basically like "I know nothing about the revolutionary experience of the last 140 years so I am going to assume humans have always been and always will be greedy beasts."


the disparity among its citizens in intellect, luck, talent, and all else

I guess I will answer this:



Capitalism is not a meritocracy. Rewards are not given based upon talent.
Communist society will still have rewards for people with talent but there will be no money. There is really no reason we should have money. Money is basically just a tool for fucking people over.

[28350]

A To simplify, people on the nurture side of the argument are going to support Communism. People on the nature side generally arent.

no we just think the nature-nurture dichotomy is bullshit


Yeaaah don't get this twisted guy -- we're not hostile because we don't like debate or differing opinions. We're a little hostile here because the points you've made betray a complete and total ignorance of our ideas, which you've already dismissed.

i can forgive ignorance of our ideas. the disinformation campaign waged against marxism is huge. i didn't understand marxism til well after i called myself a communist.

it's just so boring to deal with the same crap arguments again and again.

[#FF0000]

A classless and stateless society based on common ownership? How did what I say show an ignorance to your ideas?

Because there's more to Marxism than that, champ.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Notice i said instead of having the same starting point, we have the same endpoint. Therefore this point is null.
All humans have the same starting and ending point. birth and death.

And yes, you are thinking "SEMANTICS!"

well, its true isnt it? What matters is what is in between. What socio-economic standing you are born into has a great effect on your life up until you die. Born a pauper, die a pauper. Born into privilege, die privileged.

Yes, there are anomalies. Like the rags to riches stories, or the deposition of monarchs but it is a general trend. And today, people who were born into the elite are moving downward. And more are being born into poverty. (relative to say 5 years ago)


Absolutely not. The "cream" I speak of is naturally more intellectual people. Smart people make more money. I agree we should have the same starting point, I like that concept and wish it could be done, although I do not see it to be possible.
(birth defects aside)
how can a person be naturally more intellectual than others? Intellectualism doesn't come out of nothing. It comes out of experience with the material world, interrelations with other human beings and experiencing the product of all human interaction in a given place in what is called society.

Also, more 'intellectual' people dont all somehow magically make more money than others. Many of the great composers and artists of the western world (im not trying to be eurocentric, im just giving an example with information that i know) died as paupers while at the same time, you had imbeciles being given a crown and told they are the ruler of all people which their state coerces. King George VII is an example.

[RGacky3]

Are you actually trying to say humans aren't ambitious?http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxisms-inherent-flaw-t158624/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif


NO ONE things this.


More intelligent people generally do make more money. Ok now im off to bed for real this time. good night. Ill post rebuttals in the morning.

Source it.


How did what I say show an ignorance to your ideas? To simplify, people on the nurture side of the argument are going to support Communism. People on the nature side generally arent. Ill respond to all responses in the morning. Goodnight and peace to all.

Read about socialism (books written by socialists and marxists), then come back, because its obvious you have no knowledge of what your arguing against, and its obvious to people that DO have that knowledge.

[Tommy4ever]

Why did you write in red?

[tbasherizer]

Marxism isn't a government system. It's a materialist analysis of history in the context of class antagonism. Some Marxists extend that historical analysis to predictions about the future and/or to formukating revolutionary practices. Marxism-Leninism, which is what I'm sure you are trying to refer to, is only one branch of Marxian thought.

Don't expect a debate-friendly atmosphere when you come in using the "you're all just angry kids" argument and claim to know more about what we hold dear to our hearts without first maybe peeking around at this forum's content.

[JustMovement]

What I dont understand about the human nature argument is what kind of world does the person who makes it live in?

I dont know about them but I go through most of my day being a fairly sociable being. I generally dont fight with my coworkers or family. I dont cheat, lie, steal, murder, and even if I did have the opportunity to I still wouldnt. I dont step on the heads of other people to get ahead, and although I know a few people that do most people are not like that. I have interests and ambitions, but they require co operating with other people, not crushing them under the iron heel of my ambition.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeaaah don't get this twisted guy -- we're not hostile because we don't like debate or differing opinions. We're a little hostile here because the points you've made betray a complete and total ignorance of our ideas, which you've already dismissed.
But really, stop acting as if OP were an obvious, stupid and idiotic troll that posts shit.
Of course, I agree that the arguments presented are shit, but the manner of presenting them wasn't inherently trollish or idiotic.

I'd address first the point about the apparent concept of the human being as altruistic and devoid of concrete interests if communism is to be established.
This is entirely false since the primary focus of Marxism and revolutionary socialism is how people gain concrete class interests within the process of production in which they are the exploited group, and politically and socially dominated in broader social relations.
Marxism does not rest on good intentions but rather on one group of people struggling against another since the former is subjugated and a point is reached when the majority of those subjugated and exploited cannot continue with their existence as wage slaves and see an exit from such a situation in total transformation of society which is based on them leading such an existence.

OP didn't properly distinguish between early 19th century socialists, called utopian socialists (Fourier, Owen), who based their social theory on notions of benevolent men in power who would altruistically help the rest of society. Here using the term "altruism" makes sense, but it is a dishonest, and invalid argument when it comes to revolutionary socialism of the First International (be it "Marxist" or "anarchist/Bakuninist") and onwards ("scientific socialism").

Also, OP, you're very arrogant to assume that people on this board lack knowledge in relation to Marxism as compared to your own, which is very, very weak, especially judging from the "altruism argument" which is a load of nonsense.

Other points will be ransacked in due time.

[The Underdog]

More intelligent people generally do make more money. Ok now im off to bed for real this time. good night. Ill post rebuttals in the morning.

That's a lie. Intelligence is but one factor which could, potentially, help you succeed, but other factors are equally as important, if not much more so. The same goes for academic achievement. You can be very intelligent, but if the school environment is hostile and disruptive, if you're having problems at home, if you are desperate to leave to make some money, or if you can just see through the bullshit, you may not do well.

I've known chartered accountants, lawyers and doctors that were completely lacking in common sense, in empathy, and in areas other than their speciality. Hell, some of the GP's (General Practitioners of Medicine) i've seen over the years were totally incompetent and had no communication skills whatsoever, but they still earn ten times my annual wage, as a piece of paper says that they can do the job.

[JustMovement]

Also let me tell you, Im guessing you are quite young, but intelligence is probably the most overrated attribute. Doing well in school says very little about how happy or successful you will be once your out of it. I know a couple of borderline geniuses, or at least very smart people who have become bitter and alone and people who I would affectionately refer to as "thick" who have done really well with themselves. I think a fascination with intelligence is something that people grow out of as they interact more with the real world outside of school.

[RedAnarchist]

The troll is banned, thread closed.