How Large is your Penis?

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Marxism and Communism are Stupid

I am not sure to exactly what kind of communists and Marxists this would apply to but I have heard communists tell me that we need to get rid of class and we need to get rid of money. History is a class struggle, as they say, so we need to destroy the concept of a class without there being the workers and the employers. Now I am not sure if all communists or Marxists want to abolish money, but I have heard some hold this position.

This is a stupid idea. First off the problem with Marxists is that they think that the world consists of workers and employers. They think that the workers have to work for someone their entire life, that is, to the employers, while the employers are in the class by themselves. This is a mistake. Everyone is a worker. You think a businessman does not work? There are businessmen who work harder and longer than any of his workers. Yes, businessmen and entrepreneurs work. They work for other people. A entrepreneur for computers is working for the consumption of the masses. If the people think that his computer sucks then he will lose his job. Possibly lose many millions of dollars (or sometimes billions) if he does not work hard enough for the masses. So let us just get that Marxist fallacy out of the way, that there are the employers and the workers. In reality, we need to ask "employer and worker, relative to whom". Consider the entrepreneur again. He is an employer of his employees, but he is a worker for the masses.

My first problem is that let us suppose that we eliminate class. Everything is collectively owned. My question would be is how is incentive for progress created? I do not see it. People create new innovations because they want to be successful. If people cannot rise above anyone else, for that would create class, then why would they want to achieve more? Suppose that people only work six hour a day in a communist utopia. What incentive would these people have to work for eight hours a day, invest the money, and start their own business to benefit more people? Why would someone want to work more if he is part of the same fixed status in society? This is an economic failure, that I see, with Marxism. There is no incentive to improve the economy. Or even if I am wrong, even if there is incentive, it would be much much lower than otherwise in a society where people can improve their status.

My second problem is that money is necessary. It serves two important functions. First, it is a medium of exchange. If I want to get something from you, I have to give you something back. But let us suppose what you want I do not own. Thus, I would have to find another person who has what you want and trade something of my own for what he has. Then and only then would I be able to trade with you. Sometimes this gets more complicated, with three or more transactions before I can finally trade with you. Money eliminates this problem, it is a medium of exchange so that people would not need to go through multiple transactions to trade with one another. The second function, perhaps as important, is that money is used for economic calculation. Prices tell us the demand. How would economic calculation be preformed in a Marxist society that rejects money?

My problem with Marxists is that they are a political philosophy without any understanding of economists. Marxism does not understand anything about economics. Their entire philosophy is based on the class struggle. The problem with this is that a society cannot be created unless an economic theory is proposed. Marxists do not know any economics so that is why they would never be able to form a successful society.

6 comments:

  1. You have to understand Marxist theory before you can understand what's wrong with it.
    First, Marx did postulate there were only two classes but what instead of workers and employers, you would better translate them "job producing" and "job consuming". Hence the factory owner produces jobs for others and the workers consume those jobs by taking them. His theory was that all job producers, the bourgeousie, are exploiting the job consumers, the proleteriat.
    Second, the transition from a capitalist to communist society is supposed to occur in three steps. First, the bourgeousie are overthrown in a necessarily violent revolution. A new government, a dictatorship of the proletariat is then set up which sets about destroying all the remaining bourgeousie, nationalizing all industry, and then redistributing wealth. Upon completing this task, the dictatorship then disbands and is replaced by a collective government whose job is to ensure total wealth redistribution and the principles of a communist economy - to each according to his needs, from each according to abilities - is continued.
    The flaws are quite simple:
    1) Communism does not take into account the middle class - people who might both produce and consume jobs at the same time.
    2) Communism does not take into account human nature - people will magnify their needs and minimize their abilities to get whatever they can for free.
    3) Once established, the dictatorship of the proletariat might decide its task of murder and repression will never end. This is essentially what happened in Russia until Gorbachev.
    The question you should be asking is: why is calling someone a Nazi such a bad insult but not calling them a Communist?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You have to understand Marxist theory before you can understand what's wrong with it.": I do not need to understand all of it to understand why it is a problem. I do not know all of Christianity but I do realize why Christianity is non-sense from what I have seen Christians say. Likewise, I do not need to know the entire Marxist theory to understand why it is wrong. From what I understand and heard people say I can form an opinion about it.

    "Communism does not take into account the middle class - people who might both produce and consume jobs at the same time.": Yes, Marx does take that into account. He said that the middle class will dissolve and will become part of the workers.

    "Once established, the dictatorship of the proletariat might decide its task of murder and repression will never end. This is essentially what happened in Russia until Gorbachev.": This is irrelevant. I made two economic objections. Of course I realize Marxism is evil. And I do realize it is contradictory to freedom. But that is irrelevant here, all I want to concentrate on is on the economics.

    "The question you should be asking is: why is calling someone a Nazi such a bad insult but not calling them a Communist?": Nazis are amateurs murders when compared to Communists. I never been able to understand why it is acceptable to say you are a communist but not acceptable to say you are a Nazi.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So I'll tell you why: McCarthy was right. Hollywood was inflitrated by communists and their sympathizers who worked hard to create a cinematic culture that showed fascism in a harsh light and communism in a softer one. Since then it has worked overtime to villify McCarthy and present him as all that was wrong in America after WW2. History is indeed written by the victors.
    Best example: in one James Bond film, the Soviet military high command is discussing their military plans and, other than one crazy general, all agree that their weapons are for defensive purposes and that they have no interest in conquering Western Europe. Riiiiight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "So I'll tell you why: McCarthy was right. Hollywood was inflitrated by communists and their sympathizers who worked hard to create a cinematic culture that showed fascism in a harsh light and communism in a softer one.": I agree with you that Hollywood is very supportive or Marxist and socialistic ideals. An interesting question to ask is "why?". If you interested I can find for you a psychological explanation for this given by Ludwig von Mises in his tiny book "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality".

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's pretty clear that none of the commenters here (OP included) actually understand Marxism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Marxism deserves no serious analysis, it's incoherent; Marx can't even keep a thought going longer than his typical 'YOU R BAD SOSHALIST, ME GUD SOSHALIST' rants; 'Das Kapital' is the biggest bunch of nonsense pseudo-science ever to be published in any language. The man was a third-rate economist at best, and beyond economics essentially everything he believed was the opposite of true.
    He did have a few good points about (say) Napoleon III, as did Lenin, but these were derivative and always screwed up by the unwillingness to stop harping on his millenialist cult of socialism.

    ReplyDelete