Socialism, Communism, Karl Marx

[taylor]

Does anyone have any recommendations for quickly understanding Socialism, Marx, Communism, etc?

I took a brief look at Marx work and it's too hard, I don't have the time, and I don't have the energy to devote to deciphering it. Any easier works that are accurate representations of the case for Socialism? Not looking for an Austrian rebuttal, but if it was a pro Socialist book that took the Austrian argument into account that'd be even better.

[aelle]

The Wikipedia Politics portal is pretty well made and is a good starting point to get a general understanding of what different ideologies stand for and how they evolved. It can be an involved reading, but certainly less than making yhour way through Das Kapital.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[taylor]

Thanks for the suggestions aelle.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by aelle

The Wikipedia Politics portal is pretty well made and is a good starting point to get a general understanding of what different ideologies stand for and how they evolved. It can be an involved reading, but certainly less than making yhour way through Das Kapital.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what I was going to suggest too. Wikipedia does a great job of outlining, defining, and fleshing out concepts. (I read through several of their political series about a years ago and was very satisfied with the understanding I came away with.)

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by taylor

Does anyone have any recommendations for quickly understanding Socialism, Marx, Communism, etc?

I took a brief look at Marx work and it's too hard

merely READing something, foreign to you, is not going to give you understanding.

If you really, want to understand... anything, you must experience it 1st.hand.

I was forced to be raised in a communist-country; & tho it has significant advantages (health-Assurance, etc) -
it comes at a high cost: denial of an Individual's responsable FREEdom.

[VinceG]

If you really, want to understand... anything, you must experience it 1st.hand.

There ya go, taylor, just book you a flight to Russia and hang there for 10 years or so!

[taylor]

Originally Posted by VinceG

There ya go, taylor, just book you a flight to Russia and hang there for 10 years or so!

uhh thanks lol.

I appreciate that the reality of implementation is different than the theory. I was just trying to understand the rationale behind it and take a look at capitalism in a different light.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by taylor

I appreciate that the reality of implementation is different than the theory.

I was just trying to understand the rationale behind it and
take a look at capitalism in a different light.

If you try to understand communism, via a book, then
at least read the books of people who once were the oppressed.

and the rationale? - who gives a darn, what that was.
The point is, communism was/is another Failed-social experiment,
in much the same as socialism was/is a Failed-social experiment, in the USA.

FREE-interprise, aka 'capitalism', has the proven best chance - and
until the communists moved over here, & US-citizens
failed to oust them from our midst, capitalism worked well in the USA.

[Johnnymc]

Originally Posted by sk8joyful

If you try to understand communism, via a book, then
at least read the books of people who once were the oppressed.

and the rationale? - who gives a darn, what that was.
The point is, communism was/is another Failed-social experiment,
in much the same as socialism was/is a Failed-social experiment, in the USA.

FREE-interprise, aka 'capitalism', has the proven best chance - and
until the communists moved over here, & US-citizens
failed to oust them from our midst, capitalism worked well in the USA.

Well said!
Like a wise woman once said.."Socialism works until you run out of OTHER people's money" Maggie Thatcher

[Johnnymc]

Originally Posted by taylor

Does anyone have any recommendations for quickly understanding Socialism, Marx, Communism, etc?

I took a brief look at Marx work and it's too hard, I don't have the time, and I don't have the energy to devote to deciphering it. Any easier works that are accurate representations of the case for Socialism? Not looking for an Austrian rebuttal, but if it was a pro Socialist book that took the Austrian argument into account that'd be even better.

Taylor-just Google "failed government ideas" and I'm sure you'll get a long list of countries that tried and failed...

[AlmostGodess]

1984 by George Orwell is a novel that offers a clear view about communism. It is quite long, but it is worth the read. One of the books that changed my life

[James Fletcher]

Not looking for an Austrian rebuttal...

lol. Concerning a hot button issue such as this, seems you're going to get one anyway.

[lock]

my opinion:

socialism is the time 1950-1980 in china
communism was what we dreamt of then,but still not achieved
Karl max was absolutely a great philosopher but not a good seer

[taylor]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

lol. Concerning a hot button issue such as this, seems you're going to get one anyway.

Hehe that's alright. I'm already familiar with laissez faire philosophy so I understand the desire to criticize socialism coming from that paradigm. I'm actually surprised no one here has responded as a supporter of socialist ideas or has a favorite pro socialist book. Seems weird in a group of free thinkers.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by taylor

Hehe that's alright. I'm already familiar with laissez faire philosophy so I understand the desire to criticize socialism coming from that paradigm. I'm actually surprised no one here has responded as a supporter of socialist ideas or has a favorite pro socialist book. Seems weird in a group of free thinkers.

I'm in favor of mixed markets with social programs geared toward democratically decided ends: a lot of people would call that socialism(though it doesn't meet the technical definition). I think Northern Europe (Norway, the Netherlands, etc) is getting fantastic results, and while I don't agree with every single thing (I think guns can be fine, for instance, and the problems there aren't the same as in my country), I do think it's a model for an awesome government, in many respects.

I think Americans can be stupidly proud of our country's "capitalism" in the same way China is delusionally "communist". All markets are mixed markets (unless we want to talk about black markets and failed states).

[taylor]

Interesting Mariana.

[Agota]

I second someone here: if you want to understand socialism or communism, it's better not to only read through the theory, but talk to people from former Soviet Union countries or China, so you could get a taste of how it is in reality. I'm very skeptical of people who grew up in US (that's just an example) and are fascinated by socialist/communist ideas, because they have no idea what a failure that system was. I bet if you would throw an idealistic American youngster into Soviet Lithuania, he or she would run away screaming, since socialism is pretty in book yet not that pretty in reality. I agree that there should be some harmony between capitalism and socialism,though, because neither end of the spectrum is the best option.

I loved George's Orwell's "Animal Farm", since it accurately portrays how something that once started as a noble fight for freedom and equality (like communism) can turn into something ugly and destructive (like communism).

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Agota

I second someone here: if you want to understand socialism or communism, it's better not to only read through the theory, but talk to people from former Soviet Union countries or China, so you could get a taste of how it is in reality. I'm very skeptical of people who grew up in US (that's just an example) and are fascinated by socialist/communist ideas, because they have no idea what a failure that system was. I bet if you would throw an idealistic American youngster into Soviet Lithuania, he or she would run away screaming, since socialism is pretty in book yet not that pretty in reality. I agree that there should be some harmony between capitalism and socialism,though, because neither end of the spectrum is the best option.

I loved George's Orwell's "Animal Farm", since it accurately portrays how something that once started as a noble fight for freedom and equality (like communism) can turn into something ugly and destructive (like communism).

And if you want an example of how harmful pure capitalism is, then the beginning of the industrial revolution in England and America is a great example. Chimney sweeps in England were young orphaned boys because those were the cheapest labor that could actually do the job, and they often died before they reached adulthood from all the soot inhalation. Meanwhile in America, if you and your kids didn't want to work 16 hr shifts for not enough to support a family, you could just be fired and starve.

There's a reason all markets are mixed markets in some capacity these days, and often the labels applied (socialist, communist, capitalist) are more of a reflection of the ideas it takes pride in (individualism, collectivism) than the rigor of their policies (though obviously national values are going to be reflected in policy): because when it comes down to it, people need a system that works over any ideology.

[Agota]

Yes, pure capitalism is definitely not a good thing either. I think I should take a look at those northern countries which are incorporating socialistic ideas successfully, they seem to be pretty happy about it. As I said, there must be some middle point between two extremes..

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Agota

Yes, pure capitalism is definitely not a good thing either. I think I should take a look at those northern countries which are incorporating socialistic ideas successfully, they seem to be pretty happy about it. As I said, there must be some middle point between two extremes..

Yes, I definitely agree. I think there's a lot to love about an emergent, decentralized market because it's inherently more democratic, efficient, and adaptive. However, what I think a lot of American "anarcho-capitalist" types fail to realize is that the government set the parameters and rules for a market in the first place: that is how property becomes a meaningful concept (because if you don't respect it, the government can tote you off to jail).

Emergent systems are common in nature, and they're characterized by a set of rules that each member follows without a set leader, but towards an end. An example would be a school of fish--each stays a certain distance from other fish and reacts to outside stimuli, and viola! It works.

I think that once we acknowledge that the government is what creates a "market" in the first place, we can also tweak the rules to drive the engine of the market towards the ends that "promote the general welfare". As well as certain interventions when appropriate, and I do think there are almost certainly times when it is, but in general I think the former solution is more elegant.

As far as Northern European countries: they're quite literally happy about it. They're consistently ranked the happiest countries in the world. In fact, in any quality of life measure for citizens that I've seen they consistently beat other countries into the dust.

PS: Sorry, taylor, for going a bit off topic. I can split the thread if you'd rather this discussion take place outside of your thread.

[Agota]

Mariana, you're making politics seem interesting to me. That's an achievement!

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Agota

Mariana, you're making politics seem interesting to me. That's an achievement!

Why thank you for the feedback! That's awesome!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Yes, I definitely agree. I think there's a lot to love about an emergent, decentralized market because it's inherently more democratic, efficient, and adaptive. However, what I think a lot of American "anarcho-capitalist" types fail to realize is that the government set the parameters and rules for a market in the first place: that is how property becomes a meaningful concept (because if you don't respect it, the government can tote you off to jail).

Emergent systems are common in nature, and they're characterized by a set of rules that each member follows without a set leader, but towards an end. An example would be a school of fish--each stays a certain distance from other fish and reacts to outside stimuli, and viola! It works.

I think that once we acknowledge that the government is what creates a "market" in the first place, we can also tweak the rules to drive the engine of the market towards the ends that "promote the general welfare". As well as certain interventions when appropriate, and I do think there are almost certainly times when it is, but in general I think the former solution is more elegant.

As far as Northern European countries: they're quite literally happy about it. They're consistently ranked the happiest countries in the world. In fact, in any quality of life measure for citizens that I've seen they consistently beat other countries into the dust.

PS: Sorry, taylor, for going a bit off topic. I can split the thread if you'd rather this discussion take place outside of your thread.

I wanted to rep you for this post and I couldn't. I think that's the sanest perspective on political-economic issues I've seen on this forum... ever.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by Agota

I'm very skeptical of people who grew up in US (that's just an example) and are fascinated by socialist/communist ideas, because they have no idea what a failure that system was.

Hmm I think the opposite as well. When people are too close to an issue they tend to be biased by it and think they know everything about it when they don't. While experiences from the grim reality of Soviet Russia for example have their place in study, it's not the same thing as an objective philosophical analysis. Maybe collectivist schemes could work under certain conditions, maybe a mixed bag like Mariana is talking about. Compromise doesn't seem right to me though. If you are having to deviate from your philosophy, your philosophy is wrong. I don't think people compromise on philosophical grounds though, they're just greedy.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

PS: Sorry, taylor, for going a bit off topic. I can split the thread if you'd rather this discussion take place outside of your thread.

I don't mind. Your posts are interesting. The chimney sweep kids are doing that job voluntarily so they must have their reasons, no? Maybe it's better than not having food to eat. Ideally your population in an anarcho-capitalist society would help out the starving voluntarily, but can people really be trusted to do the right thing? I know most won't.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by taylor

Hmm I think the opposite as well. When people are too close to an issue they tend to be biased by it and think they know everything about it when they don't. While experiences from the grim reality of Soviet Russia for example have their place in study, it's not the same thing as an objective philosophical analysis. Maybe collectivist schemes could work under certain conditions, maybe a mixed bag like Mariana is talking about. Compromise doesn't seem right to me though. If you are having to deviate from your philosophy, your philosophy is wrong. I don't think people compromise on philosophical grounds though, they're just greedy.

That's why I'm hesitant to use the term 'middle ground'. It's not just an Argument to Moderation--it's a philosophy that works in and of itself.

I don't mind. Your posts are interesting. The chimney sweep kids are doing that job voluntarily so they must have their reasons, no? Maybe it's better than not having food to eat. Ideally your population in an anarcho-capitalist society would help out the starving voluntarily, but can people really be trusted to do the right thing? I know most won't.

Funny thing is, you wind up with the same essential philosophical problems with pure communism as you do anarcho-capitalism. In communism it's "can people be trusted to work and innovate?" and in pure capitalism it's "can people be trusted not to be heartlessly greedy?". Honestly, imo, that depends in real life on far too many factors assess with any certainty in a given situation. I think certain structure probably result in certain results on average, but I wouldn't know what those are.

Just about anything's better than starving, but those kids were handled more like prostitutes with pimps. They had handlers that would essentially rent them out, since they had no parents (or their parents needed to sell them).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by taylor

Maybe collectivist schemes could work under certain conditions, maybe a mixed bag like Mariana is talking about. Compromise doesn't seem right to me though. If you are having to deviate from your philosophy, your philosophy is wrong. I don't think people compromise on philosophical grounds though, they're just greedy.

I've become interested in the philosophy of pragmatism lately. I won't say more on it on the premise that I don't grok it well enough to deserve to summarize it, but I will copy and paste Wikipedia:

"Pragmatism is an American philosophical tradition centered around the linking of practice and theory. It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice. Important positions characteristic of pragmatism include radical empiricism, instrumentalism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, a denial of the fact-value distinction, a high regard for science, and fallibilism."

So to me, the ideal form of government would be one that was capable of rewriting itself fairly and transparently through discussion and evidence (with discussion being a form of evidence). And I'd expect to see paths diverge a significant amount in different states using the same basic form.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I've become interested in the philosophy of pragmatism lately. I won't say more on it on the premise that I don't grok it well enough to deserve to summarize it, but I will copy and paste Wikipedia:

"Pragmatism is an American philosophical tradition centered around the linking of practice and theory. It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice. Important positions characteristic of pragmatism include radical empiricism, instrumentalism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, a denial of the fact-value distinction, a high regard for science, and fallibilism."

So to me, the ideal form of government would be one that was capable of rewriting itself fairly and transparently through discussion and evidence (with discussion being a form of evidence). And I'd expect to see paths diverge a significant amount in different states using the same basic form.

I love this. Except perhaps the denial of a fact-value distinction: unless they are using that in a different way than I'm interpreting it, I don't agree with that.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

I love this. Except perhaps the denial of a fact-value distinction: unless they are using that in a different way than I'm interpreting it, I don't agree with that.

It's a philosophical term: Fact-value distinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this excerpt from Wikipedia's page on Pragmatism captures it (emphasis added):

"Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: knowledge is what we should believe; values are hypotheses about what is good in action. Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans. Good values are those for which we have good reasons, viz. the Good Reasons approach. The pragmatist formulation pre-dates those of other philosophers who have stressed important similarities between values and facts such as Jerome Schneewind and John Searle."

But every time I take a close look at whether or not I agree with it, I get this overwhelming sense that there are Consequences that I'm not seeing and it makes me paranoid.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

It's a philosophical term: Fact-value distinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this excerpt from Wikipedia's page on Pragmatism captures it (emphasis added):

"Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: knowledge is what we should believe; values are hypotheses about what is good in action. Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans. Good values are those for which we have good reasons, viz. the Good Reasons approach. The pragmatist formulation pre-dates those of other philosophers who have stressed important similarities between values and facts such as Jerome Schneewind and John Searle."

But every time I take a close look at whether or not I agree with it, I get this overwhelming sense that there are Consequences that I'm not seeing and it makes me paranoid.

Ha! I know the feeling.

I don't think I disagree with any thing explicitly said in the quote, but do find the fact-value distinction a useful one. I'm going to be mulling over the implications of the Good Reasons approach for a while.

[Brutha]

If you want to read a modern book about socialist ideas No Logo by Naomi Klein might be a good choice.

Political and economic systems are complex.

As far as pragmatism goes, it sounds nice in theory. For some questions it's a good idea in practice. For others it isn't. I like a country with governs itself according to the rule of law over a country that makes pragmatic decisions.
The US president shouldn't pragmatically invade another country but go through seek authorization from congress.

Having legal checks and balances means that you have to have some common principles.

If you are having to deviate from your philosophy, your philosophy is wrong.

All models have problems. The key is too understand the problems of your model and work around.

You want to have low taxes and a lot of services but in the end there are trade off involved.