Position:Home>Philosophy> Marxism Help!?

No matter what people remember about Marxism, they always remember the "standard operating principle":

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs!."

This is how Marxism is supposed to work!. But it was supposed to be utopian, with every man VOLUNTARILY giving to the best of his ability, and each man taking ONLY acording to his needs!.

When you offer this up as voluntary, the only option is philanthropy, and the two biggest philanthropists the world has ever seen are both said to be atheists!. But they are also the two biggest capitalists the world has ever seen, the two wealthiest men the world has ever seen!.

The voluntary compliance with Marx's "operating principle" is unworkable by 99!.999% of the population because they don't have "excess capital," and they have principles of their own which amount to this: "Don't give to those who won't do for themselves first!."

When the voluntarism begins, the slaggards come out of the woodwork and claim a "need!." The biggest claims get the biggest shares, the slaggards are soon seen to be what they really are, and the voluntarism stops!.

So the only way to make the principle work, aside from a Utopian mindset, is government interference, taking from the wealthy and giving to the less wealthy!.

But look at all the nations that have tried that!. They began and ended as dictatorships!. It has only been recently that Communist nations learned what the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock learned http://forum!.isi!.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/!.!.!. and that was that Communism does not work--Capitalism does!.

China is the fastest growing economy in the world!. Vietnam and Cambodia are capitalistic tourist attractions, even building an enormous new golf course on their border to attract people to both nations!.

When you take from those with ability and give what you took to those with no ability to produce, the producers come to hate their own ability instead of hating the operating principle, because they have been told it is not good to be seen as "selfish!."

The whole political point of the novel Atlas Shrugged was to show people that "selfishness" is what creates the wealth, and when you begin to despise your abilities because they cause you financial harm instead of security, when you would be better off as one of the needy instead of one of the producers, the producers quit producing and everyone becomes "needy!."

Marxism, thus, is not even "good in theory, bad in practice," because what is bad in practice must necessarily be bad theory!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Some of the false assumptions basing marxism:

There was a "golden age of primitive happiness!." Anthropology has found convincing evidence to the contrary--regardless of the means of production, people have been nasty!.

"Bourgeois is bad or inevitably oppressive!." Capital not only develops more workplace goods, but it does not necessarily mean bad bourgeoise enslavement and stealing from the laboring "class!." This is a false distinction: both "management" and "labor" are simply divisions of labor, both have skill sets!.

Interchangability of work is the goal!. Actually, greater individuated specialization has this naive and erroneous notion of KM false!.

The major focus of early marxist theory was conflict-based; when KM observed German workers' being able to move toward a more just society via the ballot box, he then proceeded to refocus his theory, penning "The Critique of the Gotha Program," i!.e!., promoting the notion that an evolutionary path toward more social justice was possible after all!.

Another major flaw in marxism is its illogical and dogmatic tendency to claim "God is not!." This is a basic and simple error in logic--one can never prove such a universal negative (not to mention the well-attested "gestures of God," e!.g!. the Host of Light at Garabandal, Spain, or the life of Saint Therese of Neumann)!.

Another flaw in marxism is the unwarrented assumption that "matter drives evolution!." It lacks logical and scientific credibility and proof!. We know that life has developed, but we don't even know the reductive level of "first assembly," i!.e!., how sufficient complexity was able to come into the biochemical level of "living" process!.

There are no real innovations in marxist theoretic!. All is borrowed from prior thinking--and much of it erroneous!.

What is worth learning, regardless of marxian cultishness, re the subject it pseudo-scientifically addresses, is:

People are complex, likely have souls and a Creator God, and economic activity is one analytic axis and measure of man's activity!. However, economic activity is often a means to greater goals; e!.g!., Abraham Maslow's "self-actualization" and Viktor Frankl's "search for meaning!."

And!.!.!.there are childish tendencies towards greed, social control, and cliquishness, which run throughout the human persona and history!. When a new technology arrives, multiplying force by a significant factor, those who have much power often find themselves with more power!.

There is a mathematical surety that posits that a small, well-motivated, well-coordinated, and empowered group can gain much power in a generalist society!. Such groups exist as what has been termed the "capitalist communist conspiracy," i!.e!., the uneasy alliance of institutional leadership which finds more wealth and power by subtle cooperation, than by outright warring of the nations they more or less control!.

"The True Story of the Bilderberg Group," Daniel Estulin,
"Hope of the Wicked," Ted Flynn, and
"The Soulless One," Mark Prophet, give examples of this general tending, regardless of the reductively erroneous notion that "means of production" exclusively dominate and condition cognition!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---