Has there ever been a successful Marxist state ?

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 68
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    Apart from North Korea of course..but I think that qualifies for " Fanatic totalaterian cult worshiping fringe marxist " State of the year award.



    I challenge anyone to name me a single marxist state. past or present, ( except Gilligan's island & the Brady Bunch ) that has actually ever worked. ?



    Put em up & see how fast we can knock em down...!





    Personally, I think that a Marxist state will collapse because of inherent notions that run counter to the realities human being.



    but, Ill take devil's advocate and argue that there has been a successfull marxist (via Maoism) state.

    Let me qualify this first by saying that 'success' depends on towards what end.

    If success means economically and individual civil liberties then China has certainly failed.

    But, if success is measured by China's ability to transcend its long ingrained feudalistic curruption, massive starvation and systematic inequality, as well as its being subject to Imperialistic influences, if this is the measure, then you could say that China was a success:

    Sure it replaced its corruption with Marxist corruption and it's inequality of 'ownership' with the inequality of the party . . . as well as having its bouts of spasmotic mass killings (but hey, what do you expect from a Marxism?!?) But, in a real sense its time as a controlled economy provided a kind of point of departure from where it could transition into more balanced pre-capitalist state that is growing towards more balance everyday.



    There is a real chance that without this spell of hysterical Marx-maoism China would have kept itself in its degenerate squalor of inequality and imperialistic decadence imposed by the capitalist pig-dogs of ownership!!!



    ... convincing?!?!





    ...not . . .\
  • Reply 42 of 68
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    I'm rather suprised no one has mentioned Mugabe..

    Or has he slipped under the radar ?



    It makes me wonder why marxist inclined states tend to fall under the influence of a single leader..& then degenerate into either totalatarian regimes or neo-cult states.

    There must be someting inherent in the Socialist model..

    Ps and I am not forgetting Mussolini or Hitler who ironically utilised much of the political rhetoric of the left to move the masses to the right of field, but with a much more nationalistic / rascist agenda. Just to show i am balanced.\
  • Reply 43 of 68
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    It makes me wonder why marxist inclined states tend to fall under the influence of a single leader..& then degenerate into either totalatarian regimes or neo-cult states.



    Marxism in its purest form potentially leaves a government prone to the cliche of "one bad apple spoils the bunch." In my opinion, it's not inherent to marxism per se, without proper checks and balances, any government is prone to these things. Of course even before checks and balances can be respected, people have to respect the institution that creates them as something greater than the sum of its parts (i.e., its people who comprise it).
  • Reply 44 of 68
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Marxism in its purest form potentially leaves a government prone to the cliche of "one bad apple spoils the bunch." In my opinion, it's not inherent to marxism per se, without proper checks and balances, any government is prone to these things. Of course even before checks and balances can be respected, people have to respect the institution that creates them as something greater than the sum of its parts (i.e., its people who comprise it).



    Good point..

    England's road to capital based democracy was long and hard.

    They had their Cromwell. France had their Napoleon...So it is a matter of legeslative checks & balances as you point out....
  • Reply 45 of 68
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

    Much of the motive was indeed ideological, but the same could be said about Roosevelt's ?New Deal? or Johnson's ?Great Society?, but the practical element was just as present, and to my opinion, more determinant.



    But in the long run, we're still left with the ideological part. "New Deal" showed that state intervention actually worked.





    Quote:

    The only place where the welfare-state has been implemented is in capitalist countries. To me it seems capitalism is rather pre-requisite for a welfare-state of the kind you enjoy..



    true, the welfare-state is the practice of a states social responsibility in a capitalist setting.







    Quote:

    I think you're too anxious here, the welfare-state is certainly changing as the situation of full development as it is today, is very different from that of develplemt/reconstruction of the nineteen-fifties, and requires change.

    In the UK, the only Western-European country to have actually challenged the welfare-state model (and let's not forget the impact at the time, of the oil crises and the subsequent recession suffered in many rich economies), they wouldn't even dismantle the NHS. That's rather pathetic as a return to laissez-faire.

    Countries on the Continent did not go as far as to challenge the model itself, some reformed it, often successfully (it's not like you Nordics have so much to cry about), some others alas were more reluctant (pour ne pas les nommer).

    A mix of nostalgia and ideology may see some of the changes undergone by social-democracies as ?the end of the wold as we know it?, but they're just that, changes, and incremental ones at that.

    What we do have, is the increased drumming of the tam-tams of the ?market ideology?, which for some reason seems threatening to many (but then it's not like they took over Russia, privatised the state, declared war to all statist states while crowning some oligarch as ?supreme individual?, and started rounding up the lesser individuals for slave labour touted as the next economic miracle).



    The fact remains that all First-World democracies remain mixed economies (though in different dosage) for reasons which are now rather pragmatic than ideological.

    To the delight of some, and the dismay of others, the welfare-state is not going anywhere.



    The political ideologies which brought about the model of mixed economy and welfare-state are, on the other hand, done for: strangled by their own success; they wasted themselves to death in post-68 hippy post-rationalist, new-left babbling and alter-reality tercermundismo.




    I agree that the welfare-state needs to develope. And it probably will. But right now it is more threathened than ever. Especially by the illusion that the free market forces and privatisation is a pre-condition for anything to work in a modern society.



    Right now, here in rich-ass Norway, we have a massive privatisation wave of everything. Which has currently led to poorer (but cheaper) renovation. An unstable energy market, close the most expensive, yet poorest buss and subway system in western Europe... to name a few.



    The trouble with this isn't actually the short term effects, but the burning of all bridges in a long term perspective. When we're selling out all the stuff that has been state-owned for over a hundred years, to Foreign multinational companies, we're denying ourself the chances to go in and actually control and stimulate the economy. Like Roosevelt did.



    Suddenly putting a price tag on everything is the more important than enything else. As a norwegian doctor put it;

    With the current way of pricing everything in health-care, it is most cost-efficient to let the patients die in some cases...
  • Reply 46 of 68
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    For me, Capitalism works best when it is tied to an agenda that connects it to human needs & not pure profit....



    At the same time I distrust Marxism & Big brother governments of any colour or hue...



    So what does that make me..A centrist ?



    \
  • Reply 47 of 68
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    For me, Capitalism works best when it is tied to an agenda that connects it to human needs & not pure profit....



    At the same time I distrust Marxism & Big brother governments of any colour or hue...



    So what does that make me..A centrist ?



    \




    A capitalist.
  • Reply 48 of 68
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    A capitalist.



    Yeah, One with little capital..care to make a donation Hassan ?
  • Reply 49 of 68
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    Yeah, One with little capital..care to make a donation Hassan ?



    Certainly. PM me your bank details immediately.





  • Reply 50 of 68
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Certainly. PM me your bank details immediately.



    remember to include your pin-code...
  • Reply 51 of 68
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    For me, Capitalism works best when it is tied to an agenda that connects it to human needs & not pure profit....





    So how do we do that?
  • Reply 52 of 68
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

    Much of the motive was indeed ideological, but the same could be said about Roosevelt's ?New Deal? or Johnson's ?Great Society?, but the practical element was just as present, and to my opinion, more determinant.



    Originally posted by New

    But in the long run, we're still left with the ideological part. "New Deal" showed that state intervention actually worked.



    I'd say that it showed that state intervention can have yield positive results, and so has its place which is why I believe the practical aspect of the matter e.g.: that it ?can work? is what determined its application on the long run.



    Quote:

    Quote:

    I think you're too anxious here,?



    I agree that the welfare-state needs to develope. And it probably will. But right now it is more threathened than ever. Especially by the illusion that the free market forces and privatisation is a pre-condition for anything to work in a modern society.



    The ideology of the market is far weaker today, than Marxism was in the sixties, and Marxist activism at its peak could not sway the West, so I don;t have much to fear from the market-ideologues.



    Quote:

    Right now, here in rich-ass Norway, we have a massive privatisation wave of everything. Which has currently led to poorer (but cheaper) renovation. An unstable energy market, close the most expensive, yet poorest buss and subway system in western Europe... to name a few.



    I'm not familiar with the detailed specifics on Norway, but niether nationalisation nor privatisation have any superior ethical value in themselves, and can both have their usefulness according to the situation. Mistakes can be corrected, and a badly implemented privatisation of a certain branch doesn't mean its privatisation is in itself inadmissible.



    Quote:

    The trouble with this isn't actually the short term effects, but the burning of all bridges in a long term perspective. When we're selling out all the stuff that has been state-owned for over a hundred years, to Foreign multinational companies, we're denying ourself the chances to go in and actually control and stimulate the economy. Like Roosevelt did.



    Should the situation necessitate nationalisation at some point in the future I don't see why it couldn't be done. Again, neither nationalisation nor privatisation, and neither de-regulation nor re-regulation should be seen from the angle of faith in their having some inherent moral value but from a more pragmatic angle.



    Quote:

    Suddenly putting a price tag on everything is the more important than enything else. As a norwegian doctor put it;

    With the current way of pricing everything in health-care, it is most cost-efficient to let the patients die in some cases...




    Privatising certain utilities or services is not ?putting a price tag on everything?, and a more accurate measuring of the cost of services doesn't mean all treatment would be practiced solely on the criterion of profit. I believe that while cost effectivness should be sought to prevent waste of resources, I do not confuse with basing matters of life and death on the factor of cost, and I don't think public health-care in Norway faces any serious threat, since the British one survived Lady Thatcher.



    I think all these matters are observed through lenses with way too much ideological colouring.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    But, if success is measured by China's ability to transcend its long ingrained feudalistic curruption, massive starvation and systematic inequality, as well as its being subject to Imperialistic influences, if this is the measure, then you could say that China was a success?



    Massive starvations occured in China under Mao, due the very nature of the regime.

    As for inequality, the very nature of a regime in which a huge majority is kept in abject misery while a tiny ruling majority keeps not only material wealth, but a status of official status of legal superiority (and the Party was much like the old aristocracy in that respect) as at antipode of equality under the law (which the foundation of the modern acception of ?equality?).



    As for imperialistic influences, it'd have been beneficial for the Chinese people had Hong-Kong been extended to the entire country in 1949, if you ask me.

    The fact that there were always more Chinese trying to leave Red China for Hong-Kong than the other way around seems to corroborate my view.
  • Reply 53 of 68
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    but
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein

    Massive starvations occured in China under Mao, due the very nature of the regime.

    As for inequality, the very nature of a regime in which a huge majority is kept in abject misery while a tiny ruling majority keeps not only material wealth, but a status of official status of legal superiority (and the Party was much like the old aristocracy in that respect) as at antipode of equality under the law (which the foundation of the modern acception of ?equality?).



    As for imperialistic influences, it'd have been beneficial for the Chinese people had Hong-Kong been extended to the entire country in 1949, if you ask me.

    The fact that there were always more Chinese trying to leave Red China for Hong-Kong than the other way around seems to corroborate my view.




    Well, gee . . . besides my own hole-blowing of my arguement you make it clear that the Devil is no advocate in this case



    but, can't blame me for trying . . .
  • Reply 54 of 68
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    remember to include your pin-code...



    Ok

    It is Swissbank number Acdn.235349292.oGrt-Dx..332

    Pin 666.



    Under the name Sadam Hussain..& Co.



    Hey its tough getting a job out there..so this is to tide me over...
  • Reply 55 of 68
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Has there ever been a sucessful Marxist state?



    No, not really. But I do think that Marxism has, relative to pre-revolutionary conditions, improved the lot of a good deal of the population of a few (although not many) states. Cuba comes to mind as an example.



    However, the problem is that application of Marxist theory eventually puts severe limitations on economic growth, which leads to shared poverty. Further it almost always descends into totalitarianism from a political perspective.



    So even if there are sometimes (not often) short-to-medium term gains for the large lower classes of third-world countries, things then proceed to a point where Marxism has nothing more to offer.
  • Reply 56 of 68
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chinney

    Has there ever been a sucessful Marxist state?



    No, not really. But I do think that Marxism has, relative to pre-revolutionary conditions, improved the lot of a good deal of the population of a few (although not many) states. Cuba comes to mind as an example.





    I seriously wonder if even this could be supported. mainly because many pre-revolutionary countries/ states were economically not much different to similar states that chose Capitalism.

    The fact that indoor plumbing along with electricity. telephones, cars & other major consumables were virtually the domain of the super wealthy less than a 100 years ago shows how living standards have improved overall regardless of Ideology.



    As an aside, I always wondered if in fact Marx was heavily influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution..& if it impacted on his socio-economic theories. ?
  • Reply 57 of 68
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    "Cuba"!!!???



    You must be kidding. Cubans have a rusty Iron Rod firmly implanted up their backsides . . . . and the plight of the poor . . . if Capitalism had flourished their i think they probably wouldn't be starving and afraid to say anything about it like they are now.



    Castrow is somehow winked about with a kind of knowing nod where the implication is: "yeah he's cool . . if the Man (USA) would let hem have his way" by people who I think of as my peers: liberals, aesthetes etc. They are WRONG. He is shafting his people and has been since day one of his rule.
  • Reply 58 of 68
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    "Cuba"!!!???



    You must be kidding. Cubans have a rusty Iron Rod firmly implanted up their backsides . . . . and the plight of the poor . . . if Capitalism had flourished their i think they probably wouldn't be starving and afraid to say anything about it like they are now.



    Castrow is somehow winked about with a kind of knowing nod where the implication is: "yeah he's cool . . if the Man (USA) would let hem have his way" by people who I think of as my peers: liberals, aesthetes etc. They are WRONG. He is shafting his people and has been since day one of his rule.




    Still the average cuban is better of than any other latin-american...



    hmmm...
  • Reply 59 of 68
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    Still the average cuban is better of than any other latin-american...



    hmmm...




    not true . . .a romanticism that is easy to dispell



    wander off the tourist sanctioned pathways . .



    oh yeah, and ask them to write some poetry about freedom . . see what happens.
  • Reply 60 of 68
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    So how is it that the americans don't invade Cuba to "liberate " the cubans...

    Remembering the WOMD that the russians put in Cuba in the 60's..Hell. who's to say they haven't recently recieved a whole shipment of second hand WOMD's from somewhere in the middle east courtesy of an Ex-dictator...hmmm....
Sign In or Register to comment.