Marxism is a Socio-Political-Economic Philosophy

[Stratagos]

It's the same thing as nazism.

Exactly the same.

[Sarmatian]

Do not tell me what I think. I tell you what I think. How ironic that you come at me with a misconception of your own that was created in an attempt to salvage a failed ideology. In the real world there is no greater incentive for someone to work than to be rewarded for their productivity. Communal ownership doesn't work on a scale larger than 100 or so people for the obvious reason that our personal circle can't be larger than 100 or so people and so while in a small communal setting someone who is not putting the same amount of work as everyone else and becomes a burden on others can be confronted and ostracized you can't do that in a nation at large.

We don't live in monasteries where only the willing stay, which, if I can be so bold, is what I assume is your first thought when thinking of a communal ownership. All other examples are mired by conflict and abuse.

It's noted you didn't actually address anything I specifically said. You should note I specifically addressed what you said. That is another difference between our two cultural spheres.

I'm addressing exactly what you express - your dogmatic approach towards property ownership.

I'm 100% agree with you on the matter of reward being the biggest incentive a man could get. But where exactly concept of ownership presented in this logical construct? Are you implying that reward for productivity only comes to those who own something? Sure ownership is nice bonus but it's not required condition to be rewarded fairly.

Monastery being the first example that pops up in your mind when thinking of communal ownership only serves to manifest your limited historical knowledge. For over 1000 years of Russian history rural communes were the only form of land ownership. In fact they weren't even considered owners as according to Orthodox tradition all land belongs to God and only His representative on Earth, the Tzar, could decide on how land is being used. No private individual ever owned any land in Russia up until 20th century. That fact didn't stop generations of peasants being very motivated to be as productive as humanly possible.

There were also industrial cooperatives called artels. They were part of Russian history for centuries but ironically have had their highest development under Stalin. In 1930's USSR had some 80 000 private cooperatives registered. Some were over thousand men strong and had large parks of heavy industrial machines. They were producing large variety of consumers products, furniture, utensils, clothes, electronics. First mass TV in USSR was produced by private cooperative. During war they were even making weapons and ammunition on government orders. None of them had private owner yet they had enough incentive to be productive.

So communal ownership was and is an effective concept on any scale. You can't see it this way because of extreme individualism of your culture. The thing is working for you and all your surrounding social environment screams that's the only way possible. And for some reason, being so rational as you are, you simply believing it without a question. The way I see it when someone jumps in with accusations like "Marx never understood blablabla" it only shows ignorance of accuser. You can blame Marx's followers for many things but to this day his own works on economic analysis remains unmatched in its dept. He did extensive research, he knew what he was talking about and all of his predictions on developments of capitalist economic formation came true.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I'm addressing exactly what you express - your dogmatic approach towards property ownership.

No, what you did was say I was wrong without an argument.

I'm 100% agree with you on the matter of reward being the biggest incentive a man could get. But where exactly concept of ownership presented in this logical construct?

Property ownership is the most tangible reward. There is no abstraction with property ownership.

Are you implying that reward for productivity only comes to those who own something?

Obviously I did not but you sure would have have preferred that I did. Like most hacks you fill the gaps of a two sentence post instead of ask the person himself.

That there are various incentives doesn't change the fact that Marxism fails because there is no incentive to be productive beyond the minimal. There is no added benefit to one's own family that a person can see because that benefit is spread to others who haven't put the time, education, etc. Into their work. It's literally lowering one's own and that of their family's quality of life.

Sure ownership is nice bonus but it's not required condition to be rewarded fairly.

My phone is about to die. So I'll finish the rest later. I suspect the rest is about how awesome Russia is in some way cuz one thing I noticed about Russian posters is it''s never a question of self delusion but rather the degree on the individual Russian' s self delusion.

Monastery being the first example that pops up in your mind when thinking of communal ownership only serves to manifest your limited historical knowledge. For over 1000 years of Russian history rural communes were the only form of land ownership. In fact they weren't even considered owners as according to Orthodox tradition all land belongs to God and only His representative on Earth, the Tzar, could decide on how land is being used. No private individual ever owned any land in Russia up until 20th century. That fact didn't stop generations of peasants being very motivated to be as productive as humanly possible.

There were also industrial cooperatives called artels. They were part of Russian history for centuries but ironically have had their highest development under Stalin. In 1930's USSR had some 80 000 private cooperatives registered. Some were over thousand men strong and had large parks of heavy industrial machines. They were producing large variety of consumers products, furniture, utensils, clothes, electronics. First mass TV in USSR was produced by private cooperative. During war they were even making weapons and ammunition on government orders. None of them had private owner yet they had enough incentive to be productive.

So communal ownership was and is an effective concept on any scale. You can't see it this way because of extreme individualism of your culture. The thing is working for you and all your surrounding social environment screams that's the only way possible. And for some reason, being so rational as you are, you simply believing it without a question. The way I see it when someone jumps in with accusations like "Marx never understood blablabla" it only shows ignorance of accuser. You can blame Marx's followers for many things but to this day his own works on economic analysis remains unmatched in its dept. He did extensive research, he knew what he was talking about and all of his predictions on developments of capitalist economic formation came true.[/QUOTE]

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Monastery being the first example that pops up in your mind when thinking of communal ownership only serves to manifest your limited historical knowledge.

People across cultures can relate to a monastery. If you wanted to impress me you would have referred to Igbo's communal living or some other group (native American groups have a number of groups who lived communally) but instead you reference something from your failed history that ironically supports my argument. It's okay to have an interest in other cultures and peopleou do. You don't need to be the 'Russian internet police' at this forum who needs to tells us all a historical fact about Russia/Soviet Union is just propaganda against Russians. In other words, have some other value at this forum.

For over 1000 years of Russian history rural communes were the only form of land ownership.

And it led to serfdom. As I said in my other post abuse will take place. It's only been been since the 1860s that the large majority of Russians have been free from serfdom and the ability to have serfdom were quite easy considering the cultural norms were conducive to it.

In fact they weren't even considered owners as according to Orthodox tradition all land belongs to God and only His representative on Earth, the Tzar, could decide on how land is being used. No private individual ever owned any land in Russia up until 20th century. That fact didn't stop generations of peasants being very motivated to be as productive as humanly possible.

I don't care if the Tsar or God or Reptilians was the true owner. You're wasting my time on irrelevant details.

There were also industrial cooperatives called artels. They were part of Russian history for centuries but ironically have had their highest development under Stalin. In 1930's USSR had some 80 000 private cooperatives registered. Some were over thousand men strong and had large parks of heavy industrial machines. They were producing large variety of consumers products, furniture, utensils, clothes, electronics. First mass TV in USSR was produced by private cooperative. During war they were even making weapons and ammunition on government orders. None of them had private owner yet they had enough incentive to be productive.

I'm sure you're aware that the US during the 30s sent food to Russia out of charity. That of course didn't stop Stalin from starving the Ukrainians into submission. If your argument is communal whatever coopertives whatever is just as good or better than 'Angloshpere' way of doing things (individualism and a regard for property rights) but yet needed charity from a nation in the Anglosphere to keep from starving then your system is a fail.

As for productivity, that is relative. Some people are more productive than others. Some nations are more productive than others. The Soviet Union didn't exactly wow the world with its efficiency. The Soviet Union had nations under their sphere of influence that had no choice but to accept their crappy products.

I have a suspicion you're not familiar of what I'm speaking of (the food for charity). I never know what Russians actually know about their own history but there is a great deal of documentation on the US keeping Russians from starving in the early 30s, while of course, the Russians did all the awesomeness you point out. You're welcome, btw.

So communal ownership was and is an effective concept on any scale. You can't see it this way because of extreme individualism of your culture. The thing is working for you and all your surrounding social environment screams that's the only way possible.

Obviously it wasn't.

And for some reason, being so rational as you are, you simply believing it without a question. The way I see it when someone jumps in with accusations like "Marx never understood blablabla" it only shows ignorance of accuser. You can blame Marx's followers for many things but to this day his own works on economic analysis remains unmatched in its dept. He did extensive research, he knew what he was talking about and all of his predictions on developments of capitalist economic formation came true.

You're clearly unaware of a book (I forget the name) that looked throughout Marx's footnotes for Das Kapital. It was done in the early 1900s. There were many errors and some straight out fabrications of what Marx took from his sources. Marx wasn't exactly an honest man and when your whole life revolves around an idea there is a temptation to distort and fabricate when that idea doesn't meet reality. You can literally see it for yourself.

Perhaps I'll look up the title. Despite your drive for truth, I doubt you'll look it up yourself. No disrespect but judging from your post it may be too emotionally damaging.

[Petros Agapetos]

Great video explains the difference between communism, socialism, Marxism, etc. and other leftist ideologies.

[Sarmatian]

Property ownership is the most tangible reward. There is no abstraction with property ownership.

The most tangible reward is the one you could hold in you hands, see it, smell it, hear it and at the end use it for some positive effect. The very concept of ownership is pure abstraction humans invented as a tool to organize the natural environment in human-human interactions. It's based on our territorial instinct and serves more towards establishing sense of security rather than as a reward.

That there are various incentives doesn't change the fact that Marxism fails because there is no incentive to be productive beyond the minimal. There is no added benefit to one's own family that a person can see because that benefit is spread to others who haven't put the time, education, etc. Into their work. It's literally lowering one's own and that of their family's quality of life.

Do you seriously believe there is no variability of material reward in Marxist system? I see this scary story being told over and over again by people who have no idea what they talking about. There is no lowering of quality of life in Marxist system, there is only prevention of unlimited hoarding of resources by few at expense of others, that's it.

People across cultures can relate to a monastery. If you wanted to impress me you would have referred to Igbo's communal living or some other group (native American groups have a number of groups who lived communally) but instead you reference something from your failed history that ironically supports my argument. It's okay to have an interest in other cultures and peopleou do.

I don't know what is failed for you, but for me it's something that is going extinct. If it still functions one way or another it's not a failure. Russia seems to be good example because it was there in one form or another for 1000 years and still standing. Is it perfect? Hell no. Does it work? Hell yes. Big, continuous, with massive influence on world's history. Meanwhile who knows about some Igbos?

And it led to serfdom. As I said in my other post abuse will take place. It's only been been since the 1860s that the large majority of Russians have been free from serfdom and the ability to have serfdom were quite easy considering the cultural norms were conducive to it.

Nonsense. There was private ownership in Western Europe yet there was serfdom too. Abuses taking place today in modern capitalist system so it's not an argument either.

I'm sure you're aware that the US during the 30s sent food to Russia out of charity. That of course didn't stop Stalin from starving the Ukrainians into submission. If your argument is communal whatever coopertives whatever is just as good or better than 'Angloshpere' way of doing things (individualism and a regard for property rights) but yet needed charity from a nation in the Anglosphere to keep from starving then your system is a fail.

As for productivity, that is relative. Some people are more productive than others. Some nations are more productive than others. The Soviet Union didn't exactly wow the world with its efficiency. The Soviet Union had nations under their sphere of influence that had no choice but to accept their crappy products.

I have a suspicion you're not familiar of what I'm speaking of (the food for charity). I never know what Russians actually know about their own history but there is a great deal of documentation on the US keeping Russians from starving in the early 30s, while of course, the Russians did all the awesomeness you point out. You're welcome, btw.

You seem to lack knowledge on economic developments in early USSR. In 1930 Soviet economy was largely inherited from Empire with its 80% of population occupied in agriculture. People were poor, consumer market was virtually non-existent, industry was very primitive. Hunger was regular occurrence since mid 19th century, exactly from time serfdom was abolished. That reform was needed but the way it was conducted by tsarist authorities had lead to massive impoverishment of peasants. WWI and devastating Civil war didn't make matters any better. So yes, US aid was very much needed and I'm very well aware of why and when it happened.

Yet 10 years later over half of USSR population was already busy in industrial sector, consumer market was booming, hunger was impossible. It wasn't perfect, far from what you had in US. But given the low starting point the development of the time was huge. And it was all achieved in Marxist system.

Obviously it wasn't.

Obviously that's your personal opinion. Quite ignorant the way I see it.

You're clearly unaware of a book (I forget the name) that looked throughout Marx's footnotes for Das Kapital. It was done in the early 1900s. There were many errors and some straight out fabrications of what Marx took from his sources. Marx wasn't exactly an honest man and when your whole life revolves around an idea there is a temptation to distort and fabricate when that idea doesn't meet reality. You can literally see it for yourself.

Perhaps I'll look up the title. Despite your drive for truth, I doubt you'll look it up yourself. No disrespect but judging from your post it may be too emotionally damaging.

Yes you're right, I'm unaware of that book and yes, I'm not going to look it up. Because I have no idea what to look for. If you could give me title it will be much appreciated.

[catgeorge]

Its fascism - left fascist have caused the largest number of genocides known to human kind.

[Sarmatian]

Its fascism -

No it's not. It's like saying dog and wolves are the same thing because they have similarities in exterior: same face, same tail, same paws, even fur is often the same. Yet only imbecile would claim them to be the same thing.

left fascist have caused the largest number of genocides known to human kind.

That only shows you know little about genocides human kind committed.

[GreentheViper]

Marxism is... gay lol

[Petros Agapetos]

Marxism is a socio-political-economic philosophy that also involves sociology and history (among other disciplines). Marxism has a broad spectrum of applications.
I am most familiar with the economic aspects, but there are cultural aspects too (called Cultural Marxism).