Foxy "Marxism and Communism are totally different things."

yes!

So too a caterpillar is different to a moth

But what starts as one thing strangely, always finishes as the other

like I said before

Quote

"Again, separating “Marxist Theory” from the practical application of Marxism is the ultimate state of denial.

It allows the academics to wash their hands of the millions of dead people who suffered under the practical application of Marxism/Leninism or Collectivism by any name"

I cannot remember how many have died in the name of capitalism.... lets face it who would wish to see loss of a protential consumer

Collectivists, call them Marxists, Trotskyites, Communists or Socialists cannot make that claim....

Now, some would suggest socialism and communism are two different things but it was, after all Comrade Lenin (you know, he who organised mass starvations and the butchering of Kulaks) who made the critically important observation

"The Goal of Socialism of Communism"

and that being the case and on the evidence of history, that is the case,

So too, communism leads to Stalinism and all the horrors a psychopathic dictator can impose on people....

Thats the Stalin who said

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

and that was about the only reliable statistic which came out of 70 years of collectivist horror

as another politician commented

" it is worth recalling that economic statistics under the Soviet Union were hardly more reliable than any other official statements. Moreover, a country that produces what no one wants to buy, and whose workers receive wages that they cannot use to buy goods they want, is hardly in the best of economic health."

Yes, Marxism is different to Communism

The former is a whacky theory for intellectuals and academics to pontificate over-

The other is the real world application of the same whacky theory, with all its horrors and abuses of individuals and deaths in the millions

yet, collectivists deny the obvious association...

maybe a putrid maggot and a germ laden house fly is a more appropriate analogy of Marxism and Communism

Dear Stern,

Karl Marx's views, like those of anyone else,
were deeply influenced by the social environment
in which he lived.
He wrote in an era when industry was owned and
controlled by individual capitalists, and the
bulk of the population comprised a poorly paid
labor force living in wretched conditions. But
changes in industrial societies since that time
have thrown doubt on Marx's concept of class.
One significant change is in the occupational
structure: the middle class has expanded rapidly,
and a variety of new jobs have emerged. Most industry
is now run by large corporations. Today a "new class"
is appearing, consisting of well-educated experts
whose high social status is based on knowledge,
not ownership.

Totalitarianism is a twentieth-century phenomenon,
in part because it relies on such modern techniques
as mass indoctrination of the populace and
sophisticated surveillance of potential dissidents.
The outstanding examples of totalitarian governments
are the three that were responsible for perhaps the
most grotesque acts of genocide in history:
Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and more recently
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime. In each case
terror was used as an instrument of policy, and
millions of people were slaughtered at the whim of a
regime.

Totalitarian governments are marked by several
characteristics. An elaborate ideology that covers every
phase of the individual's life; a single political party
that is identical with the government; widespread use of
intimidation; complete control of mass media; monopoly
control of weaponry and armed forces; and direction of
the economy by the state bureaucracy.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Foxy “Totalitarianism is a twentieth-century phenomenon,”

Only if we view the “divine right of Kings” as something which was not “Totalitarianism”

And only if we ignore Napoleon Bonoparte, Emperor of France

If we forget Nero, Caligula as examples of Totalitarian despots

How about the centuries of Russian Czars who ruled with torture and an iron rod?

And you suggest “Totalitarianism is a twentieth-century phenomenon,”

Get an education before you try to “clarify things” for me!

RE “He wrote in an era when industry was owned and
controlled by individual capitalists, and the
bulk of the population comprised a poorly paid
labor force living in wretched conditions”

and he settled in England because that was where he felt his revolution would start

he was wrong on that score too.

those “wretched conditions” you speak of were replaced by companies like Cadbury, who built model communities in a place called “Bourneville”, for the benefit of their workers

And these days I doubt you would find anywhere in Australia where “Wretched Conditions” existed,

So those last two points, the nature of capitalists like the Cadbury family and the social development of capitalist societies through the century which you, erroneously claim saw the introduction of “Totalitarianism” would work to further

Deny what Marx, in his own demented manner, was rambling on about

As I said before

All you are doing is trying to deny the obviously undeniable

just as the maggot turns into a disease ridden house fly

So too, Marxism will only ever turn into the horror of communism, pupating via socialism if you wish but at the end of the day

That is what you get when you merge absolute authority with human ambition…..

Remember the old saying

“Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely”

It illustrates the fatal flaw of all collectivist theory - that it can only work in an environment where absolute power is the rule

But capitalism, because it is based on individuals each with personal power, devolves the risk of corruption from that collective absolute

Making the capitalist system the vastly superior alternative to collectivism.

And the GFC proved that stern?
It in its Australian form is as good as we can get but will it let us down one day?
Yes.

Dear Foxy,
Thank you for your sincere words. I knew about your parents’ background therefore I thought you might understand those with similar experience, who “felt uneasy about Marx“. Sorry if it sounded like I implied you had to feel the same.

As you might remember from my other posts, I used to communicate with old refugees from the former Soviet Union and its satellites. Some of them had the problem that their children - though rejecting the practice their parents fled from - embraced the theory (the Trockyists of the 1968s), or just the utopian parts of it (all non-Communist versions of Marxian idealism) of which the only actual realisation was, and still is, this practice.

One can exalt the utopian features of Marxism, but I do not know of any other practical realisation of the ideas contained in The Communist Manifesto than those of Lenin and his successors. Marx-Leninism is a version of Marxism, obviously not the only one, whether we like it or not.

Let me repeat, it was a psychological problem for these old refugee parents, rather than a rational argument, and I had and have an understanding for them in this sense.

Please excuse my sincerity. After WWII many Europeans also felt uneasy about anything German, in spite of Goethe and Mozart.

I agree, Oliver gave a very good and concise description of Marx‘s theory. Its roots are indeed in the 19th century, and I think its applicability - for better or worse - ended in the 20th, before cultural and economic globalisation.

I, like many others, can sympathise with Marx as an idealist preacher of social justice. However, on this level I prefer Jesus to Marx, although neither of them can be expected to have explicit and practicable instructions on how to proceed towards the achievement of this desirable goal in the 21st century.

“separating “Marxist Theory” from the practical application of Marxism is the ultimate state of denial" (Stern)
“Marxism and Communism are totally different things“ (Foxy)

Well, I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

Belly “And the GFC proved that stern?”

The GFC proved that if you put socially minded idiots into positions of regulator you get financially irresponsible outcomes.

Fact of Life – no banker lends, willingly, to a bad risk.

The GFC was the culmination of bad regulations which demanded bankers lend to sub-prime borrowers. Borrowers who could avoid their mortgage obligations by sending the keys to the house back to the lender in the mail (Jingle-mail). It was US Democrat policy and enacted progressively since before Jimmy Carter.

These bad regulations carried risk of forfeiture of a banking licence for any bank which did not lend with an affirmative action bias and achieve lending to people who would not normally qualify for a loan in a fit... in the name of, politically motivated, affirmative action lending ratios which closer mirrored ethnic population ratios.

So the GFC was due to BAD regulations and regulators,

not bad bankers.

As to the trade in derivatives

Well anyone who buys something when they do not know what it is or how it works is asking for trouble....

"caveat emptor" remains the most useful maxim for every "investor"

“It in its Australian form is as good as we can get but will it let us down one day?
Yes.”

No –

Pushing the country into massive debt and over-heating a booming building sector to construct over priced and pointless school halls as a knee jerk reaction to a perceived, but not established economic downturn, was the epitome of financial irresponsibility and stupidity.

It displayed a crass lack of statesmanship at every level..

As for capitalism

Like one politician said

“Since its inception, capitalism has known slumps and recessions, bubble and froth; no one has yet dis-invented the business cycle, and probably no one will; and what Schumpeter famously called the 'gales of creative destruction' still roar mightily from time to time. To lament these things is ultimately to lament the bracing blast of freedom itself."

Belly, it will always be better to be free than be the regulated subject of collectivism, by any name.