Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Marxism Dying As A Political And Social Ideology Worldwide

Discussion in 'International Forum' started by MaxShimba, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. MaxShimba

    MaxShimba JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Mar 13, 2011
    Joined: Apr 11, 2008
    Messages: 35,808
    Likes Received: 94
    Trophy Points: 145
  2. Juma Contena

    Juma Contena JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Mar 14, 2011
    Joined: May 21, 2009
    Messages: 1,195
    Likes Received: 8
    Trophy Points: 135
    Why it will never succeed
    Wine lake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia this is what happens when you try to set prices.

    there is also the issue of 'production efficiency' russia had to learn the hardway, knowing what to produce for every one is a difficult asking. http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/27736/1/IND43783260.pdf

    and there is the issue of hindering creative in the society. It has proved to be impracticle on its own, though most societies today admit the need of a mixed a economy pure capitalism encourages greedy and un ethical deeds therefore there is the need for gov intervention to balance social morality.
     
  3. M

    MABAGHEE JF-Expert Member

    #3
    Mar 15, 2011
    Joined: Nov 8, 2010
    Messages: 680
    Likes Received: 9
    Trophy Points: 35
    Thinking that Marxism will die is not totally true. Marxism believes that within capitalism there is contradiction. It is this
    contradiction that marxism calls for transformation. Do you know dictatorship of the proletariat?
     
  4. M

    MABAGHEE JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Mar 15, 2011
    Joined: Nov 8, 2010
    Messages: 680
    Likes Received: 9
    Trophy Points: 35
    Learn from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and all countries where people are calling for change. The economic crisis that happened in capitalist countries is a testmony of the doom of capitalism.
     
  5. bona

    bona JF-Expert Member

    #5
    Mar 15, 2011
    Joined: Nov 6, 2009
    Messages: 3,667
    Likes Received: 61
    Trophy Points: 145
    capitalism has never developed any country expect when there is exploitative relationship! capitalism is like pyramid scheme, when a capitalist state is growing in the same token another is underdeveloped in equal magnitude! arab countries tries capitalism since early 70's now they are paying the price! capitalism has lead to many failed state like haiti! moral values of the society are destroyed like our neighbouring kenya! socialims is the onyl system that can truly develop a poor country even tanzania now we are learning the hard way, we all talk of old dayss where school, job, social services were taken for granted!
     
  6. Juma Contena

    Juma Contena JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Mar 15, 2011
    Joined: May 21, 2009
    Messages: 1,195
    Likes Received: 8
    Trophy Points: 135
    Capitalism is the lesser evil of the two for simple reasons, in capitalism no one is forced to work under pressure. Whereby in socialism the work force is somewhat managed and does not permit social mobility. That kind of governanve creates unequal life chances as the governmnet has to produce the right number of skilled workers to fill the senior position. (It is the reason why Nyerere never bothered with building many university and most of our leaders today are those who held senior position during Mwealimu's reign). It is a stagnant mode of production that does not promote creativity.

    Then there is the issue of accountability because there is no pressure from lenders or anybody, the only way to make people follow the rules is by almost running a police state and someform of dictatorship. Even those approaches proved to be impractical you only got look at our backyard and get the examples of the failed farms, banks and industries under Mwalimu. This demonstrates the challenges of accountability in socialism and where do you exactly point the fingure of blame if things do not work.

    Finally today it is almost impossible for a third world country to avoid capitalism, for luck of funds reasons and productivity. Most of the market goods in poor countries what imported, therefore unless you're trading whith a fellow socialists you can not guarantee the same prices at all times. This makes it difficult to plan a spending budget based on the unknown state of the market as with capitalism prices fall and rise pending on demand and supply or at times natural disasters.

    The only way a poor country can really grow internally is by exporting and controlling almost entirely their macro-economics; for simple reason a poor country as huge unemployment rates, if people do not work the gov exependiture normally has to stretch further. Since you rely on importing the only way you can raise enough money is through higher taxes which inturns makes life expensive for the few who can afford market products (Range Rover la million 250 sh jamaa wana utani mmbaya).

    It is for this reasons why a country like China had to ditch her primitive policies and joined the WTO for her to be able to propel their economy grwoth. The Chinese concentrated on industrialization and exporting (together with all Tiger Economies). China also do not import that much, they insist on manufacturers who want to tap their market be located inside China, these gives them an extra capital and job creation (they have understood china can not produce everything and no one can).

    The market forces are so powerful and right that capitalism sells itself for those who are realistic about developing, the basic ingredients today are wit and creativity; those are the necessary tools without them someone is bound to use you for his gain.

    If you still believe socialism has a chance in today's world try finding more about (CAP), even the EU has come to terms in trying to help their farmers it is impossible to control production, everything works best under the supply and demand, the only good policy is to encourage competition and let the market forces work their magic.

    Funny enough the practices of China and HongKong are what white man had envisioned whith capitalism in the first place until greedy got the better of them. Now it is them who want to rewind the procedures and copy the chinese. Believe or not China is one of the few countries in the world that the state employs less than the private (including England) and it is this magical forces that propels their income growth.
     
  7. t

    tarita Senior Member

    #7
    Mar 15, 2011
    Joined: Feb 14, 2008
    Messages: 156
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Are you talking about Marxism or Socialism? Marxism isnt only about socialism. It includes the capitalism crisis. We have recently witnessed a dire capitalism crisis which is one aspect of the many aspect of Marxism theories. The theory is very much alive to day as ever.Sorry socialism may be dying but Marxism is still relevant to the present pertaining social, economic conditions.
     
  8. bona

    bona JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Mar 15, 2011
    Joined: Nov 6, 2009
    Messages: 3,667
    Likes Received: 61
    Trophy Points: 145
    in your evidence you have not addressed the true nature of capitalism development is to exploit other countries since capitalism advocate excess production which require more resources that normally a country is unable to have now where will the poor country get a more poorer country to exploit for it to develop.

    also you have misunderstood the success story of china its not that china just decided to open up its border, its because out of socialism they manage to establish a strong economy and manufacturing industry then they they knew they were ready to compete with other big economy.

    you have mentioned the idea of micro economy, you have to understand the small business has very little chance of becoming bigger since all the item are imported in fact at the price much lower than our small interprenuer produce.

    i am disappointed when you say practicing socialism in today wordl is impossible, that is not true, tell that to venezuela, bolivia, zimbabwe who are learning the hard way and they are going back to socialism.

    you have not be able to explain the system of capitalism about creating a failed states like haiti who started capitalism in early 50's, now compare it with cuba who at the same time started socialism.

    also you explained the issue of education, you have not explained how the capitalist system is leading to lower the standard of education, we end up with plenty of people with degrees but incapable of doing anything, wed rather have 100 fully cooked workforce than 1000 half cooked work force!

    also you have failed to explain how socialism has managed to give equal opportunity to all in-terms of education, social services and e,employment that most people in socialistic countries takes for granted!

    you have failed to explain the rising cost of living in capitalist economy!
     
  9. Juma Contena

    Juma Contena JF-Expert Member

    #9
    Mar 16, 2011
    Joined: May 21, 2009
    Messages: 1,195
    Likes Received: 8
    Trophy Points: 135
    How are you supposed to talk about socialism without associating it with Marxism. For once Marx had never formulated any economic theory for implementing his fairness thinking and what measures ought to be taken for his utopia. It is from his initial arguments and criticism of capitalism where command economies aroused. Consequently failure in command economy equals failure in Marxism, to date there is no single evidence of any model that followed Marx thoughts has been successful: to the world Marxism is a total failure.

    The only existing nation in this age that still embraces 'Marx' ideas totally is 'North Korea', a nation governed by a brutal regime for the sake of the ideology. That is not democracy and it limits people's choices, if anything with what is going inside 'North Korea' and the middle east it tells us Marx got it wrong scientifically. Instead of his prediction that capitalism was going to create monopoly and be overthrowed, capitalism has had to adapt through the intervention of the gov. Today capitalists are governed by laws and consumer protectionism which limits monopoly where necesaary.

    However problems still remain in implementing Marx ideas because some form of command is required, with command government, you end up creating a monopolistic gov and it is those government that people do not like and try to over throw in case of the middle east. To be specific this is not a new phenomenon at all, as it has happened before in eastern european block in the past, not because of capitalism but rather of socialism and the contraints in peoples choices by monopoly governments. Marx was just a loooser.
     
  10. Juma Contena

    Juma Contena JF-Expert Member

    #10
    Mar 16, 2011
    Joined: May 21, 2009
    Messages: 1,195
    Likes Received: 8
    Trophy Points: 135
    Capitalism is never about excess production but rather market forces being left to act on their own and giving people what they want. For instance if people in europe want to include banana in their diet they have no choice but to import, that is where global trade is needed. Today if you live in Tanzania you wouldn't be able to drive your car if someone didn't bother importing petrol and the car you drive: for simple reason we are not making cars nor do we harvest fuel.

    It is unfair to blame others for your misfortune or slow progress in your development, if people have money to purchase goods or resources that lay idle who's to blame?

    In relation to your chinese argument may be you need to look at their economic growth plan after the cultural revolution of 1978, at first China was more concerned with exporting in light manufacturing industry, encouraging individual enterprise and private companies after they had realized the method of government control was un sustainable and limited.

    The next phase of their growth was based in setting the Special Economic Zones such as Shenzhen et al. It is was with that approach that western multinational organisation re-located into those parts due to lower wages offered, higher work ethics and less governments control. Those were the initial factors that propelled their economy, of course the Chinese are not as stupid as Africans the new wealth that was created was invested in 'supply-side policies' which are now reaping the benefit of the investment in the technical advances and establishing them as major global players in every sector.
     
  11. Mtazamaji

    Mtazamaji JF-Expert Member

    #11
    Mar 16, 2011
    Joined: Feb 29, 2008
    Messages: 5,972
    Likes Received: 27
    Trophy Points: 0
    How it is hidering creative? Were they not Russin who were first to Land on moon.? May be its impracticle becsue we huma being are selfish by nature.
     
  12. Kiranga

    Kiranga JF-Expert Member

    #12
    Mar 16, 2011
    Joined: Jan 29, 2009
    Messages: 34,583
    Likes Received: 5,622
    Trophy Points: 280
    The idea of an ideology itself is dying.
     
  13. MaxShimba

    MaxShimba JF-Expert Member

    #13
    Mar 17, 2011
    Joined: Apr 11, 2008
    Messages: 35,808
    Likes Received: 94
    Trophy Points: 145
    With the demise of Marxism, the illusion that we can finally dispense with the notion of antagonism has become widespread. This belief is fraught with danger, since it leaves us unprepared in the face of unrecognized manifestations of antagonism.
    Chantal Mouffe|Chantal Mouffe, The Return of the Political (Verso, 2005), p. 2.
     
  14. VUVUZELA

    VUVUZELA JF-Expert Member

    #14
    Mar 17, 2011
    Joined: Jun 19, 2010
    Messages: 3,105
    Likes Received: 4
    Trophy Points: 135
    Where can you rank them Russians nowadays in terms of the economy or development? Where is Warsaw Pact? Look what's happening in N. Korea today! Just last year, even Fidel Castro openly declared that Marxism is utopia and can never work.
     
  15. VUVUZELA

    VUVUZELA JF-Expert Member

    #15
    Mar 17, 2011
    Joined: Jun 19, 2010
    Messages: 3,105
    Likes Received: 4
    Trophy Points: 135
    From Associated Press, Report: Castro says Cuban Marxism doesn't work:

    HAVANA – Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist (Marxist) economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.
    The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.
    Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.
    He said Castro made the comment casually over lunch following a long talk about the Middle East, and did not elaborate. The Cuban government had no immediate comment on Goldberg's account.
    Since stepping down from power in 2006, the ex-president has focused almost entirely on international affairs and said very little about Cuba and its politics, perhaps to limit the perception he is stepping on his brother's toes.
    Goldberg, who traveled to Cuba at Castro's invitation last week to discuss a recent Atlantic article he wrote about Iran's nuclear program, also reported on Tuesday that Castro questioned his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, including his recommendation to Soviet leaders that they use nuclear weapons against the United States.
    Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has clung to its communist system.
    The state controls well over 90 percent of the economy, paying workers salaries of about $20 a month in return for free health care and education, and nearly free transportation and housing. At least a portion of every citizen's food needs are sold to them through ration books at heavily subsidized prices.
    President Raul Castro and others have instituted a series of limited economic reforms, and have warned Cubans that they need to start working harder and expecting less from the government. But the president has also made it clear he has no desire to depart from Cuba's socialist system or embrace capitalism.
     
  16. MaxShimba

    MaxShimba JF-Expert Member

    #16
    Mar 18, 2011
    Joined: Apr 11, 2008
    Messages: 35,808
    Likes Received: 94
    Trophy Points: 145
    Well said
     
  17. MaxShimba

    MaxShimba JF-Expert Member

    #17
    Mar 29, 2011
    Joined: Apr 11, 2008
    Messages: 35,808
    Likes Received: 94
    Trophy Points: 145
    Although there are still many Marxist revolutionary social movements and political parties around the world, since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states, relatively few countries have governments which describe themselves as Marxist. Although social democratic parties are in power in a number of Western nations, they long ago distanced themselves from their historical connections to Marx and his ideas. As of 2004, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China have governments in power which describe themselves as Marxist. North Korea is inaccurately described as Marxist, as both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il have rejected conventional Marxist views in favour of the Korean "communist" variant, juche. Also, Libya is often referred to as Communist, but Muammar al-Qaddafi has sought to lead them into Islamic socialism.
    [​IMG]
    sociology - Marxism
     
  18. Lole Gwakisa

    Lole Gwakisa JF-Expert Member

    #18
    Mar 30, 2011
    Joined: Nov 5, 2008
    Messages: 3,802
    Likes Received: 194
    Trophy Points: 160
    It is ideas like these that stagnates ones mind.
    One wonders how did China make it? And China is a Communist state that has used the same principles of production to acheive economic supremacy.

    Lets look at an analysis of the two socio-economoc models:
    Pure Marxism had three main characteristics. First of all, there was to be no government, no central controlling body allocating resources. If something needed doing then some person or group of people would just do it for the good of all. Second there was to be no private ownership of anything. All things were to be held in common. If you needed something you would just take it. ("From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need.") Finally, there would be no religion. Religion was created by the rich and the powerful to keep the lower classes down by pacifying them with the promise of a better existence in the fictional next life if they accepted their lot in this life. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.")

    Marxism appeals to an innate sense of fairness in people. Nobody has more than anyone else. Everyone works for the good of everyone else. The problem was that Marx could not describe a mechanism by which we get to his utopian society beyond the masses violently overthrowing their oppressors nor did he really understand human nature.

    Various attempts to get to this Marxist ideal have been made over the decades. These usually start with the creation of a socialist government. People aren't psychologically ready to live Marxism, so they need a government to take everything away from them and train them to work for the good of all. This is socialism in its purest form. The government owns everything and directs the allocation of all resources. Since the people own nothing they theoretically should learn to do everything for the good of the whole. Eventually, when the people have been properly trained, the government is disbanded and the Marxist utopia is achieved.

    The problem is that human nature gets in the way. The people in power grow to like having the power. So, they start do things to ensure that they stay in power. ("Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Additionally, there is a very broad lazy streak that runs through much of humanity. People only do as much work as they have to in order to survive. If the government is going to take from Joe and give it to me, then why should I work for a living. Joe then sees his industry going to support me, a lazy bum who doesn't contribute anything myself, and thinks why should I bother. This mentality means that the people never reach a state where the government, even if it were inclined to do so, can step aside. So, the corruption just continues to fester.

    So, this then is the difference between the three social organizations. Marxism and communism were initially the same thing. However as people tried to institute them, Marxism became the ideal that can never be achieved and communism came to be synonymous with the failed, corrupt, transitional, utrasocialist governments. Socialism is any form of government that takes control of various industries away from the private sector. All governments have some elements of socialism in the mix because there are just some things that the private sector cannot do. The debate is over just how much the government should do. (recently Obama saved the Big Three Car Manufacturers in America using State funds-a socialist move to save jobs, business and peoples well being!!!)


    Read more: What are the differences between socialism, communism, and Marxism? | Answerbag What are the differences between socialism, communism, and Marxism? | Answerbag

    Communism has failed in its idealistic principles , but Socialism in it different forms is present in ALL, REPEAT, ALL capitalistic countries world wide.
     
  19. MaxShimba

    MaxShimba JF-Expert Member

    #19
    Nov 8, 2011
    Joined: Apr 11, 2008
    Messages: 35,808
    Likes Received: 94
    Trophy Points: 145
Loading...