Re: karl marx and the communist manifesto

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Neil Franklin wrote:
>
> "Anonymous" <gue...@guest.net> writes:
> > Dewight Fry wrote in message <6t5...@ac.ce.13.16.cabalnet.net>...
> >
> > >I found your pic to be a real yawner.  Who gives a crap about Marx and
> > >his assinine political theories?  Communism sucks, d00d!
> >
> > I'm not a Marxist - I just appreciate good art (which this quite
> > obviously is).
>
> Anyway an interesting picture and technique.

I wasn't too impressed, either, actually.  If the words didn't contain
rand     ombr  eakss o t hattheycouldloo klikethepicture, but instead
formed a readable message, *that* would be impressive and interesting.
I sure *hope* the artist used a program, since it would be a most boring
task to sit down and type all that out. :)

Also it would've been much more interesting to me, even with the random
wordbreaks, if the picture had fit on a single page and still been
readable.  You have to go down to, like, 3- or 4-point fonts before the
picture is narrow enough to print out. :(

> > You're forgetting what Communism is all about - the basic principle was
> > that all mankind was created equal, so everyone should have equal
> > wealth and property.
>
> Which runs us into the problem that people are not created equal (ever
> compared an genius and an retard?) and also people work different
> amounts (hardworking vs lazy). So they neither can achieve by themselves,
> nor do deserve equal wealth or property.

AIUI Marx didn't much care whether the proletariat "deserved" equality;
he just wanted them to have it.

> 1. Lenin deliberately refused to follow the rules layed out by Marx,
> because he was not prepared to wait (until after his lifetime).

True dat.

> 2. Forgetting or not knowing the importance of motivation.

> Today we know from modern biology, that the only known reliable
> motivator is to reward people with something they would have not be
> able to get without the work.

That is (a) nothing to do with biology; (b) common sense; and (c) the
definition of "reward."

> That seems to be either more pay (and
> so more wealth, end of the "equal wealth" bit) or political power to
> push others around (but that gives political power fights,
> suppression, suffering).

The *very* little bit of proto-Marxist stuff I've read suggests that
Marx considered the joy of work to be another motivator.  Don't tell me
you've never enjoyed your work!  It must have seemed to Marx that there
*were* good people out there who would make chairs and potatoes and
whatnot for very little compensation, simply because they liked to do it.
  Unfortunately, by Lenin's time factories had become more commonplace,
and fewer people wanted to make automobiles and bolts and mass-produced
textiles - they all wanted to raise potatoes instead!

> Result of this was the "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"
> Problem. Too little being produced, salaries which you can't buy stoff
> with, because the shelves are empty. Demotivation. Evenless stuff on
> the shelves. Gave an vicious circle that killed the economy.

A very cogent explanation.

> 3. Not knowing about information flow problems
>
> The actual Sovietunion was based on central planning. This may
> strictly not be Marx, but annother Lenin missdesign.

Or Stalin misdesign, perhaps.  I dunno.  Again, calling it an "information
flow problem" makes it sound like it's some post-modern phenomenon that
Stalin couldn't possibly have known about.  It wasn't.  The Soviet
planners just deluded themselves into thinking that the factories were
producing things, and without good information they couldn't possibly
know that.  In fact, as I understand it it was painfully obvious that the
five-year plans weren't doing much for the potatoes, although the heavy
industries were doing better.

> > Communism was good on paper, but in practise it never worked.
>
> It was an not even a particularly good target. And it was badly
> implemented. And it could not work, so far we know today. Some of
> this stuff Marx simply could not have known (motivational biology
> and information flow analysis).

Just like he couldn't have known that to sit on an electric stovetop
would burn his bottom, because electric stovetops hadn't been invented
yet. :)

-Arthur