Noteworthy News

[Jackalope]

I've gone from "Ayn Rand is insightful" in my 20s to "Karl Marx wasn't wrong about a few things" in my 50s. I was an idiot back then. I'm still an idiot, but I was back then too.

[Kitan Etos]

I've gone from "Ayn Rand is insightful" in my 20s to "Karl Marx wasn't wrong about a few things" in my 50s. I was an idiot back then. I'm still an idiot, but I was back then too.

The real genius doesn't consider herself a genius.

[Kitan Etos]

[brewer]

[Ivan Denisovich]

When I mentioned "nobility", I was talking about how the adherents believed that what they adhered to would actually produce a better world for all. They thought that assigning production to the people, or trusting magnates to do the right thing following the money, would in the end in both cases result in a better society for all.

I can agree with such take though one must note that such "nobility" could also be ascribed to nazis or khmers who too believed that their actions will result in a better world.

That's clearly not the case in either instance because both systems ignore the basic urge of greed.

Of course, after both systems are shown flawed, apologists show up to explain why this or that experiment (Soviet Union, Gilded Age in America) went wrong, not because the ideology was wrong, but "the people didn't implement it right".

This ignores the fact that in both cases, greed -- for power or money or control -- is for better or worse an essential human quality.

It can't be really said that communism failed because of greed as it was never built nor there was real conception of what should be done to build it and how it would look in precise terms. Something that is just vague dream or perhaps messianic promise can't really fail because there is no possibility of achieving it in the first place.

[Ivan Denisovich]

I've gone from "Ayn Rand is insightful" in my 20s to "Karl Marx wasn't wrong about a few things" in my 50s.  I was an idiot back then.  I'm still an idiot, but I was back then too.

It was I believe Zygmunt Bauman* who said that Marx thought was a crappy thing to build society on but excellent vehicle for criticism of capitalism and it is take that I agree with.

*It can be found in Socialism the Active Utopia if I recall correctly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can agree with such take though one must note that such "nobility" could also be ascribed to nazis or khmers who too believed that their actions will result in a better world.

Sure, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. We all see ourselves as noble, or fighting for the right cause, or what-have-you. Radical capitalists and Leninists both saw themselves in that light, at first. Nazis, Greens, CCP, and so on, every party sees their mission as "noble". That doesn't mean it is, obviously.

My point is just that radical capitalism and Marxism/Leninism both forgot a fact of basic human nature ... a fact which made both systems unrealistic.

It can't be really said that communism failed because of greed as it was never built nor there was real conception of what should be done to build it and how it would look in precise terms. Something that is just vague dream or perhaps messianic promise can't really fail because there is no possibility of achieving it in the first place.

Right, but the fact that it fell to its death trying to crawl out of the cradle speaks to my point. Even though no perfect Communism was ever attained, those trying to bring it about had their plans and doctrine fall afoul of human greed all the same. And I think greed was a big part.

[Ivan Denisovich]

[Nanny]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]