Marxism/communism/socialism Take 2

[sparsely]

just because I've always enjoyed this little thing:

"World Ideologies Explained by Reference to Cows"

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a
barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The
government gives you a glass of milk.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: Your cows are cared for by former chicken farmers. You
have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers.
The government gives you as much milk and eggs the rules say you should need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of
them, and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors
bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need." Meanwhile,
no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You take care of them but the government
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
black market.

PERESTROIKA: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
"free" market.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbor decides who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell
you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can
feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it
takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then
it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

CAPITALISM: You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows
because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price, or
your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica
lessons.

OLYMPICS-ISM: You have two cows, one American, one Chinese. With the help of
trilling violins and state-of-the-art montage photography, John Tesh narrates the
moving tale of how the American cow overcame the agony of growing up in a suburb
with divorced parents, then mentions in passing that the Chinese cow was beaten
every day by a tyrannical farmer and saw its parents butchered before its eyes.
The American cow wins the competition, severely spraining an udder in a gritty
performance, and gets a multi-million-dollar contract to endorse Wheaties. The
Chinese cow is led out of the arena and shot by Chinese government officials
though no one ever hears about it. McDonald's buys the meat and serves it hot and
fast at its Beijing restaurant.

LIMBAUGHISM: You used to have two cows. They may be dead; you don't know, because
you can't smell them through the stench rising off your unwashed, 1,500-pound
bulk. It's been six years since you could fit into the shower. You blame the
entire situation on an evil government conspiracy, and click the remote to
another talk show.

X-FILES-ISM: Your two cows turn out to be the government. They milk YOU. You are
saved by two generic bimbos, a female and a male with blow-dried hair, after (1)
a car chase, involving UFOs, (2) a gunfight, and (3) a seance. The aliens get the
advertising revenue after the Nielsens rise

[Will_518]

i like the last two gov types the best.

[sirbluey]

Marxism Capitalism Communism Bushism Blairism, you can have all the ISM`s you want, but it all boils down to one ISM..................
ELITEism
The elite rule the masses (peasants) and always have, it dosn`t matter what ism is in power there is the elite at the top, even right down to your local council, and your local club, there is always a group who force their way to the top.So it dosn,t matter if you want Marxism or Communism, no one will ever be equal, there are those who are born to rule and do anything to stay there, eg. Stalin, Hitler, Bush, QE11.
Murder, assassination, suicided, character assassination, so no matter what type of government you wake up to, you can be rest assured eliteism is in power.
To quote an old saying, we are all created equal, it`s just some are more equal than others.

[ilw]

I agree slightly with Sirbluey, its along the lines of the theory expressed in '1984' and I thought the theory was quite an interesting portrayal of social dynamics. From what i remember the idea is that there are always three types of people separated according to power (probably the best measure), money or whatever
The small upper class who's struggle is to stay at the top of the pile
The medium sized middle class who are unhappy with the situation, struggle to rise to the elite and foment rebellion among the middle and bottom class
The huge bottom class who are permanently struggling to rise either by slow progression up through the classes or a short sharp rebellion
There is constant but slow flow of people between each of the classes, but occasionally the bottom class becomes sufficiently unhapppy that it is possible for the middle class to cause a rebellion, removing the upper class. The upper class to some extent then becomes the middle class, the middle class rises to the upper class and the bottom class barely changes. The process then starts over again. In '1984' the key for those in power is absolute control over the middle class and strong repression of the bottom class. Without the middle class, a repressed bottom class is incapable of starting rebellion.
Obviously its explained much better in the book, but thats the rough concept that i took away from it and to a certain extent i think its quite a nice description.

[noname12]

Originally posted by sirbluey@6 November 2003 - 11:20
Marxism Capitalism Communism Bushism Blairism, you can have all the ISM`s you want, but it all boils down to one ISM..................
ELITEism
The elite rule the masses (peasants) and always have, it dosn`t matter what ism is in power there is the elite at the top, even right down to your local council, and your local club, there is always a group who force their way to the top.So it dosn,t matter if you want Marxism or Communism, no one will ever be equal, there are those who are born to rule and do anything to stay there, eg. Stalin, Hitler, Bush, QE11.
Murder, assassination, suicided, character assassination, so no matter what type of government you wake up to, you can be rest assured eliteism is in power.
To quote an old saying, we are all created equal, it`s just some are more equal than others.

My friend, this I do agree with, but the person is not in question it is the system... No system can live with out its leader and the leader will always be elite and will always have that little bit more then the rest this is the natural order of politics

But what is in question is the system and how it is similiar to the other 2, you are correct that all systems share this one thing, but Socialism and Communism has more similiarities considering from the definitions I have read so far, both are derived from one thing and both are to achieve the same thing.

But in all fairness no system of rule or government can survive without the elite at the top, but what I believe Communism tries to achieve is a equal system for all, that of education, medical care, protection and work. How you live although is controlled to some extent is still to some level left in the hands of the individual, you just cannot purchase private schooling or private care because the best of all things is put into the public system.

[sirbluey]

I was brought up in the era of "reds under your beds", these days I couldn,t care less, as long as they clean up the mess when they leave....lol.
Communism in its purest form is ideal, even a utopean state of existing, but unfortunatly it will never exist, in my opinion due to human greed. That is why capitalism is flourishing and taking over the communism states, even the last bastion of communism,China, is succoming to greed.
Capitalism , or at least the nameless few who control it are taking over the political systems of the world and I feel there last great battle is in the middle east, once the middle east is in the hands of the capitalists, three quarters of it is already, then capitalism has won.Won what?..the ism battle. B)

[noname12]

Originally posted by sirbluey@7 November 2003 - 09:50
I was brought up in the era of "reds under your beds", these days I couldn,t care less, as long as they clean up the mess when they leave....lol.
Communism in its purest form is ideal, even a utopean state of existing, but unfortunatly it will never exist, in my opinion due to human greed. That is why capitalism is flourishing and taking over the communism states, even the last bastion of communism,China, is succoming to greed.
Capitalism , or at least the nameless few who control it are taking over the political systems of the world and I feel there last great battle is in the middle east, once the middle east is in the hands of the capitalists, three quarters of it is already, then capitalism has won.Won what?..the ism battle. B)

Karl marx saw that capitalism cannot be sustained. Lenin saw the natural order of evolution in politics was Communism and all uprisings and religions where the product of Oppression, if the world continues as it does either a new religion will be formed or the theories of Karl Marx will be put into practice.

The greed of humanity will always remain regardless of what system is put in place.
But regardless even the most greedy of men at some point will realise that to remain within an oppressive system will do the one thing that he wishes to avoid which is harm to his self and will bring about a change.

People will soon be and are ready to accept a new system, and sooner or later a new system will be put in place, wether it be Communism or a religious idea, I cannot really tell but for 40 years it will exist until a new capitalism is formed under a new banner and the world will go back to how it has been since its birth

History shows us how a system based on oppression and classes never continues, it always falls after a maximum of 500 years in term unless its a special case.

But I wonder if one can answer a question.... do we see the similarities of Socialism and Communism now and the origins of both?

[Loke the Lurker]

My friend, this I do agree with, but the person is not in question it is the system... No system can live with out its leader and the leader will always be elite and will always have that little bit more then the rest this is the natural order of politics

Is it possible that this is a typical modernist "myth", or a typical modernist interpretation?

Why are you so sure that there always is a hierarchical rule in society?

I think of Emile Durkheim when you write like this. He wrote of two organizational principles of society - organic and mechanic solidarity.

The principle is simple. In primitive agrarian society everybody is quite able to manage his live autonomous from the rest of society., i.e. nobody was really dependent of others to survive or to work.

But in the modern industrial world specialization and professionalization made everybody interdependent of each other. For the electrician to be able to work somebody have to supply tools, material, electricity etc. He is, in other word, trading his special skills with others in a intricate system that makes everybody dependent of each other.

Durkheim observed that religion functioned as the most importent force keeping primitive society together. And this is what he is actually most known for among sociologists of religion. But the question is if the modern late/post-modern society really need something like that to bind it together. Isn't the interdependence enough? And if so, it should also mean that the interdependent relations among the people in the different societies would make a hierarchical rule impossible, or at least extremely difficult.

True or false????

By the way, see the movie the cube. In it the possibillity of a conspiracy vs. autonomic organizational rule is illustrated/discussed.

[noname12]

Originally posted by Loke the Lurker@8 November 2003 - 17:33
Is it possible that this is a typical modernist "myth", or a typical modernist interpretation?

Why are you so sure that there always is a hierarchical rule in society?

I think of Emile Durkheim when you write like this. He wrote of two organizational principles of society - organic and mechanic solidarity.

The principle is simple. In primitive agrarian society everybody is quite able to manage his live autonomous from the rest of society., i.e. nobody was really dependent of others to survive or to work.

But in the modern industrial world specialization and professionalization made everybody interdependent of each other. For the electrician to be able to work somebody have to supply tools, material, electricity etc. He is, in other word, trading his special skills with others in a intricate system that makes everybody dependent of each other.

Durkheim observed that religion functioned as the most importent force keeping primitive society together. And this is what he is actually most known for among sociologists of religion. But the question is if the modern late/post-modern society really need something like that to bind it together. Isn't the interdependence enough? And if so, it should also mean that the interdependent relations among the people in the different societies would make a hierarchical rule impossible, or at least extremely difficult.

True or false????

By the way, see the movie the cube. In it the possibillity of a conspiracy vs. autonomic organizational rule is illustrated/discussed.

No man can learn everything and for that we will always be dependant on something and some one, I would rather put my life in the hands of a government then a person who works for his own greed.

[Loke the Lurker]

Another interesting aspect this discussion highlights is the obvious common human tendency to create heroes or portal figures.

Take psychoanalysis for instance. Everybody knows Freud is its father and that he discovered the subconsiousness... But few people know that Freud actually to large degree synthetizised the teachings of i.e. his own teachers. One can actually argue that Freud was a product of a long intellectual development and that it is there fore quite wrong to picture his work as the work of a single hardworking genius.

As I see it the same can be said of Marx. The "sectarian" need to discredit other socialist teachings right from the beginning shows us that the other socialist traditions was actually very strong and that they probably had a long history in the western society.

I think it was one of the last years Nobel Price winners from Japan who talked a lot about something similar. As I recall it he claimed that his achievement was not so special because if he had not discovered what he did, someone else would have done it shortly after anyhow. He saw discoveries etc. as larger social processes. He said that the same actually can be said of the great discoveries of i.e. Einstein or Newton.

But the Japanese Nobel Price winner also gave one example of a human field in which this principle is not valid. The filed, according to him, is music. His example of this is Mozart. He claimed that, unlike the great scientists, if Mozart had not lived there is nothing to indicate someone would have written the same music instead of Mozart.

My point with this is, to paraphrase Marx himself, Marxism (and its offsprings) is a natural product of history. Not the result of a single man. (But this does not mean that I subscribe to the deterministically flawed Marxism itself).