Poll: United States Presidential Election

[crepesack]

need option five both candidates are horrible

 

[bluemarsman]

Vote CPUSA 2008.

 

[werepossum]

Um, bullshit. A society with no government would be anarchy, not perfect Marxism. Since resources are inherently limited and at some level indivisible, in Marxism government will always be necessary to decide which people are more equal than others. In a capitalist society that is determined by the free market - a good artist can make a living, even a fortune, from his work. In a Marxist society, an artist (where enough excess production exists to support one) is evaluated by the government, because the government needs must redistribute the wealth or else not be Marxism. As any society becomes more Marxist, it becomes less free and accumulates more, and more powerful, government.

If Obama, America's most liberal senator by both sides' scoring, is too right-wing for you, is there any politician who suits you? Remember, even Red China has embraced capitalism, if not democracy; only Cuba and North Korea remain solidly Marxist. Do you think other people should be obligated to produce wealth which you then consume? If so, why would they not have the same expectations of you? Why should anyone do any work that's not fun?

I think you are at war not with capitalism and democracy, but with reality.

Anarchic society relies on the 'every person for themselves' principle, rather than a distinct lack of government. Additionally, as one of the standing pillars of Marxism is equality that is, everyone, rather than segregated by any form of class or distinction, your second point is hardly valid argument. Again, due to the idea of equality, having a government that raises some as public servants above the rest due to authority goes against Marxism.

No, there aren't any politicians in America who suit me. Deal with it.

Your apparent misconception that Marxism can have no relation to democracy is staggering. When everyone is equal, decisions would be made by consultation of everyone who wanted to be included, creating a much broader version of democracy than is currently available anywhere. Additionally, in such a society, wealth would be accumulated by everyone who was able to work. Think pensions, for the rest. And I'd also suggest you actually read the communist manifesto before offering commentary on Marxism, otherwise you'd have your facts straight.

I'm quite fond of democracy, I just don't see much of it, unfortunately.

First off, I have indeed read the Communist Manifesto, probably before you were born. I was not impressed as a teenager, and I remain unimpressed as an adult. While I admit communism might work in an extremely small group, where everyone knows everyone and ejection into some outside society is easy, it very rapidly breaks down as societies grow and produce excess capacity, thus allowing specialization. Even with little specialization, communism works poorly. Perhaps you didn't know, but some of the first settlements in America were communes. They failed, as all communes fail unless supported from without, because when something is everyone's responsibility, it's no one's responsibility. Even in a farming commune of sixty people, not all jobs are equal. Someone has to plant seeds, someone has to break ground. Since planting seeds is easy work and breaking ground is hard work, not many people volunteer to break ground. Again, not everyone is equal; some work hard, and some not so hard. Is it fair to make the lazier or weaker members break ground more days, to equal the amount of ground broken by stronger or harder workers, or should work be allotted by time, with no consideration of how much actual work is accomplished during that time? Even the smallest commune has to have some form of government, even if its membership rotates to everyone in turn, to decide these issues. Otherwise it's every man for himself by default.

When a society begins specialization, it gets more difficult. Who gets to be a piper and who has to be a plowman? Who mucks out the stables and who rides the horses? Who weeds the crops and who weaves baskets? In a purely capitalist society these questions are settled by common agreement. A woman who plays pipes well enough to entice others to provide her room and board, gets to be a piper; one who does not play as well has to find another way of earning a living. Plowing being very hard work, either the plowman is well-rewarded, or no one chooses to be a plowman. Under Marxism, either someone has to make those determinations (and thus govern, as witnessed by the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba) or the society has to reject specialization (as witnessed by Cambodia.) If the former, then the society's wealth is determined by how well those job selections are made AND how hard the people work in their jobs. If the latter, then the society by definition will remain at a subsistence level; there's no point in producing a surplus of food if there are no goods or services for which to trade.

Bluntly put, no one wants to do difficult, low prestige, dangerous, or dirty work, but these jobs have to be done if a society is to rise above subsistence farming. For you to make a living as an artist, other people have to grow your food, transport it to your area, clean and prepare it or stock it in stores. Someone has to discover how to make musical instruments, oils, canvas, or whatever you use. Other people have to actually make these things and bring them to your area. Someone has to understand how to make electricity, to harness it, transmit it, and build machinery to use it to keep you warm or cool as needed. If everything we needed just magically appeared, we would all be writers or artists or musicians - the things we enjoy doing on our on time. Since everything we need doesn't just magically appear, someone has to do the work to make them available. Capitalism uses money - if you want something done, you negotiate an amount of wealth in return for that work. Marxism uses the power of government at some level, whether it's a commune council rotating its membership among everyone and assigning chores and dividing the wealth produced, or a hereditary leadership caste as North Korea assigning work and reward. Since it is impractical to poll thousands or millions of people to make all decisions, the former invariably evolves toward the latter in any Marxist society, as witnessed by every Marxist nation to date.

It's been thoroughly established today that Marxism does not work as well as capitalism. Therefore modern-day Marxists fall into four categories - those who wish to use Marxism to gain power; those who are too simple to understand capitalism and human nature; those who are smart enough to understand capitalism and human nature, but who choose to advocate Marxism as a way of providing for themselves nice things that other people acquire through education, job skills and hard work; and those who simply wish to be different, unique, respected, and important without actually putting in the hard work learning specialized job skills such as those of a doctor or research scientist. By suggesting you are war with reality, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Alex_P]

They failed, as all communes fail unless supported from without, because when something is everyone's responsibility, it's no one's responsibility.

Sounds like me whenever I have a roommate.

Most of the time when I see an American say anything about being a "Marxist" it refers to a way of looking at political and economic history rather than a hard-on for communism. I'm quite surprised to see it used to mean the latter.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

Anyway, I'm voting McCain. I seriously don't think Obama knows what he's doing, and in the best case scenerio, McCain will die his first year in office from being too old, and Palin will take over.

That's a sentiment worthy of Westbrook Pegler.

-- Alex

 

[Saskwach]

I thought the Marxist debate was done and dusted years - no, decades ago. When my grandfather leaves his country to escape the incoming 'utopia' and ends up sending soap, leather for shoe soles, nylon and money back to the relatives who stayed...well it's clear there's something wrong with Marxism. Hell, there was a system that let expats buy penicillin vouchers for their family back in Poland.

They failed, as all communes fail unless supported from without, because when something is everyone's responsibility, it's no one's responsibility.

Sounds like me whenever I have a roommate.

Most of the time when I see an American say anything about being a "Marxist" it refers to a way of looking at political and economic history rather than a hard-on for communism. I'm quite surprised to see it used to mean the latter.

-- Alex

I've always felt it was cheap to turn what was, no matter the flaws, at least a set of suggestions for reform, into just a world-view from which to whinge at the state of things. To take the tone down a few dozen levels: "s*** or get off the pot".

 

[LOOY]

I hope Obama wins, mainly because you guys should give the Dems a chance after all these years of republicans. At least they can't make things any worse.

Also Mccain will probably die before the end of his term leaving us with President Palin who will then go on to ban gay marriage, deport all "non-whites" and set up some weirdo fundamentalist Christian dictatorship.

Do you trust religous nut jobs with nukes?

 

[Ruffythepirate]

Do you trust religous nut jobs with nukes?

Yes. Very yes. If you can't trust a christian with a nuke, who CAN you trust?

ME!!!!

 

[Saskwach]

Also Mccain will probably die before the end of his term leaving us with President Palin who will then go on to ban gay marriage, deport all "non-whites" and set up some weirdo fundamentalist Christian dictatorship.

Assuming Palin would actually do those things, that's what Congress is there to stop. It's majority Democrat now, so things should be quiet on the Christian-fundamentalist-conspiracy front.

 

[agerdemon]

Why the hell would America want an old man and a religious nutjob in charge of them. Sarah Palin believes that Afghanistan and Iraq is a religious war. You Americans can't conform to all stereotypes you aren't all a bunch of ignorant nutters that believe they are able to butt in on everything and blame it on God.

 

[Ultrajoe]

All i can say is that i fear Mcain.

Fear. More fundamentalist than Bush and nowhere near as stupid.

How can anybody not see the danger there?

 

[Labyrinth]

First off, I have indeed read the Communist Manifesto, probably before you were born. I was not impressed as a teenager, and I remain unimpressed as an adult. While I admit communism might work in an extremely small group, where everyone knows everyone and ejection into some outside society is easy, it very rapidly breaks down as societies grow and produce excess capacity, thus allowing specialization. Even with little specialization, communism works poorly. Perhaps you didn't know, but some of the first settlements in America were communes. They failed, as all communes fail unless supported from without, because when something is everyone's responsibility, it's no one's responsibility. Even in a farming commune of sixty people, not all jobs are equal. Someone has to plant seeds, someone has to break ground. Since planting seeds is easy work and breaking ground is hard work, not many people volunteer to break ground. Again, not everyone is equal; some work hard, and some not so hard. Is it fair to make the lazier or weaker members break ground more days, to equal the amount of ground broken by stronger or harder workers, or should work be allotted by time, with no consideration of how much actual work is accomplished during that time? Even the smallest commune has to have some form of government, even if its membership rotates to everyone in turn, to decide these issues. Otherwise it's every man for himself by default.

When a society begins specialization, it gets more difficult. Who gets to be a piper and who has to be a plowman? Who mucks out the stables and who rides the horses? Who weeds the crops and who weaves baskets? In a purely capitalist society these questions are settled by common agreement. A woman who plays pipes well enough to entice others to provide her room and board, gets to be a piper; one who does not play as well has to find another way of earning a living. Plowing being very hard work, either the plowman is well-rewarded, or no one chooses to be a plowman. Under Marxism, either someone has to make those determinations (and thus govern, as witnessed by the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba) or the society has to reject specialization (as witnessed by Cambodia.) If the former, then the society's wealth is determined by how well those job selections are made AND how hard the people work in their jobs. If the latter, then the society by definition will remain at a subsistence level; there's no point in producing a surplus of food if there are no goods or services for which to trade.

Bluntly put, no one wants to do difficult, low prestige, dangerous, or dirty work, but these jobs have to be done if a society is to rise above subsistence farming. For you to make a living as an artist, other people have to grow your food, transport it to your area, clean and prepare it or stock it in stores. Someone has to discover how to make musical instruments, oils, canvas, or whatever you use. Other people have to actually make these things and bring them to your area. Someone has to understand how to make electricity, to harness it, transmit it, and build machinery to use it to keep you warm or cool as needed. If everything we needed just magically appeared, we would all be writers or artists or musicians - the things we enjoy doing on our on time. Since everything we need doesn't just magically appear, someone has to do the work to make them available. Capitalism uses money - if you want something done, you negotiate an amount of wealth in return for that work. Marxism uses the power of government at some level, whether it's a commune council rotating its membership among everyone and assigning chores and dividing the wealth produced, or a hereditary leadership caste as North Korea assigning work and reward. Since it is impractical to poll thousands or millions of people to make all decisions, the former invariably evolves toward the latter in any Marxist society, as witnessed by every Marxist nation to date.

It's been thoroughly established today that Marxism does not work as well as capitalism. Therefore modern-day Marxists fall into four categories - those who wish to use Marxism to gain power; those who are too simple to understand capitalism and human nature; those who are smart enough to understand capitalism and human nature, but who choose to advocate Marxism as a way of providing for themselves nice things that other people acquire through education, job skills and hard work; and those who simply wish to be different, unique, respected, and important without actually putting in the hard work learning specialized job skills such as those of a doctor or research scientist. By suggesting you are war with reality, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Oh gosh, oh horror, a shot at my age. However will I survive. Patronising aside, I'd like to make the clear point that I have never believed humanity perfect enough to support any sort of utopian Marxism, outside of say, a convant, but that's another issue entirely.

Of course no-one wants shitty jobs, that is why we progressed beyond primary industry in the first place. With overproduction of food came the chance for some to sit and ponder. For the most part, it was downhill from there. Unless we're willing to put up some sort of Brave New World-esque society and biological conditioning, this will remain the case as well. And frankly, fuck that.

Capitalism itself is far from the holy grail. Being based around consumption and greed, it has natural failings built in, and just look at the 'market' crisis if you want proof of that. As soon as you start promotion gross profit as the be-all and end-all, you're fucking up. It's in part why industrial relations are such a big issue, along with worker exploitation, resource exploitation, over production of goods leading to collapse.. the list goes on.

Personally I know I'd be unfit for any sort of Marxist society. Which is why I lean more towards what is termed "Bolivarian Socialism", a form of very liberal socialism based around communities as a whole.

But I feel I have digressed. I wish to restate, Obama is not Marxist. He is a capitalist. Any more argument on this?

 

[WilsonMichael68]

@ Ultrajoe.
It seems that the race is still getting closer although a lot of people have the same anxiety that you point out. You question is very interesting - "How can anybody not see the danger?"
The polls are changing on a daily basis and it can be difficult to keep up with them.
I use a widget to keep track of the progression of polls. The widget shows the election polls by strength of states.
In addition to other different graphical visualizations of data, this one displays the
progression of votes over time.
Hereby you can see how/if the states have moved!

It gives a great overview and it is updated as the polls come in!

http://www.youcalc.com/apps/1221747067033

... and its easy to put on your blog and fits in your sidebar!

Make a difference, keep on voting!

 

[Labyrinth]

Anyway, I'm voting McCain. I seriously don't think Obama knows what he's doing, and in the best case scenerio, McCain will die his first year in office from being too old, and Palin will take over.

And every human rights activist would die a little on the inside, along with scientists, feminists and anyone with a social conscience.

 

[Albert Wesker]

Oh you Hippies.

 

[Labyrinth]

Oh you Hippies.

That's me! Pass the tambourine.