First, let me state the cons to Marxism.
Marxism is a cynical philosophy and horribly sick and twisted social theory. It is cynical because it assumes that workers are just being exploited by their wealthy bosses. I'm sure the millions of people who enjoy lifestyles unimaginable 100 years ago would vehemently disagree.
Marxism is a sick and twisted social theory because it disingenuously asserts that at some point when everything in society is working well, the state will "wither away". That, of course, will never happen. Instead, the state becomes all powerful, and developes an absolute stranglehold on society. It directs people as to what they canbuy, where they can travel, what kind of job they can have, and how their children can be educated.
The most brazenly evil part of Marxism is the propostion that everyone will contribute what they can, and receive what they need. Sounds good? Well, visit the types of housing the Communists set up. Under Communism, you were often relegated to substandard apartment blocks that made Chicago's Cabrini Green look like luxury. Imagine all the people under Communism who, under a capitalist social structure, could have contributed amazing things to society, but were instead relegated to working in some boring factory job because that was the job assigned to them.
Economically, all Marxism does is make EVERYONE poor, except for the top Communist bosses, who lived in decadent luxury, while the masses were lucky if they could get a few oranges or bananas after waiting an hour in line at the market.
So, in a nutshell, Communism creates an elite leadership that lives like kings while enslaving the rest of the population. In effect, everyone in Communism is working to support the upper echelon.
Since a lot of people oppose living like this, there is inevitable dissent. However, a Marxist society cannot tolerate anyone questioning the government because Communism requires an intricate set of unquestioned lies in order to survive. For example, the East German government convinced their people that the Berlin Wall was constructed to keep out desperate Westerners who would want to share in their "workers' paradise". The tv news broadcast news of the miserable condition of workers outside of the Communist bloc, so that people behind the walls would feel grateful for the little they had.
Marxism made neighbors distrust each other to an extent that Westerners cannot imagine. People would live next to one another and never speak for fear that the other person was a government snitch.
Communism is sick and twisted because it perverts man's true nature, which is self-interest. Almost anyone will work harder if it means they can succeed from this extra effort. However, under the Marxist theory, you can work as hard as you want, but you're still going to get about the same as everyone else. This is why these countries were economic nightmares. No one saw any benefit in working hard. They had guaranteed jobs, and the common refrain was, "They pretend to pay me, and I pretend to work."
The pros of Marxism is that it does not promote a crassly consumer oriented society. Since people do not have a lot of luxury goods available, they have to have other interests rather than shopping.
Another advantage to Marxism is that the State can direct the population to work on whatever projects it deems most important. Therefore, it can throw a lot of resources at a problem.
The last advantage to Marxism worth mentioning is that abysmal poverty did not exist. Although the entire population might be considered "poor" by Western standards, they did not have real slums, and everyone was required to work if they were able.
2007-02-04 11:12:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well it seems like a good idea, but the cons to Marxism is that it was created before supply and demand were known, and so it doesn't work in the real economic world because of that.
2007-02-04 11:43:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by sandy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The con is that the system is based on an incorrect theory, and is fatally flawed, as seen by experience in the USSR and elsewhere. There are no pro's. For a theoretical analysis, contact me via avatar.
2007-02-04 09:23:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The pros: It's a nice idea on paper.
Cons: It doesn't work in real life.
2007-02-04 08:50:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by martin h 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
pro: everyone is equal.
con: everyone is starving.
pro: educated bureaucrats decide how necessities and money should be distributed.
con: mostly they decide it should be distributed to them and their families.
pro: it eliminates class envy.
con: no one is envious because no one has anything to be envious of.
2007-02-04 09:49:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ron 2
·
1⤊
0⤋