WinePusher wrote:East of Eden wrote:I view Marxism as inherently toxic. It's victims last century far outnumber those of any other ideology. The Nazis and KKK demonized groups based on race, Marxism demonizes groups based on class. There's not much difference.
Lucia wrote:I disagree. I think you're basing this on the worst possible examples of communist dictatorships and ignoring the fact that marxist doctrine itself doesn't call for violence. It doesn't demonize people based on economic class, either.
Look up Michelle Bachelet. She's a recent former president of Chile (chosen democratically), a socialist, and she did a very good job. Chile's now in a much better socio-economic state, way ahead than most Latinamerican countries.
Questions:
1) Which economic system is more just to the poor, give reasons?
Difficult questions, epecially since you exclude the moderate possibilities.
I would still say there is wiggle room, though, depending on how we define totalitarian marxism. Totalitarian states to me mean no guarantee of freedom, but do not necessarily, although they usually do, include oppressive and violent measures. If you would clarify, that would be great.
Laissez-faire capitalism can also come in various flavors. It does not have to include democracy or a "bill of rights."
However, I'll offer some initial comments based on economics only. First, both of these have the capacity to be very bad to the poor. Marxism would probably lessen inequality and put a floor under the poor, unless of course the overall country is so poor that most everyone is not in good shape economically.
LF capitalism can result in horrendous exploitation of the poor, as has happened in Britain and the U.S. in the 19th century and even into the 20th in some areas.
However, it is hard to assign all of the blame to LFC in this case as the state often served to assist the capitalist class by breaking unions, etc. If the state truly allowed freedom to the workers to strike etc. then they have some possible mechanism for relief.
If I have to choose, I would choose LFC partly because it would result in an overall richer country and so more possibility for the poor to relieve their circumstances.
2) Which economic system would you prefer: Lassiez Faire Capitalism or Totalitarianist Marxism. no moderate positions please, and give reasons.
I would pick LFC. It is more amenable to change, slightly more amenable to allowing the poor to improve their circumstances, probably more likely to raise the total level of wealth, and less likely to be associated with undemocratic forms of government. However, LFC has serious problems if left unchecked.
3) Which economic system is more beneficial to a society?
Let's try to avoid moderate positions that incorporate both economic systems in this thread.
Probably LFC.
As one final comment, since the choices are being severely and aribitrarily restricted here, we must of course severely restrict the applicability of this discussion to the real world. At least without further clarification, I don't see that one can use this discussion to argue for the superiority of capitalism in general or modified versions of capitalism. In some sense, we are being asked to choose between being caged up with a lion or a tiger. The choice we make and our reasons for it don't say too much about how we should live when we are not in cages or when other animals are present instead.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
