4 ms·

Don't attribute the gentleness of European customs to Marxism. Explicitly Marxist countries had the highest incarceration rates in history, because incarceratio

Don't attribute the gentleness of European customs to Marxism. Explicitly Marxist countries had the highest incarceration rates in history, because incarceration was used for class warfare with no pretense of "punishing" people for "crimes". I grew up in one of those countries, and I want to weep every time I see a Westerner advising someone to read Marx and Trotsky.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Marxism had a broad impact beyond "explicitly Marxist countries", and all of the latter were actually explicitly Leninist, which, despite claiming continuity with Marx, rejected core elements of Marx's theory of the necessary conditions for socialism and substituted them with top-down paternalistic vanguardism. (This was a general theme, even before Lenin, in Russian "Marxism" -- and certainly includes Trotsky, though.)
- cousin_it 12y ago
  Let's not overcomplicate things. Marx believed in class struggle and had a favored side in that struggle. That's quite enough. If a government believes in class struggle and has a favored side, it's obvious that atrocities will follow. Same as with a government that believes in a master race.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Every government picks a side in the class struggle. Saudi America and the USA pick the rich to various degrees. Denmark chooses the lower middle class. Comparing the two it seems like choosing the rich causes far more atrocities their just less visible. Unemployed to long, well sorry we no longer count you. Had your stuff stolen at a homeless shelter well sorry we don't count you. Got picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, well feel free to tell that to the jury. Spending a year in prison awaiting trial, sorry your right to a speedy trial ends well before your actual trial. Prison rape? Sorry just another deterrent. Great you got out after a mere 10 years, best of luck finding a job! PS: Atrocity's are on an absolute scale. Just because country your not as evil as the Khmer Rouge does not make everything ok.
    - xrange 12y ago
      >Spending a year in prison awaiting trial, sorry your right to a speedy trial ends well before your actual trial. ...Can you point me in the direction of these abuses? I was under the impression that most defendants usually declined the speedy trial option. I'd be interested to learn more.
      - Retric 12y ago
        "In one murder case, for example, a federal appeals court upheld the finding that a 16-month delay between arrest and trial didn’t violate the speedy-trial right. (Amos v. Thornton, 646 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2011).) The court in that case observed that the delay between accusation and trial becomes “presumptively prejudicial” near the one-year mark. It found no compelling reasons for the delay and noted that the defendant promptly asserted his speedy-trial right while the proceedings were pending. But the defendant couldn’t show that the delay compromised his defense, and that inability doomed his claim." http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-speedy-trial.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-speedy-tria... Some states have a 6 month test for non Murder cases. Generally up to 1 year is considered reasonable in the US with a fairly large number of people waiting longer than that. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/speedy+trial http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/speedy+trial
    - eurleif 12y ago
      > Comparing the two it seems like choosing the rich causes far more atrocities their just less visible. > US examples: Unemployed to long, well sorry we no longer count you. Had your stuff stolen at a homeless shelter well sorry we don't count you. Spending a year in prison awaiting trial, sorry your right to a speedy trial ends well before your actual trial. These are your examples of atrocities which are supposed to be comparable to those in communist countries? Seriously?
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        "Seriously?" is not an argument. Neither is 'oh, please' or 'you must be really stupid to believe that' (for future reference.) edit: If you feel the need to downvote this comment, pretend that it was "Whatever - communism wasn't so bad." and upvote it instead.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Yeah, that sounds exactly like the hedging that I've heard, "no true Marxism". There are lots of things that draw on some parts of Marxism, but, in fact, there's no pure Marxism that's been implemented (not that I think there should be such a thing, either, but there hasn't, in fact.) The main Marxist-influenced things that have been influenced are: 1) Systems deriving, through Leninism, from the both Marxism and what's often called "Russian Marxism" (which, while influenced by actual Marxism, didn't so much follow it as arise roughly contemporaneously and interact with Marxism), which reject Marx's preconditions in favor of vanguardism and are implemented in societies which don't meet Marx's preconditions -- that is, Soviet Communism and its Maoist, etc., descendants 2) Systems which build from Marx's preconditions in societies which meet them, and apply large portions of the program Marx and Engels lay out in the Communist Manifesto (but omit other key portions of it), which -- because they are implemented in democratic societies where there is no absolute conformity among the decision-making parties -- are full of compromises, lack a strong coherent ideological commitment either in terms of goals or mechanisms (even if part of the society is explicitly Marxist), and which retain the broad outline of the capitalism (though the resulting system is very different from the thing 19th Century socialists branded "capitalism" because of the elements of socialism, including elements specifically drawn from Marxism, implemented) -- that is, the mixed economies of the modern West. Neither of these is purely Marxist. The former pays more lip service to Marxism. The latter likes to call the former "Marxism" and distinguish itself as the opposition to Marxism, but actually more closely follows Marx's model than the former. > Marx believed in class struggle and had a favored side in that struggle. That's quite enough. That's a rather cartoonish description which has no utility beyond "rah! rah!" cheerleading for the not-Marxist team in a dualistic worldview that, like the more extreme interpretations of Marxism (as seen in "Marxist criticism", and very much akin to extreme "feminist criticism") sees all the world divided between two warring camps but, instead of social class, views them as polar Marxist and not-Marxist ideologies.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Lets not simplify things to exactly the level of our own personal prejudices either. >Marx believed in class struggle and had a favored side in that struggle. That's quite enough. Enough for what? >If a government believes in class struggle and has a favored side, it's obvious that atrocities will follow. Because you said so?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
netcan 12y ago
That doesn't matter. I don't think Objectivism is true. But, I do think it's an interesting and enlightening perspective, a lens through which some things can be better understood. I think trying to actually apply it as the political basis of a country would be a terrible idea. The bottom line is that class and class dynamics are real i societies. Avoiding that lens entirely is avoiding reality, to an extent. High income engineers are members of a certain a class. Most of the prison population are members of a different class. This is obviously true. All I am saying is that when you look at something like the role of prison, you should probably look at it from that perspective.

dragonwriter 12y ago

Marxism had a broad impact beyond "explicitly Marxist countries", and all of the latter were actually explicitly Leninist, which, despite claiming continuity with Marx, rejected core elements of Marx's theory of the necessary conditions for socialism and substituted them with top-down paternalistic vanguardism. (This was a general theme, even before Lenin, in Russian "Marxism" -- and certainly includes Trotsky, though.)

cousin_it 12y ago
Let's not overcomplicate things. Marx believed in class struggle and had a favored side in that struggle. That's quite enough. If a government believes in class struggle and has a favored side, it's obvious that atrocities will follow. Same as with a government that believes in a master race.
- Retric 12y ago
  Every government picks a side in the class struggle. Saudi America and the USA pick the rich to various degrees. Denmark chooses the lower middle class. Comparing the two it seems like choosing the rich causes far more atrocities their just less visible. Unemployed to long, well sorry we no longer count you. Had your stuff stolen at a homeless shelter well sorry we don't count you. Got picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, well feel free to tell that to the jury. Spending a year in prison awaiting trial, sorry your right to a speedy trial ends well before your actual trial. Prison rape? Sorry just another deterrent. Great you got out after a mere 10 years, best of luck finding a job! PS: Atrocity's are on an absolute scale. Just because country your not as evil as the Khmer Rouge does not make everything ok.
  - xrange 12y ago
    >Spending a year in prison awaiting trial, sorry your right to a speedy trial ends well before your actual trial. ...Can you point me in the direction of these abuses? I was under the impression that most defendants usually declined the speedy trial option. I'd be interested to learn more.
    - Retric 12y ago
      "In one murder case, for example, a federal appeals court upheld the finding that a 16-month delay between arrest and trial didn’t violate the speedy-trial right. (Amos v. Thornton, 646 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2011).) The court in that case observed that the delay between accusation and trial becomes “presumptively prejudicial” near the one-year mark. It found no compelling reasons for the delay and noted that the defendant promptly asserted his speedy-trial right while the proceedings were pending. But the defendant couldn’t show that the delay compromised his defense, and that inability doomed his claim." http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-speedy-trial.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-speedy-tria... Some states have a 6 month test for non Murder cases. Generally up to 1 year is considered reasonable in the US with a fairly large number of people waiting longer than that. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/speedy+trial http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/speedy+trial
  - eurleif 12y ago
    > Comparing the two it seems like choosing the rich causes far more atrocities their just less visible. > US examples: Unemployed to long, well sorry we no longer count you. Had your stuff stolen at a homeless shelter well sorry we don't count you. Spending a year in prison awaiting trial, sorry your right to a speedy trial ends well before your actual trial. These are your examples of atrocities which are supposed to be comparable to those in communist countries? Seriously?
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      "Seriously?" is not an argument. Neither is 'oh, please' or 'you must be really stupid to believe that' (for future reference.) edit: If you feel the need to downvote this comment, pretend that it was "Whatever - communism wasn't so bad." and upvote it instead.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Yeah, that sounds exactly like the hedging that I've heard, "no true Marxism". There are lots of things that draw on some parts of Marxism, but, in fact, there's no pure Marxism that's been implemented (not that I think there should be such a thing, either, but there hasn't, in fact.) The main Marxist-influenced things that have been influenced are: 1) Systems deriving, through Leninism, from the both Marxism and what's often called "Russian Marxism" (which, while influenced by actual Marxism, didn't so much follow it as arise roughly contemporaneously and interact with Marxism), which reject Marx's preconditions in favor of vanguardism and are implemented in societies which don't meet Marx's preconditions -- that is, Soviet Communism and its Maoist, etc., descendants 2) Systems which build from Marx's preconditions in societies which meet them, and apply large portions of the program Marx and Engels lay out in the Communist Manifesto (but omit other key portions of it), which -- because they are implemented in democratic societies where there is no absolute conformity among the decision-making parties -- are full of compromises, lack a strong coherent ideological commitment either in terms of goals or mechanisms (even if part of the society is explicitly Marxist), and which retain the broad outline of the capitalism (though the resulting system is very different from the thing 19th Century socialists branded "capitalism" because of the elements of socialism, including elements specifically drawn from Marxism, implemented) -- that is, the mixed economies of the modern West. Neither of these is purely Marxist. The former pays more lip service to Marxism. The latter likes to call the former "Marxism" and distinguish itself as the opposition to Marxism, but actually more closely follows Marx's model than the former. > Marx believed in class struggle and had a favored side in that struggle. That's quite enough. That's a rather cartoonish description which has no utility beyond "rah! rah!" cheerleading for the not-Marxist team in a dualistic worldview that, like the more extreme interpretations of Marxism (as seen in "Marxist criticism", and very much akin to extreme "feminist criticism") sees all the world divided between two warring camps but, instead of social class, views them as polar Marxist and not-Marxist ideologies.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Lets not simplify things to exactly the level of our own personal prejudices either. >Marx believed in class struggle and had a favored side in that struggle. That's quite enough. Enough for what? >If a government believes in class struggle and has a favored side, it's obvious that atrocities will follow. Because you said so?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

netcan 12y ago

That doesn't matter. I don't think Objectivism is true. But, I do think it's an interesting and enlightening perspective, a lens through which some things can be better understood. I think trying to actually apply it as the political basis of a country would be a terrible idea. The bottom line is that class and class dynamics are real i societies. Avoiding that lens entirely is avoiding reality, to an extent. High income engineers are members of a certain a class. Most of the prison population are members of a different class. This is obviously true. All I am saying is that when you look at something like the role of prison, you should probably look at it from that perspective.