To briefly share, the idea of Marxist revolution came about after the birth of the new capitalist system. Capitalist system being the market-driven economic system. Before capitalism, people lived in the era of Feudalism where the living conditions were hard. Only a small group of people managed to live good life by suppressing the majority 'peasants'. This lead to the revolution of Market-driven economic system which was thought as the saviour which can bring people out of their misery of being enslave.
A large part of this system was written in 'Wealth of Nations' a book by Adam Smith. So at first, people thought capitalism can save them from the iron grip of feudalism. But Marx and Engel thought differently. They see capitalism as a new sign of oppression in a different way compared to Feudalism. Kings, barons were replaced by another line-up of oppressor who took opportunity of the new system to enslave the mass. People didn't have to work for the kings anymore but they had to 'cash in' their labour force, their sweats and energies in order to live. Everything is profit-driven. Production goes mass until it overcome the need. The market keeps expanding but the question is, to what extend? Marx said capitalism is a system that can only hold until a time before it exploded.
Therefore Marx suggested the idea of Communism and Proletarian Dictatorship which were largely misinterpreted. If we come across the word communist and dictatorship, we will think of the cruelty and mass killing in history. We will think of Stalin, communist in Malaya and etc. Whereares, Marx and Engels ideas are different. They believe that power to be in the hands of workers, the mass or as they call it, the proletariats. They said having someone to decide for the fate of the mass (current existing system of democracy) is not democracy at all.
However to criticise the approach of Marxists, I would say that Marx and Engel did not offer solid foundation of Proletarian Dictatorship type of administration. By saying that people take charge and have the power, we can ask few questions that are oftenly failed to be answered clearly by the Marxists. What kind of power? Who's in charge? What kind of governance is proletarian dictatorship?
Marxists also said they believe in equal opportunity for all. Not that I don't. But to be realistic, the idea of equal opportunity is very idealistic in a sense that it is impossible to be realized. At least not until humans learn to not be selfish and put others first before ourselves.
To add to the counter-arguments towards Marxism, I believe Communism and Proletarian Dictatorship lacks competition. If people get paid similarly. No extra effort is needed to better oneself. Hence we will lack healthy competition. Without healthy competition, motivation is killed. Therefore, what is the need to sacrifice our time to studying medicine for at least 6 years if what we get is the same as those who don't even put their effort to better themselves?
Lastly, it is believed human in nature is egoistic, selfish and individualistic, at least to some extent. With all these characteristics of humans, communism and proletarian dictatorship are impossible to be achieved as to achieve them, we will need a collectivist approach. And collectivist approach is often doomed by the existence of egosim, selfishness and individualism.
To conclude, from the interesting discussion we had. I personally believed what we need in the system now is for Marxist and Socialist to fight and find ways to improvise Capitalism until the time where Capitalism and Socialism can co-exist side by side. It is proven now that we can't have a 100% capitalist system but we can never have a 100 socialism system too. Therefore what we need is a collaboration between the two so that by compromising, we can reach to a conclusion where a new and refresh market system is born.
*Note: The discussion is done not from a religious point of view.
Selamat.
just when i wanna state the cons of socialism, you did 'em all - with excruciating details and well-defined points.
ReplyDeleteyes, equal opportunity for all is too good to be true. it may sounds good in idea, but it just can't be done in reality because human are born with different capabilities. we are supposed to complement each other to compensate our own weaknesses. but some of us are greedy, so that's where the con of capitalism lies.
in a world of Marx theory of communism applies, heck! i would be partying all day long baby! after all, i would be paid just as much as you did after working long hours!
Avid gunner: haha. tulis je bro. from your own perspective and writing style. It might turn out to be different. And yeah, Marx theory of communism needs to be redefined with more focused ideology and concrete fundamentals or else it's too abstract for me to believe in it.
ReplyDeleteSalam,
ReplyDeleteFaiez ni ada aku punya suggestion sikit:
"What kind of power? Who's in charge? What kind of governance is proletarian dictatorship?"
power to the people meaning that the people has the freedom to do whatever they want without subject to birthright or social class. dictatorship of the proletariat means that in the end, government would cease to exist as the people(average citizen) holds the power. That is the goal of any communist or socialist movement. If you argue that the progress of the socialist movement in Russia before the fall of the wall did not show at all that Russian socialist movement heading towards achieving the goal, you need to understand the loopholes in the socialist ideas. I would like to mention that to ensure that there will be the ultimate peace and freedom, there is a need for the socialist idea to triumph over the capitalism(the same idea would apply to capitalism) and to achieve this, the socialist movement needs to protect itself especially when it is its infancy stage thus there is a need for the movement to arm itself. This gives somewhat an opportunity for leaders of socialist movement to ensure their stay in power instead of progressing towards the minimal state of government intervention. For example, Stalin and other various communist leaders.
Its funny to see that this thing has happened before and is happening again. Kalau kat Malaysia, kita dulu ada Kaum Muda and Kaum Tua, you can see that leaders of Kaum Tua behaved, well not exactly but to a lesser degree, the same way as these leaders of socialist movement that supposedly to bring ultimate triumph. And sesetengah ulama zaman 'kemajuan' Islam pun sanggup mengeluarkan fatwa untuk manjamin keterusan mereka menerajui kepimpinan negara.
"Therefore, what is the need to sacrifice our time to studying medicine for at least 6 years if what we get is the same as those who don't even put their effort to better themselves?"
Cuba has the best public healthcare system, second to none! :)
UK, France and Germany have superb healthcare system, thanks to....the relics of the socialist movement.
"Lastly, it is believed human in nature is egoistic, selfish and individualistic, at least to some extent."
The same goes to what is going to bring down the capitalism. Does Lehman Brothers ring a bell? LongTerm Capital Management, anyone? :)
" I personally believed what we need in the system now is for Marxist and Socialist to fight and find ways to improvise Capitalism until the time where Capitalism and Socialism can co-exist side by side."
Simply can't happen because those two ideologies seek to destroy each other. The sole beacon of socialism collapsed in 1991 and China is not a socialist country.
Thats my two cents. By the way, if you are interested in arguing against Socialism in a discussing with brits, watch or read 1984 by George Orwell. That is one of the best book ever. Or Animal Farm for that matter.
Afeez Aziz:
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts bro. As for the first suggestion: "Power to the people meaning people has the freedom to do whatever they want without subject to birthright and class" My questions remain, what kind of administrating system will allow the people to have this power? Who are these people? If we take Malaysia as an example, how can we manage having more than 22million people deciding on what they want, cause people differ to one another. And to have 22 million people deciding might mean chaos.
I agree to your 'Kaum Muda and Kaum Tua' example, therefore we can say that Socialism is very much hard to exist because it needs ALL PEOPLE TO BE TRUTHFUL AND HONEST which is again almost impossible to achieve. Let's not talk about capitalism because without honest people, capitalism is also doomed but the highlight is on Socialism now.
I don't think it is fair for me to talk about Cuba, France and Germany's healthcare system cause I don't really know and never experience them. But UK, is definitely not a product of socialism. 'FIght of the people to get equal opportunity and better healthcare' yes. But 'socialism' is not the case here. Medicine here is expensive and not very much equal opportunity. What's free for you is not of the best quality service. And the shitty part is it involves birocracy. Isn't it funny to come to a NHS while you're havng a fever and you was told to come 3 or 4 days later with an appointment. By 3/4 days you'll either be healthy again or be dead! But if you have money, and can pay. You can get instant healthcare.
I agree that capitalism is doomed by human's egoistic, selfishness and individualistic nature. Still capitalism managed to run for quite some time in this condition. But I can't even imagine socialism being up as the chosen system of this world. It will be too idealistic and the result might be chaos. I don't know for sure but that's my unfair prediction. I'm not ready to give socialism a go simply because it is too abstract and has no direct fundamental administrating system that can be implemented.
Yes capitalism and socialism is always seen as ideologies that seek out to destroy each other. And I never think of China as a Marxist country. But still my suggestions are we could try to find similarities and platforms where these two ideas can exist side by side complimenting each other. Just because Marx said they can't exist together, doesn't mean they can never. But again, this is just my suggestion. Socialist movement now should use their history and influence to bettering the current capitalist government. rather than enhancing 'tunjuk perasaan' and seeking for the 'IDEAL INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTION' as suggested by Marx and Engel cause they're too idealistic to be achieved.
George Orwell, great man. My lecturer suggested his books too. Will check out on them. Currently reading books bout Marx and Engel main ideologies.
Good discussion bro. If we get the chance to talk face to face will be better. Cheers and Salam! ;)
In reply of your arguments:
ReplyDelete"My questions remain, what kind of administrating system will allow the people to have this power? "
If i am not mistaken, the ultimate aim of a socialist system is sort of US-Republican ideal of having a small government or no government at all. In the end, 'commune'(hence the name communist) would govern the people instead of a big central government, where unnecessary bureaucracy would be rampant.
I am sorry but i do not understand your statement:"if we take Malaysia as an example, how can we manage having more than 22million people deciding on what they want, cause people differ to one another." I mentioned that socialism advocates the idea that the people is free to make their decision without any government intervention. If you mean that A wants Nasi Lemak but produces Nasi Ayam while B wants Nasi Goreng but produces Bihun Goreng, massive economic problem would arise as there is a situation of unmatched demand and supply. Socialism assumes that in the end, this kind of problem would not exist, if the situation persists(in a pre - communist world) then the economic agents would need to have a greater co-ordination although without the monetary incentives. If this is the case in Malaysia, the government would force A to trade with B.
You mentioned about the healthcare system in the UK, then you should know that is the working of capitalism at its best. What i am suggesting here is that, the idea of collective economy is not all bad. Perhaps with some modifications to current business model, the world would be a better place. For example, instead of aiming for fatter paychecks at the of end of the months, managers and shareholders should be encouraged to convert their company into 'social enterprise'(as suggested by Professor Muhamad Yunus,a Nobel Laureate)
"But I can't even imagine socialism being up as the chosen system of this world. It will be too idealistic and the result might be chaos." Perhaps you have been only exposed to the works of Engels and Marx, you should read how Castro ran Cuba. Nevertheless, i have to concur with you that socialism is not perfect but we need to study case by case and we cannot make generalisations regarding the best way to govern a country. Perhaps, the US is best governed by capitalism but we can not simply dismiss what socialism has done to Cuba and to a lesser extent Singapore. Ha! Singapore is the best example of hybrid of capitalism and socialism.
"Just because Marx said they can't exist together, doesn't mean they can never. "Post-Revisionists would somehow agree with you. :)
Waish baca 1984 la, ringan sikit instead of benda-benda berat. Hahaha, good luck Faiez, it took me two months to finish reading that book, maybe because politics is a big no no for me. I was bored so i wrote a long post, but in reality i am just as ignorant as any other teenager but anytime lah bro! Salam.
Afeez: haha. cakap sampai bila tak habis. Banyak benda boleh bincang tang sosialisme dan kapitalisme. But it's good to have healthy discussion. Not the kind where anyside feels they are somewhat better and betul than the other. Aku akan baca nanti bro bila ada material dan masa. Salam! ;)
ReplyDelete