Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centur

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 9 2005, 01:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 9 2005, 01:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

They aren't forced.

They choose that over struggling to live/starve. Not a great choice but like I said if their only choice is to work there or starve then what is the choice if their is no sweatshop, starve or starve?

Well don't you think there are other choices? Where 80% of the world's wealth doesn't sit in an extremely small percentage of the world's population?

Shouldn't we be striving for EVERYBODY to have a decent life? Is that too much to ask? [/b][/quote]
That's what Communism tried to do and they failed because they misidentified the source of the problem.

However, I wouldn't be so quick to rub it off because neo-Marxism really seems to have merits to it. Instead of the poor working classes in our own society's being exploited for their labor, we have elevated the entire society and transferred that indignity to the third world where we can't see it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jun 8 2005, 04:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jun 8 2005, 04:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 8 2005, 03:47 PM
But the logic that one might use to say the Bible is evil is the same that these Conservatives are using to say that Marx's works for example are evil as far as I can tell.

Exactly.

They followed the words -- at least their interpretation of them, and did bad things.

The whole premise of this little list seems to be "if these books hadn't been written, this stuff wouldn't have happened". It's a pretty effing stupid approach, there is no doubt about that. Like, would we all believe the earth was 6000 years old if the Beagle had sunk in the harbor, taking Darwin down with it?

Another thing they failed to take into account -- the guys following the first book had a big role in defeating the guy who wrote the second book. My heavens, think of the consequences! [/b][/quote]
But in examining the actual texts, the Communist Manifesto is the only violent document because it states that ONLY through violence can the revolution of the proletariat occur. This is Marx's opinion and it was transformed into ideology.

People always claim that violence is done in the name of the Bible but show me one verse in the New Testatment that actually supports that, and that's what the basis of Christianity is. Certainly, the Old Testament is an extremely violent text however, with the Isrealites commanded to commit genocide against entire communities because they were the chosen people. It's full of rape of bloodshed and destruction certainly.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jun 8 2005, 04:59 PM
I can see most of those books on there I guess.

I personally don't believe that Marx and Engel were dangerous, but people did take their ideas and use them improperly. Stalin and Mao severely bas**rdized Marx and unfortunately, Marx's image took a hit for that.

I'm surpised that Dianetics isn't on that list. That book helped get a lot of those freaky 20th century cults attention.

And now, it's getting Tom Cruise more attention as he converts Katie Holmes from Christianity to Scientology while he jumps on couches on talk shows. You wonder if Brooke Shield's terse criticism of "Tom Cruise should stick to saving the world from aliens" was a reference to his new film or Scientology's founding and central belief in aliens.

What a nutjob.

[snowdude]

Well, all i can say is that General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
by John Maynard Keynes was sure harmful to my GPA, so they might be onto something
:P

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jun 10 2005, 06:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jun 10 2005, 06:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Jun 10 2005, 08:58 AM
You know the saying, give the poor man a fish; you will feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish; you will feed him for the rest of his life.

Lol hilarious. That's the thoery anyway.

The reality is, 'Don't give the man a fish. Teach a man to fish, loan him a boat, and take all his fish as pay for the boat'. If the 'man' is lucky, he'll have some pay to buy one or two of the fish to eat.

The 'teach a man to fish' phrase is out of touch with reality. No corporation has this ideal as one of it's mandates. Not surprising to see this from you.

edit: looks like Five-hole and I are of a mind, above post. [/b][/quote]
You know what is truly hilarious? The fact that you took the saying out of context and (again) missed the point.

Read the whole paragraph again.

This isn’t about wealth transfer. It is about wealth creation. 3rd world does not need your charity gifts as much as it needsfree economic environment. Only then those people will be able to produce their own food, build their shelter, in short – improve their lives. You know the saying, give the poor man a fish; you will feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish; you will feed him for the rest of his life.

It is about free economic environment. It is not about fishing rods. It is about explaining to people why is deregulated economy better for them. It is about explaining free economy to them instead of throwing a bone to them here and there. It is about explaining to people how less state involvement in economy helps to improve their lives. It is about explaining to them why open economy increases standard of living. It is about how these people can lift themselves on their feet. If you want to talk about fishing though, trade barriers hurts SE Asian fishing industry a lot more than international aid helps them. Complaining about Nike wont help those people.

Five hole is right about one thing though. State corporativism (i.e. companies closely tied with governments) wont allow removal of trade barriers, they wont open the economy. But you are attacking the wrong enemy there. If you want to improve lives of people living in 3rd world countries, what you should be doing is asking for more open globalized economy (less protectionism on Canadian part). But no, you are crying foul that 3rd world workers are stealing Canadian jobs. A little bit schizophrenical, aren’t we?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Jun 11 2005, 12:33 AM
But in examining the actual texts, the Communist Manifesto is the only violent document because it states that ONLY through violence can the revolution of the proletariat occur. This is Marx's opinion and it was transformed into ideology.

Exactly. But explain that to romantically naive communists like Agamemnon and Five hole. Sure, we can all have different views, but if someone does not see oppression in marxism, that is a sign of total intellectual bankruptcy.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Jun 10 2005, 04:33 PM
But in examining the actual texts, the Communist Manifesto is the only violent document because it states that ONLY through violence can the revolution of the proletariat occur. This is Marx's opinion and it was transformed into ideology.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Ah, the call for violent revolution. But wait! That's not from the Communist Manifesto, that's from the good old American constitution! Was Thomas Jefferson a closet Marxist? Obviously not, since he wrote his document much earlier than Marx. More likely, Marx was a closet fan of Jefferson; his call for violent uprising was inspired by the US constitution. If the call for violent revolution is in itself harmful, then the US constitution might just be the most harmful document of all time, for inspiring everyone from Marx to Bolivar to Robespierre with its call for violent revolution.

Personally, I agree with the American Constitution: a populace does have the right to overthrow tyrannical governments, and the Tzars of Russia were among the most brutal and autocratic in all of Europe, actually restricting the freedoms at a time when most of Europe was experiencing expanded freedoms. They also led the country into two wars that it got completely routed in.

There were a lot of problems with the Communist Manifesto. But the call for violent revolution is certainly not one of them. It was a reflection of violent political upheaval that was serving to remove all of the old autocratic guards of the old European system, a movement that not only resulted in the spread of communism, but to a much greater degree resulted in the spread of democracy.

[Hakan]

I can't believe I waited until page three to post in this thread. I think I'm trying to be less political on a hockey board. It's hard for a PoliSci grad to do sometimes.

I will just offer a couple comments. Das Kapital is a citadel of academics and economics and to deny the sheer gravity of that text is silly. Also, to state it's dangerous because it examines specifically the surplus value effects of capitalism's labour is silly. I just want to emphasize that that volume of books has not been rivalled since it was written by sheer academic density or genius probably in all of the social sciences. Marx truly was a genious and we should not deny that fact to him.

That said, I am not a 'Marxist.' But then again the book isn't really 'Marxist' either beyond the fact that Marx wrote it. It is an analytical text which doesn't advocate revolution or anything like that. It's a 3 volume masterwork and the first attempt after Smith and Ricardo of the nuances and trends of the ever advancing capitalist system of which Marx was living in. Almost every trend that he predicted happened and every potential problem his accounted for was realized. It is a shame he died before he finished the volume but Engels did go on to write the end. Engels, unfortunately, did not have the once in an eon brilliance of Marx but did do justice to the whole series.

To get to some of the meat of the volume, Marx himself admonished capitalism's efficiency in allocation and in spurring demand. He praised capitalism numerous times in how good it is at creating wealth and developing delivery and infrastructure efficiencies in a timely and cost effective status. Bridges, roads, factories all would not have been possible without capitalism. He more then balances this view though by pointing out what he believes to be the irreputable problem with capitalism, exploitation of the surplus value of labour. Marx believes that all of these advances in wealth and infrastructure do not outweigh the exploitation of human beings. He would prefer a society with no bridges and more subsistence living with everyone having equal economic opportunity and liberty.

That's the trade off. Obviously, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I am inclined to believe that we are too focused on 'growth' and 'wealth' and other silly macroeconomic indicators. We are unbalanced on the spectrum relying too heavily on capitalist systems. For more significant lifestyles we need to reorient more to the middle with less exploitation. An ardent capitalist will argue that we will surely bear the brunt of a lower standard of living but honestly, if more community oriented living with less people starving comes at the cost of plasma tvs and 3ghz processors then it's a total no brainer for me.

[FlamesAddiction]

Communism successfully existed in Europe for hundreds of years before Marx ever came along. He didn't invent anything, he just articulated something that already existed.

Many Jewish communities in Europe practiced forms of communism during the Dark Ages as way to survive in a time when the Christian Universal Church was the only "social" institution in Europe. There were also several islands in the Adriatic that were pseudo-communist, and were in fact more "free" than the surrounding non-communist states, and particularly, the Italian states that were capitalist.

I guess the point is, communism in itself is not the terrible monster people think it is. There have been many oppressive capitalist states throughout history too. Iraq, Afghanistan, Argentina, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia, and the list goes on and on.

Look at Nigeria. Capitalism there is a direct source of oppression today. Corporations have been allowed political control and brutally crush any resistance.

Any economic and poltical system can be bad if it is left without checks and balances.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jun 11 2005, 05:13 PM
Communism successfully existed in Europe for hundreds of years before Marx ever came along. He didn't invent anything, he just articulated something that already existed.

Many Jewish communities in Europe practiced forms of communism during the Dark Ages as way to survive in a time when the Christian Universal Church was the only "social" institution in Europe. There were also several islands in the Adriatic that were pseudo-communist, and were in fact more "free" than the surrounding non-communist states, and particularly, the Italian states that were capitalist.

I guess the point is, communism in itself is not the terrible monster people think it is. There have been many oppressive capitalist states throughout history too. Iraq, Afghanistan, Argentina, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia, and the list goes on and on.

Look at Nigeria. Capitalism there is a direct source of oppression today. Corporations have been allowed political control and brutally crush any resistance.

Any economic and poltical system can be bad if it is left without checks and balances.

Its what I said earlier, people often confuse Marx's idea of communism with Lenin and Stalin's brutal war communism, where they felt that not only was the former government an enemy of the people, but the people were the enemy of the people, and needed to be brutally subjugated in order for it to suceed. And Mao's radical communism, where the intellect and capitalism went hand in hand and had to be exterminated from the system.

Communism was a nice concept, by it fails to work because its directly oppossed to the base human nature. Man has strived for wealth forever, we looked upon our caveman neighbours cave and wanted more then he had. And greed is something that your never going to drive out of human nature. If you abolish money, we'd find another way to measure our lives.

Capitalism isn't a bad system, but its built upon the understanding that everyman has the capability of being ruthless and smart enough to drive the system, and the people that don't have that ability are ground under by the system.

However one thing that can't be argued about capitalism is that its a great catalyst for change, discovery and workmanship, this is an area that Communism does poorly at, with some exceptions.