< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-24-08 | | Another Englishman: Good Morning: You would think Marx would put more of the power of the game in the hands of the pawns. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Jim Bartle: Good point, but he did stay true to form by sacrificing several of them. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | patzer2: There are two significant problems with communism:
(1) As an economic system it simply doesn't work very well. That's why it was abandoned in both the former Soviet Union and in China. What's happened is that it has been replaced with mostly capitalist means of production and markets, which are governed by political leaders who are in large measure opposed to democratic reforms such as free and open elections and the guarantee of basic human rights. The main difference between these two former communist empires is that China is now communist in name only while Russia is democratic in name only. (2) Communism and large scale socialism can only be implemented at the cost of suppressing economic and political freedoms, which leaves most individuals and society as a whole worse off. Read the book described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita... for a better understanding. P.S.: For a poverty stricken educator and author who lived mostly off his wife's former wealth and the support of capitalist benefactors, Marx was apparently not a bad Chess player. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | HannibalSchlecter: True to himself, the anti-capitalistic Marx shows disdain for material, giving it away freely and then punishing the greedy ways of his opponent. The upshot of this story is they were playing for money. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | A.G. Argent: <Jim Bartle> Well, actually it wasn't Marx staying true to the form you allude to; that was Lenin. Marx was the theorist/philosopher. Lenin and then Stalin were the mass murderers. Only their victims weren't called pawns, they were called Kulaks. Cheers. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Octal: I've always been puzzled on how Communists can play chess. Wouldn't the loss of the King be an automatic win? And all the pieces would be equal so Queen's would be traded off for Knights, Rooks for pawns, and so on and so forth. Lastly, all the pieces would be shared by everyone, so Marx wouldn't be aware of his pieces. This was a great game played by Marx. He co-ordinates all his pieces perfectly. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | nimh: <I've always been puzzled on how Communists can play chess. >
Doublethink, I assume? :) |
|
Jul-24-08 | | kevin86: I notice how Mr.Marx CAPITALIZED on his opponent's mistakes-(would it have been less likely that a vegan would take advantage of miSTEAKs? Note the extreme activity of black's queen side pieces! |
|
Jul-24-08 | | offtherook: Are we still bashing on Communism? We won, do we still have to gloat about it almost 20 years later? That doesn't seem very sportsmanlike. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Riverbeast: Woodpushers of the world, unite! |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Jim Bartle: "Well, actually it wasn't Marx staying true to the form you allude to; that was Lenin." Thanks for the re-education! |
|
Jul-24-08 | | patzer2: <offtherook> I wouldn't say it's so much that capitalism won, but rather that communism as an economic system collapsed under the weight of it's own inefficiency and oppressiveness. Indeed, capitalism with it's cycles of bust and boom, tendency toward oligopoly and monopoly and uneven distribution of wealth is far from a perfect system. As such, governent plays an essential role in enforcing rules of fair play to prevent monopolies, providing for the safety and protection of workers, protecting the environment etc. However, even with these limitations, Captialism is way ahead of whatever system is in second place for maintaining a prosperous economy and in providing the essential environment for individual political and economic freedoms. See http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intre... for a good discussion of the relationship between economic and political freedoms. P.S.: My concern as a U.S. citizen is that we don't elect politicians who promise us greater government benefits without new taxes, but instead deliver bigger more oppresssive government, overly expensive government services (compared to the cost in private free markets) and higher taxes. Indeed, Marx suggested that in the U.S. that communism might gradually overthrow capitalism by peaceful means (i.e. at the ballot box). |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Marmot PFL: "The oppressed are allowed once every few (~four~) years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them." |
|
Jul-24-08 | | offtherook: <patzer2: <offtherook> I wouldn't say it's so much that capitalism won, but rather that communism as an economic system collapsed under the weight of it's own inefficiency and oppressiveness.> Communism as an economic system is not necessarily oppressive unless you are a huge proponent of property rights. If you are heavily in favor of the notion of property rights, though, Communism does appear quite oppressive. Communism/socialism as it was enacted in various parts of the world ignored the calls of socialist theorists for a democratic government. <Indeed, capitalism with it's cycles of bust and boom, tendency toward oligopoly and monopoly and uneven distribution of wealth is far from a perfect system.> The Austrian business cycle theory holds that boom and bust are not inherent to capitalism but are caused by poor monetary policy. Austrian theory also holds that there is no tendency toward monopoly unless a monopoly is in the best interest of the market (meaning consumers). The uneven distribution of wealth is only a problem if you assume equality of result to be desirable, which most capitalist theorists would not. <As such, governent plays an essential role in enforcing rules of fair play to prevent monopolies, providing for the safety and protection of workers, protecting the environment etc.> Not necessarily. What is fair play? Why should monopolies be prevented? Rockefeller's Standard Oil monopoly consistently increased production while lowering prices. Why do workers need to be protected? All voluntary economic exchanges are to the benefit of both participants, so why not let workers and their employers agree to whatever conditions of employment are mutually satisfactory? Many have argued that unions and government regulations have caused workers more harm than good. As far as protecting the environment, that's an issue of externalities and you would probably have to apply Coase's Theorem to that. <My concern as a U.S. citizen is that we don't elect politicians who promise us greater government benefits without new taxes, but instead deliver bigger more oppresssive government, overly expensive government services (compared to the cost in private free markets) and higher taxes. Indeed, Marx suggested that in the U.S. that communism might gradually overthrow capitalism by peaceful means (i.e. at the ballot box).> I also have that concern. Heck, if you read the Communist Manifesto and see the 10 planks of Marxism in it, we've already adopted at least 3 of them in full, and are moving towards (or have chosen compromise positions on) several others. Remember Norman Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Riverbeast: Like communism, capitalism is also collapsing under its own weight. We're seeing that now... Avarice is the worst vice of all because it is insatiable.... The robber barons are now preying on the American middle class....It seems clear to me that within our lifetimes, the vast majority of Americans will be sucked dry and in a state of indentured servitude |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Marmot PFL: <Riverbeast> It's just Darwinism on the human level, as it has been throughout history, but now with a world population approaching critical mass, depleted resources and environment, and more powerful weapons in more nations hands. it can't, and won't go on forever. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | offtherook: <Riverbeast: Like communism, capitalism is also collapsing under its own weight. We're seeing that now...> Not really. We've seen far worse than the current situation and recovered just fine. The 70's were worse than now. And the current problem isn't capitalism, it's inept meddling by the Bush administration. <The robber barons are now preying on the American middle class....It seems clear to me that within our lifetimes, the vast majority of Americans will be sucked dry and in a state of indentured servitude>
Who are these robber barons you speak of? And your predictions are a sad, pathetic echo of what Marx claimed would happen. Guess what? He was wrong, and so are you. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Shams: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -- John Kenneth Galbraith |
|
Jul-24-08 | | patzer2: <offtherook> <Communism as an economic system is not necessarily oppressive unless you are a huge proponent of property rights.> Well, I do kind of like having my own house and car. However, when my mortgage company messed up and failed to send in my property taxes to my local government a few years back, the city quickly informed me that they had the right to sell my home for the collection of about $130 in local city taxes (got it straightened out quickly but it was an eye opener for me). So, in that sense, I guess I am a "big proponent of property rights." Moreover, I would agree with Friedman that you cannot have political freedom in a working democracy without a free enterprise capitalistic economy. However, as Freidman also noted you can unfortunately combine an undemocratic, totalitarian government and a capitalist economy (i.e. the situation in Russia and China today and in Germany and Italy prior to WWII). The problem with communism is that while it's an enticing theory, it simply can't be implemented and maintained without government force and coercion. As such, I would argue that it's inherently oppressive. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | patzer2: Back to Chess, 23. Ne6+! initiates a neat dismantling of the weak Black King position. P.S.: <Offtherook>, good luck at the University of Miami Medical School. I wish you all the best there. Maybe you'll get a chance to slip in a Macro-economics class to fill some of your non-medical course requirements. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | offtherook: <patzer2> Yes, the government does seem quite pushy about taxes. It would almost seem as though they view everything as belonging to them, but you can hang on to it as long as you pay your yearly bills. And FTR, I agree that property rights and free markets are vitally necessary. Where Friedman messed up biggest was probably his hypocrisy in analysis of Chile. Because some of his buddies were advisors to Pinochet, he ignored Chilean totalitarianism. But from what you said about different combinations of economic and government systems, it seems the end conclusion is: communism fails, capitalism succeeds, irrespective of the governmental system in place. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | offtherook: <P.S.: <Offtherook>, good luck at the University of Miami Medical School. I wish you all the best there. Maybe you'll get a chance to slip in a Macro-economics class to fill some of your non-medical course requirements.>
Thanks. I'm not in Miami med school though, I'm going there for undergrad. And I thankfully have no requirements outside of my major, though I did already test out of intro macro-econ, so maybe I'll try out some of the higher-level stuff. Back to the game: I'm pretty sure this isn't double Muzio. I thought the double Muzio included 8.Bf7 to sac the second minor piece. 8 d3 looks a bit strange to me. Somehow my KG games never turn out this way, though. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Riverbeast: <Offtherook> Don't blame Bush for all this, the current rash of corporate pillaging and pollution started with the deregulation movement in the 80s...The one that promised more competition and lower prices < Who are these robber barons you speak of?> The oil tycoons who keep a system in place that destroys the planet, the corporations and lending institutions who rob their customers blind, the utility companies who hold basic human services over someones head and make them pay and pay and pay. And of course, when anyone tries to regulate them and bring them in line with the common good, people like you cry "Socialism!" |
|
Jul-24-08 | | offtherook: <Riverbeast> I didn't blame Bush- I blamed the Bush administration. It's foolish to give so much credit to one man. You still haven't named any robber barons. And what regulations will bring them in line with the "common good?" For that matter, who's going to decide what the common good is? The common good is best served through capitalism. Socialism (I mean real socialism, not welfare statism) fails, and most regulation just degenerates into corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy that doesn't even do what it was set up to accomplish. |
|
Jul-24-08 | | Riverbeast: There's no such thing as a true free market...It's as much a myth as the pure communist state, and just as unattainable...There has always been plenty of meddling and fixing in our 'free markets' |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |