You are correct in part, but at the same time we find many of the people who claim to support Marxism, socialism and communism also go around and profess their committment to tyrants and killers.
We do have to recognize that in spite of the fact that there have been a tremendous number of governments that have arisen which claim to have primary roots in Marxism, there has never been a single one of these governments which has not become horribly oppressive. It really tends to suggest that Marxism is not a valid model for creating utopia.
But beyond all that, it is clearly obvious that any government that either declares itself to have total power over it's subjects such as the old Soviet Union or China, or governments which have held democratic elections to give themselves total control over their citizens, such as Nazi Germany, will always devolve into oppresssion. It isn't the roots of the totalitarian government, it's the totalitarian government itself.
And Marxism does require a totalitarian government to be established. Even Marx accepted that.
It never ceases to amaze me that socialists around the world continue to believe that their utopian ideal is achievable through oppression and brutal censorship.
I know, sometimes wikipedia might not get an article completely right, and quite often there is a bias in the editorial structure which is moderating such an enterprise. However, how can it ever be more desirable that the censorship be conducted by government mandate?
What kind of society has the most to fear from free thought and free expression of ideals? Is such a society something that should be held up as a noble goal, or is it something that should be held up as an example to others of the worst that humanity has to offer?
The difference between Marxism and Capitalism is easy to define.
In a capitalist system, employees have to recognize that their success depends on the success of the business, and the best employees will work hard to see their business is successful. This results in the best employees getting better pay, and a better lifestyle.
In a Marxist system, employees demand an artificial "equality" whether or not the company is successful, and thus don't work very hard to ensure the success of the business. Then when the business or the entire economy fails, they are left scratching their heads as their entire social structure turns on itself. The only equality they achieve is that everyone who subscribes to this delusion becomes equally impoverished.
Marxists believe that all economy is a zero sum game, if someone is overly successful, then they must be taking it from someone else. Just as they don't understand that a successful economy makes more money for everyone, they also don't understand that striving to damage that economy also causes damage to everyone.
The dramatic economic growth that has occured from technology has shown us that this economy is definitely NOT a zero-sum game. As technology expands, as new tools are developed, and as business is given the ability to grow, everyone who wishes to try and be a productive part of that society has the opportunity to get an ever-larger piece of the pie.
Cut the fiber optic cable? Is that really productive?
At current DSL/Cable modem bandwidth, 802.11g is more than adequate. However, better technologies are coming soon.
Here in Sacramento, Surewest has been installing very high speed fiber optic connections for years. Many parts of the city now have Surewest connections available, with internet speeds that run at 10Mbit both up and down, and they have an option for people to have a 20Mbit connection for a little bit more money.
There is also the WiMAX standard which shows the potential to complete the final mile for a reasonable cost with a similarly high speed connection...
Since nobody on the planet actually gets 54Mbit out of a 802.11g connection, it is understandable that WiFi can eventually become an internet bottleneck.
I probably won't implement 802.11n, largely since I have already wired my house for gigabit ethernet, but it is good that they are advancing the technology for the day when that sort of thing will be useful. However, it really seems silly for the bleeding edge types to be jumping on 802.11n, since they already have fairly good wireless capability with 802.11a/b/g, and if they want speed, you can always go with a hard wire.
mod parent "not nice person"...
Is it really necessary to call someone a moron when they are just pointing out a problem with interference in the 2.4Ghz range?
Silly socialist rants like that contribute nothing to the discussion. By the way, the term "Ayn Randian Bushites" is an oxymoron.
And if you honestly believe that throwing out patents on new medications will not stifle research, then you are severely mistaken. Yes, companies will continue to produce the drugs that are selling big, even if they had to compete. Products like Viagra are making money hand over fist, and would continue to do so even with competition.
However, if you honestly believe that any company would invest the billions necessary in AIDS research without the possibility of making that money back, then you have a severe misunderstanding of how economics works. A cure for AIDS will probably make one company a fair amount of money. However, there are a relatively small number of people afflicted with AIDS in the parts of the world that have enough money to pay for the research, and honestly nobody cares about producing an expensive AIDS drug for Africa when they know that nobody in Africa can afford to buy it.
And the same issue exists with all of the disorders which have a limited market.
Let's do the math... I'll simplify it a bit for understandability.
Imagine that you have identified a disease which affects about five to ten million people worldwide. The disease is severe, resulting in a slow and painful death. Say that economic research has found that the average price that someone would be able to pay for treatment for this disease is a thousand dollars. For a worldwide disease, that number is extremely optimistic, but let's go with the optimistic number.
Now, as a drug company research director you have to be able to research and develop a product, put it through all its testing, produce and distribute the drug, and develop an information campaign for patients and doctors to promote the drug. You also have to make a large enough profit on the drug to pay for all of the other drugs that your company has developed which have not been successful enough to pay for their costs.
Imagine that everything has gone well, and you have produced a drug that can either treat the symptoms or outright cure this disease. You have completed the effort within your budget, and you are now a hero to many. Then one month later your main competitor reverse engineers your product, and is able to produce and sell your product for less since they don't have to recoup any of the research and development costs.
Most companies would never commit to research if they were not able to recoup the costs. Without the research, there will be no cure. And your policy of screwing the drug companies would leave millions to die. But at least there would still be Viagra, and it would be cheap...
By the way, the disease that I used as an example here is Parkinson's...
Slashdot Mirror
We do have to recognize that in spite of the fact that there have been a tremendous number of governments that have arisen which claim to have primary roots in Marxism, there has never been a single one of these governments which has not become horribly oppressive. It really tends to suggest that Marxism is not a valid model for creating utopia.
But beyond all that, it is clearly obvious that any government that either declares itself to have total power over it's subjects such as the old Soviet Union or China, or governments which have held democratic elections to give themselves total control over their citizens, such as Nazi Germany, will always devolve into oppresssion. It isn't the roots of the totalitarian government, it's the totalitarian government itself.
And Marxism does require a totalitarian government to be established. Even Marx accepted that.
I know, sometimes wikipedia might not get an article completely right, and quite often there is a bias in the editorial structure which is moderating such an enterprise. However, how can it ever be more desirable that the censorship be conducted by government mandate?
What kind of society has the most to fear from free thought and free expression of ideals? Is such a society something that should be held up as a noble goal, or is it something that should be held up as an example to others of the worst that humanity has to offer?
In a capitalist system, employees have to recognize that their success depends on the success of the business, and the best employees will work hard to see their business is successful. This results in the best employees getting better pay, and a better lifestyle.
In a Marxist system, employees demand an artificial "equality" whether or not the company is successful, and thus don't work very hard to ensure the success of the business. Then when the business or the entire economy fails, they are left scratching their heads as their entire social structure turns on itself. The only equality they achieve is that everyone who subscribes to this delusion becomes equally impoverished.
Marxists believe that all economy is a zero sum game, if someone is overly successful, then they must be taking it from someone else. Just as they don't understand that a successful economy makes more money for everyone, they also don't understand that striving to damage that economy also causes damage to everyone.
The dramatic economic growth that has occured from technology has shown us that this economy is definitely NOT a zero-sum game. As technology expands, as new tools are developed, and as business is given the ability to grow, everyone who wishes to try and be a productive part of that society has the opportunity to get an ever-larger piece of the pie.
Cut the fiber optic cable? Is that really productive?
Here in Sacramento, Surewest has been installing very high speed fiber optic connections for years. Many parts of the city now have Surewest connections available, with internet speeds that run at 10Mbit both up and down, and they have an option for people to have a 20Mbit connection for a little bit more money.
There is also the WiMAX standard which shows the potential to complete the final mile for a reasonable cost with a similarly high speed connection...
Since nobody on the planet actually gets 54Mbit out of a 802.11g connection, it is understandable that WiFi can eventually become an internet bottleneck.
I probably won't implement 802.11n, largely since I have already wired my house for gigabit ethernet, but it is good that they are advancing the technology for the day when that sort of thing will be useful. However, it really seems silly for the bleeding edge types to be jumping on 802.11n, since they already have fairly good wireless capability with 802.11a/b/g, and if they want speed, you can always go with a hard wire.
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#Standards
mod parent "not nice person"... Is it really necessary to call someone a moron when they are just pointing out a problem with interference in the 2.4Ghz range?
And nobody will ever need anything faster than a 80286...
Well, if you are trying to analyze something which sucks, wouldn't you use an Itanium?
I believe that you are thinking of Christian Scientists...
Silly socialist rants like that contribute nothing to the discussion. By the way, the term "Ayn Randian Bushites" is an oxymoron.
And if you honestly believe that throwing out patents on new medications will not stifle research, then you are severely mistaken. Yes, companies will continue to produce the drugs that are selling big, even if they had to compete. Products like Viagra are making money hand over fist, and would continue to do so even with competition.
However, if you honestly believe that any company would invest the billions necessary in AIDS research without the possibility of making that money back, then you have a severe misunderstanding of how economics works. A cure for AIDS will probably make one company a fair amount of money. However, there are a relatively small number of people afflicted with AIDS in the parts of the world that have enough money to pay for the research, and honestly nobody cares about producing an expensive AIDS drug for Africa when they know that nobody in Africa can afford to buy it.
And the same issue exists with all of the disorders which have a limited market.
Let's do the math... I'll simplify it a bit for understandability.
Imagine that you have identified a disease which affects about five to ten million people worldwide. The disease is severe, resulting in a slow and painful death. Say that economic research has found that the average price that someone would be able to pay for treatment for this disease is a thousand dollars. For a worldwide disease, that number is extremely optimistic, but let's go with the optimistic number.
Now, as a drug company research director you have to be able to research and develop a product, put it through all its testing, produce and distribute the drug, and develop an information campaign for patients and doctors to promote the drug. You also have to make a large enough profit on the drug to pay for all of the other drugs that your company has developed which have not been successful enough to pay for their costs.
Imagine that everything has gone well, and you have produced a drug that can either treat the symptoms or outright cure this disease. You have completed the effort within your budget, and you are now a hero to many. Then one month later your main competitor reverse engineers your product, and is able to produce and sell your product for less since they don't have to recoup any of the research and development costs.
Most companies would never commit to research if they were not able to recoup the costs. Without the research, there will be no cure. And your policy of screwing the drug companies would leave millions to die. But at least there would still be Viagra, and it would be cheap...
By the way, the disease that I used as an example here is Parkinson's...