Marxist's Apartment A Microcosm of why Marxism Doesn't Work

[OzzyKP]

Marxist's Apartment A Microcosm of why Marxism Doesn't Work

http://theonion.com/onion3842/marxists_apartment.html

AMHERST, MA—The filthy, disorganized apartment shared by three members of the Amherst College Marxist Society is a microcosm of why the social and economic utopia described in the writings of Karl Marx will never come to fruition, sources reported Monday.

"The history of society is the inexorable history of class struggle," said sixth-year undergraduate Kirk Dorff, 23, resting his feet on a coffee table cluttered with unpaid bills, crusted cereal bowls, and bongwater-stained socialist pamphlets. "The stage is set for the final struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the true productive class. We're well aware of that here at 514 W. Elm Street, unlike other apartments on this supposedly intellectual campus."

Upon moving in together at the beginning of the fall 2001 semester, Dorff, Josh Foyle, and Tom Eaves sat down and devised an egalitarian system for harmonious living. Each individual roommate would be assigned a task, which he would be required to carry out on a predetermined day of the week. A bulletin board in the kitchen was chosen as the spot for household announcements, and to track reimbursements for common goods like toothpaste and toilet paper.

"We were creating an exciting new model for living," said Dorff, stubbing his cigarette into an ashtray that had not been emptied in six days. "It was like we were dismantling the apparatus of the state right within our own living space."

Despite the roommates' optimism, the system began to break down soon after its establishment. To settle disputes, the roommates held weekly meetings of the "Committee of Three."

"I brought up that I thought it was total bullshit that I'm, like, the only one who ever cooks around here, yet I have to do the dishes, too," said Foyle, unaware of just how much the apartment underscores the infeasibility of scientific socialism as outlined in Das Kapital. "So we decided that if I cook, someone else has to do the dishes. We were going to rotate bathroom-cleaning duty, but then Kirk kept skipping his week, so we had to give him the duty of taking out the garbage instead. But now he has a class on Tuesday nights, so we switched that with the mopping."

After weeks of complaining that he was the only one who knew how to clean "halfway decent," Foyle began scaling back his efforts, mirroring the sort of production problems experienced in the USSR and other Soviet bloc nations.

At an Oct. 7 meeting of the Committee of Three, more duties and a point system were added. Two months later, however, the duty chart is all but forgotten and the shopping list is several pages long.

The roommates have also tried to implement a food-sharing system, with similarly poor results. The dream of equal distribution of shared goods quickly gave way to pilferage, misallocation, and hoarding.

"I bought the peanut butter the first four times, and this Organic Farms **** isn't cheap," Eaves said. "So ever since, I've been keeping it in my dresser drawer. If Kirk wants to make himself a sandwich, he can run to the corner store and buy some Jif."

Another failed experiment involves the cigarettes bought collectively. Disagreements constantly arose over who smoked more than his fair share of the group's supply of American Spirit Blues, and the roommates now hide individually purchased packs from each other—especially late at night when shortages are frequent.

The situation is familiar to Donald Browning, author of Das Kouch: A History Of College Marxism, 1970-1998.

"When workers willfully become less productive, the economy of the household suffers," Browning said. "But in a society where a range of ability naturally exists, someone is bound to object to picking up the slack for others and end up getting all pissy, like Josh does."

According to Browning, the group's lack of productivity pervades their lives, with roommates encouraging each other to skip class or work to sit on the couch smoking pot and talking politics.

"A spirit of free-market competition in the house would likely result in better incomes or better grades," Browning said. "Then, instead of being hated and ostracized by the world at large as socialist countries usually are, they could maintain effective diplomacy with their landlord, their parents, and Kirk's boss who cut back his hours at Shaman Drum Books."

The lack of funds and the resulting scarcity breeds not only discontent but also corruption. Although collectivism only works when all parties contribute to the fullest extent, Foyle hid the existence of a $245 paycheck from roommates so he would not have to pay his back rent, in essence refusing to participate in the forced voluntary taxation that is key to socialism. Even worse, Dorff, who is entrusted with bill collection and payment, recently pocketed $30, a theft he claimed was "for the heating bill" but was put toward buying drinks later that night.

"As is human nature, power tends to corrupt even the noblest of men," Browning said. "The more power the collective has over the lives of the individuals, as is the case in this household, the more he who is in charge of distribution has to gain by being unscrupulous. These Marxists will soon realize they overestimated how much control they would like 514 W. Elm as an entity to have."


I think its hillarious and so true. But forgive me if its been posted before.

[OzzyKP]

Shucks, i went through all the trouble of cutting and pasting this article and no one is even responding.

[yavoon]

I laughed

[orange]

i cried

[Nubclear]

[Drake Tungsten]

I remembered seeing it in the Onion months ago.

[St Leo]

Statistically insignificant sample.

[Agathon]

It's a really old example.

But why is this any different from trying to institute a capitalist society without police to enforce contracts and the like?

[Shi Huangdi]

[Skanky Burns]

Its funny cuz its false.

[Agathon]

And who expects a bunch of students to be able to organize anything useful other than beer blasts and wet T-shirt contests?

I mean, really....

[Oerdin]

It really is a good example of how socialism breaks down. Has anyone read about the utopian collectives many communist students started in the 60's & 70's? All of them started with big talk about fairness and equality but they almost always broke down over something stupid like who was going to do the dishes.

That's just communism.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It really is a good example of how socialism breaks down. As anyone read about the utopian collectives many communist students started in the 60's & 70's? All of them started with big talk about fairness and equality but they almost always broke down over something stupid like who was going to do the dishes.

That's just communism.

Because it was a completely voluntary system. If you instituted a capitalist system with no sanctions you would get a similar result (in fact all student flats are like this unless sanctions are imposed on free riders).

This example shows that "moral economies" fail. It's a moot point as to whether a communist system has to be a moral economy.

Agreed about the hippies though - how dare those decadent bourgeois hedonists associate themselves with communism!?!

[Sandman]

Even though a communist utopia is probably impossible, this does nothing to disprove that.

It's futile to pretend you can model a sophisticated social system with three people. You could probably 'prove' that capitalism and social democracy don't work if you tried to recreate them with a stupidly small number of people.

[OzzyKP]

Its from The Onion, Sandman. Its a joke not a scientific study. But I do think the principles are valid and can be 'taken to scale' to show how communism breaks down.

By the way, all you commies will be interested to hear I saw Gorbachev speak Tuesday night here in DC. His speech was kinda boring, a very soft criticisim of Bush's handling of Iraq. Quoted from Kennedy a lot about world peace and such.

In the Q & A someone asked him what he thought about communism. Gorbachev then made a very interesting and strong rebuke of communism. Saying it became more of a religion than a political system and that it was oppressive tyranny. He said people rejected it because people prefered to live free.

If Gorbachev has even realized Communism is wrong and oppressive, why can't you all?

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's a really old example.

But why is this any different from trying to institute a capitalist society without police to enforce contracts and the like?

In a Capitalistic society we beleive that you shouldn't have to make another contract with the moth******er who breached your other contract. Under Communism, thanks to a State imposed monopoly, you have no choice in the matter and the company has no police to watch them either. I could go on for hours about the inefficiencies and tyrranies of state enforced monopoly, would you like me to? Ironically the Commies here are usually the first to call for anti-trust legislature getting belted out; constantly whining about Microsoft, well, if they called it Commie-Soft and were intergrated as part of the American state, allowing them to force their almost decent product upon us and outlaw competition. Whoopity Dooo! I'm excited about the proposition, next stop: USSA!

You are so narrow minded Aga.

[Shi Huangdi]

It's funny people are gettting their panties all up in a bundle over an article from The Onion.

[mrmitchell]

Communism has much less tolerance for deadbeats, slackers, and no-goods, before it starts to unravel.

[Sandman]

Its from The Onion, Sandman. Its a joke not a scientific study.

Ok.

But I do think the principles are valid and can be 'taken to scale' to show how communism breaks down.

I do not.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SKILORD


In a Capitalistic society we beleive that you shouldn't have to make another contract with the moth******er who breached your other contract. Under Communism, thanks to a State imposed monopoly, you have no choice in the matter and the company has no police to watch them either. I could go on for hours about the inefficiencies and tyrranies of state enforced monopoly, would you like me to? Ironically the Commies here are usually the first to call for anti-trust legislature getting belted out; constantly whining about Microsoft, well, if they called it Commie-Soft and were intergrated as part of the American state, allowing them to force their almost decent product upon us and outlaw competition. Whoopity Dooo! I'm excited about the proposition, next stop: USSA!

You are so narrow minded Aga.

Not really. You have missed my point. The problem with this flat is that there are no sanctions imposed on free riders. This is because there is no authority to enforce the rules. Same goes for capitalism when there is no central authority to enforce the rules (even though they are different rules). Thomas Hobbes taught everyone this centuries ago.

If you are disagreeing, you are ignoring the plain fact that capitalist societies have an immense legal-bureaucratic structure which keeps track of who owns what and enforces the rules.

Capitalists often think that all you have to do is let free people associate and a workable economy will thereby form. This is completely false - some enforcement of authority is always needed to prevent free riders - that is the central point of Leviathan.

It's narrow minded to forget this.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Communism has much less tolerance for deadbeats, slackers, and no-goods, before it starts to unravel.

No way. Those who don't work are the enemies of the people. That is why communists oppose the idea of a leisure class.

[mrmitchell]

No way. Those who don't work are the enemies of the people. That is why communists oppose the idea of a leisure class.

That's exactly what I said! While in capitalism so many deadbeats are okay because they go unsupported and starve, in communism you've got to be all rude and force them to work to begin with.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

That's exactly what I said! While in capitalism so many deadbeats are okay because they go unsupported and starve, in communism you've got to be all rude and force them to work to begin with.

Um... letting people starve isn't just as motivating as being rude and making them work? Besides you wouldn't get paid in a commie state if you didn't work, so it's much the same.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Agathon


No way. Those who don't work are the enemies of the people. That is why communists oppose the idea of a leisure class.

All right, you're an educated man, and I hear that Marxism and Communism are sciences. So maybe you can answer something that I've always been curious about:

Just how many people are in the "leisure class" and precisely how is it defined?

Then, can we compare the stats to the moneied(sp?) "leisure" class (which I assume to be people like JFK Jr before he finally passed his Bar) to the moneied "non-leisure" class (which I assume includes rich people like Bill Gates, who still goes to work for 8-12 hours a day and works many weekends and nights as well) - in short I'm interested in seeing what percentage of people in the monied class are leisured and which are not.

Having done that, can we do the same in regards to the number of poor people who don't work of their own volition viz the number of poor people who do work? It would also be great to do so in regards to a number of wealth classifications: that way we can run some statistical correlations and other crap that GP goes on about to see whether "leisure" is a condition dependant upon "wealth" or just "humanity."

Thanks! I eagerly await your results.

(Oh, can we get some specific names of these leisured people?)

[Agathon]

How would I know exactly how many people are in the leisure class? I'm not a census.

Like a lot of people (not necessarily communists) I object to people who don't work. If you want a concrete definition I suppose it is those people who live solely from rents or gifts and are not retired or juveniles.

[SKILORD]

I don't think it's our business to dictate that all men should work. You say that morality is subjective, but you will not let men decide whether or not they should work.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

And who expects a bunch of students to be able to organize anything useful other than beer blasts and wet T-shirt contests?

Aside from the occupants' rants about how others were behaving and the political rhetoric which were humorous, that was what I kept thinking when reading the article. Sounds like the typical guy's dorm in college ala Animal House. But there is a moral to the story - one of communisms downsides is the valid resentments that build among those who work while others slack off on their dime. Communism can only overcome this by forcing people to work and that ain't freedom..

From the article:

A bulletin board in the kitchen was chosen as the spot for household announcements, and to track reimbursements for common goods like toothpaste and toilet paper.

"Re-imbursements"? You mean these common goods weren't shared "property"? Ouch! There's the moral of the story...

[Berzerker]

I don't think it's our business to dictate that all men should work.

Bingo!

You say that morality is subjective, but you will not let men decide whether or not they should work.

He's a commie, what did you expect, freedom?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I don't think it's our business to dictate that all men should work. You say that morality is subjective, but you will not let men decide whether or not they should work.

I have never ever said that morality is subjective; you must have me confused with someone else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I don't think it's our business to dictate that all men should work. You say that morality is subjective, but you will not let men decide whether or not they should work.

This is a moot point.

A person who does not work in a capitalistic society starves to death.