Let's talk about Marxism!! :)
CorporateWhore
Posts: 1,890
I've been surprised to see that there are some people here who really believe that Marxist ideology has merit. Let's talk about it! But first, some ground rules: we cannot talk about capitalism unless we are considering the switchover from Capitalism to Marxism. Just Marxism! That way Marxsim is judged based on its merits, which are non-existent.
Karl Marx made many predictions about what would happen to the proletariet as the capitalists exploited them. He claimed that more and more people would become poorer and poorer, slowly entering into the same proletariet lifestyle. He predicted that the working class and the capitalists would grow farther and farther apart. The capitalists would gain more and more power, but also dwindle in number. More monopolies would arise. Essentially, there would be a proletariet versus the capitalists.
None of these things have happened. We have a middle class and we have had it for 200 years in America. The level of competition in our economy is enormous. More monopolies have not arisen. The poor are becoming richer and richer! 100 years ago, the bottom rung of society lived FAR (comparably) to the bottom rung of society today. The point is: the poor have a higher standard of living than the poor have ever had at any time in history.
Marx used the labor theory of value and not the marginal utility method as well. Today, all economists use the marginal utility method because it makes more sense in determining price. Marx assumed that the amount of labor, supplies, and capital that go into a product determine its cost. Today, economists know that it does not matter how much you put into a product! It matters how much the consumer will pay for that product!
Marx's theories are based on simply false assumptions. This is why the USSR could not sustain its society. It was building a massive military at the expense of everything else in the economy.
Here's a simple example:
Suppose I am a farmer and I live in a Communist country. I produce 100 stalks of corn, and the government requires that I hand over 90% of my corn to them so they can distribute it throughout society. I keep 10% for me and my family. When I cannot receive the utility from all of the work I did to grow the corn, why would I continue producing 100 stalks of corn? So the rest of society can enjoy my hard work for free? Wouldn't that give me less of an incentive to produce corn, knowing that 90% of it would provide 0% utility to me?
Marxism's economic teachings are easily proven false. Command economies cannot work and never could because human nature is such that our survival depends on our own effort. If I cannot affect my standard of living to any greater degree, what freedom do I really have?
Karl Marx made many predictions about what would happen to the proletariet as the capitalists exploited them. He claimed that more and more people would become poorer and poorer, slowly entering into the same proletariet lifestyle. He predicted that the working class and the capitalists would grow farther and farther apart. The capitalists would gain more and more power, but also dwindle in number. More monopolies would arise. Essentially, there would be a proletariet versus the capitalists.
None of these things have happened. We have a middle class and we have had it for 200 years in America. The level of competition in our economy is enormous. More monopolies have not arisen. The poor are becoming richer and richer! 100 years ago, the bottom rung of society lived FAR (comparably) to the bottom rung of society today. The point is: the poor have a higher standard of living than the poor have ever had at any time in history.
Marx used the labor theory of value and not the marginal utility method as well. Today, all economists use the marginal utility method because it makes more sense in determining price. Marx assumed that the amount of labor, supplies, and capital that go into a product determine its cost. Today, economists know that it does not matter how much you put into a product! It matters how much the consumer will pay for that product!
Marx's theories are based on simply false assumptions. This is why the USSR could not sustain its society. It was building a massive military at the expense of everything else in the economy.
Here's a simple example:
Suppose I am a farmer and I live in a Communist country. I produce 100 stalks of corn, and the government requires that I hand over 90% of my corn to them so they can distribute it throughout society. I keep 10% for me and my family. When I cannot receive the utility from all of the work I did to grow the corn, why would I continue producing 100 stalks of corn? So the rest of society can enjoy my hard work for free? Wouldn't that give me less of an incentive to produce corn, knowing that 90% of it would provide 0% utility to me?
Marxism's economic teachings are easily proven false. Command economies cannot work and never could because human nature is such that our survival depends on our own effort. If I cannot affect my standard of living to any greater degree, what freedom do I really have?
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
-Enoch Powell
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
2007! Isn't it crazy that people still believe in Marxism????
-Enoch Powell
I don't think there's ever a time when an individual needs to give up freedom and liberty for the good of the state.
but Groucho got all the ladies.......
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Aw shucks!!! You're confusing them with Karl Marx!
Ohhh man. Well isn't the egg on your face!
-Enoch Powell
Oh and being a serf and/or peasant is better than that?
you can not talk about the 'switchover' from capitalism to marxism. that is not how it works. the capitalist system must first collapse under it's own excess before marxism can be implemented. they can not co-exist.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Why would you want to be a serf or a peasant? Why would you want to be a worker in a command economy? I would choose neither. But I would choose the system which allows the invidivual to realize potential rather than the system which subjugates the individual to the state.
Well, if you want to get to the nitty-gritty, it goes:
Capitalism-->Socialism-->Communist Utopia
Somehow the utopia part never seems to happen!! Hehe.
-Enoch Powell
-- richest 1% own 40% of global assets
-- 10% own 85% of world total
http://www.marxist.com/report-wealth-distribution221206.htm
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
YEP! Not enough Capitalism, huh???
-Enoch Powell
Kinda blows your theory of there not being a widening gap between the rich and poor. YEP !
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
utopia is a pipe dream. be it a capitalist one or a supposed communist one.
well you speak of the 'evil' of marxism and yet expect it to be able sit side by side with capitalism.
i am in support of state owned natural resources and infrastructure. i do not believe that foreign investment is a good thing. i believe that a government's job is to look after its people, though not to the detriment of others. afterall in a 'democracy', the people are the government are they not? to me representative democracy is not democracy at all. you can not give a person's will over to someone else. so to me the whole notion of democracy these days is laughable. but having said that i have to also say that the Greeks idea of democracy was flawed as well, though indicative of the times.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
-Enoch Powell
Seems like an endorsement for getting rid of command economies in poor countries. Time to work, innovate, manufacture, invent, create, trade.
Marx believed capitalism "in a society" caused a widened gap between rich and poor. Not "in the world." The poor of other countries cannot perform a communist takeover of the United States, unless we let them immigrate. Capitalism can occur within contained societies and Marxist actions occur within contained societies.
Unfortunately, the poor of other countries are coming and taking jobs to make more money because they WANT to be a part of the Capitalist system.
The simple fact is: the gap between rich and poor has not widened in America. A poor American makes VASTLY more than anyone in one of the third world countries you are referring to. A poor person from our country would be wealthy in other countries. The reason? Capitalism brings up the poor to higher standards, not lower standards.
But, this thread is about Communism.
-Enoch Powell
Please name as many nations that are purely a command economy as you can. You can stop at five if you get tired of typing.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
It's called "globalisation".
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
So you essentially support anarchism?
I am more supportive of a Republic rather than democracy. At least if an elected official fucks up, I can kick him out. If my next door neighbor doesn't know anything about the vote we're having, I can't do shit about that. Except maybe piss on his lawn.
-Enoch Powell
Yet another unknown variable that Marx could not have predicted, which is why his ideas are inapplicable to society. Thanks!
-Enoch Powell
no. the poor of other countries travel to rich countries not because they want to be 'part of the capitalist system' but because they want to LIVE. rich countries rape poor countries of their natural resources and return the favour by getting their products assembled and made in those poor countries. thus adding to their own already fat coffers while giving nothing back but corpses and the want of the disenfranchised to emigrate. above all, the profits must be maintained and increased no matter what and in any way available.
that is your capitalist system.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Please name as many nations that are purely a capitalist economy as you can. You can stop at five if you get tired of typing.
-Enoch Powell
This thread isn't about Capitalism, like I said.
I could defend Capitalism til I'm blue in the face because it's better than Marxism. It was better in 1776 when globalisation wasn't around and it's better now!
People like to complain about our system but when you note that their alternatives are plainly false, they can't stop complaining.
Come up with something better! Otherwise, don't complain.
-Enoch Powell
Please name as many nations that are purely a capitalist economy as you can.
Silly exercise, right? But we can see countries which use command economies as their basis, and other countries which rely on the market for direction. You may think a bunch of big brains in a room deciding on the value of labor or production makes sense. I think a bunch of individuals buying, selling and trading determine value.
"mixed economy": a mixture of freedom and controls. i.e., crippled capitalism, i.e., a hampered market economy.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
LMAO ! I never said I favored marxism, silly man ! I was just proving that capitalism isnt perfect either. Just throwing Whore a bone since no one seems interested in the thread.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Exactly.
If I was selling cookies, I wouldn't add up the price of the flour, chocolate, eggs, and labor that I put into it in order to determine the price. I'd gauge what other cookies sell for and I'd price them accordingly. If I couldn't make a profit on the cookies, I'd quit selling them.
It doesn't matter how much work you put into the good or service you provide, in the end. It only matters how much people will pay for it. This is why markets will always be more efficient than command economies.
-Enoch Powell
Capitalism isn't perfect but it's far superior to Marxism, which is the subject of this thread. Therefore, you should talk about Marxism.
-Enoch Powell
Seems as though you are shouting praises from the rooftop just hoping someone will argue for Marxism/communism. I dont think it will happen.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength