Marxism

WTF?!?! Theo, I was not saying that combatively or antagonistically at all. I apologize if that is how it came across, but those were not my intentions. No, that's why I ask questions. It is because I don't know, but would like to know. Maybe so, I am just asking if that precludes him the ability to be an expert in marxism because of that. I don't see the relevance, so I am asking for your personal input. I don't want to defend him or throw him under the bus. I just want to find out what relevance this has with the current discussion, which is marxism.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Hyro,I apologize for jumping back at you. It was uncalled for and I sincerely apologize. I guess I ahve just gotten in the mode of taking all responses as antagonistic. I will try my best not to get back into that mode.You are correct Horowitz does not matter. The issue there is dropped as far as I am concerned. Thank you for knocking me back into place. I needed it, and you may have noticed in the past I tend to need a knock now and again. Feel free to do it again if you see me getting this way.Back to the topic. I have persistently asked Faith for responses to my posts that were on topic. I do not get any responses. I guess from my viewpoint this thread is dead.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Liar.You got lots of responses from me.Liar.

You just can't help yourself can you? Can't let something just die can you? Message 113
Message 182These two posts are compilations of what I have been trying to get a response on.
These actually have to do with the topic.Edited by Theodoric, : quote, and subtitle

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

If your definition of "liar" is anything like your definition of "Marxist" then "liar" must mean "one who tells the truth".

It's cool, you and Faith have worked each other up in to a frenzy, so it is understandable to be on guard. We all get a little heated some times. The discussions we have here are often very controversial and we all have passionate feelings about much of the subject matter. It happens some times. No harm, no foul. It may be. I think arguing marxist and capitalist philosophies are difficult because there a LOT of abstracts concepts in them. Maybe the dust will settle and the forum can regain its composure and try at it again as amicably as possible.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Faith, be calm. You are getting worked up in to a seething frenzy and losing sight of your objective. If this is slander, then simply prove them wrong. Don't sit here and tell everyone that slander is a "terrible sin" and then turn around and call everyone liars. That just makes you look like an ass or a child throwing a temper tantrum.So they're calling Horowitz a racist. Big fucking deal. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Doesn't really matter either way because that is not a hill worth dying on. Show the evidence in support of your decision because that is all you can do. Or just let it go and move on with the actual discussion, which is marxism.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

There seems to be great deal of confusion and dispute in this thread about what "Marxism" is or means. Discussion on Marxism is being conflated with (including by myself I might add) political philosophies, policies and movements that might claim inspiration from classical Marxist thinking (whether justifiably or not) without actually ever being necessarily espoused by Marx himself. I thought I would try and get us back on track a bit. Starting with the obvious source (i.e Wiki On Marxism) and specifically a look at what Marx meant by "class". Now we must bear in mind that in Marx's time indutrialisation was transforming work for the many into ever more mundane manufacturing production-line roles. In this context the "means of production" refers to the factory or other device of mass production. But even bearing this rather limited and antiquated notion of work and production in mind where would we place ourselves on this list? What is the modern day equivalent of owning the means of production? And how well have Marx's predictions fared?Having looked into this fairly superficially (but a bit beyond Wiki) it strikes me that Marx's theories are much less about social policy than most usually assume and much more a rather technical economic analysis. The main prediction of this analysis seems (to me) to be that in a capitalist system there will necessarily be an unjust and ever increasing disparity between those that own the means of production (i.e "Big Business" in modern day parlance - I would suggest) and those who sell their labour (i.e most of us - I would suggest).In a global capitalist system where 10% of the population now own 85% of the world's wealth, including 1% who own a phenomenal 40% of the entire worlds wealth and where this is becoming ever more concentrated, I would suggest that Marx's prediction holds some serious water. What do others think? Now Marx's solution to this disparity and injustice (as I understand it) was to eliminate private ownership of "the means of production". But what does this even mean in modern day terms?Thoughts especially welcome from those who know more about this than me (Mod in particular seems to have demonstrated a grasp of Marxism as an economic philosophy in this thread) and those who are on the anti-Marxist side of this particular debate.Edited by Straggler, : Formatting and fixing links

You've done the same to me. I've pointed out the differences between Socialism and communism and you still say they're the same thing and claim fascism is part of communism...the only justification for this idea you have is that you had or have communists friends.Let's try this. Please Define each word as you see itSocialism:Marxism:Communism:fascism:Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Out of interest what do you think the defining differences between communism and socialism are?

This is what I wrote in message 27

quote:

---

socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system.

​

Communism, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. To keep everyone equal in a society.

​

Socialism seeks to manage economy through social control. Socialists, see capitalism as a possible part of the state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. One of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system to keep it within a state in which it doesn't do serious damage to any members of the society.

​

Please don't let the "Conservative" brainwashing of the 1980's persist in modern times. Calling someone a socialist and a communist is very ignorant and lacks understanding. To top it off many people throw the word Nazi in with these two even though the Nazi Party was founded to fight the "evil" communists.

---

I will grant you it is overly simplified but I do believe I showed the basic difference although communism tends to exist and has existed in many variations Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Hi Hyroglyphx, it seems the topic is getting lost here, so I need to bring my views on capitalism back into context with marxism.I think there needs to be a balance between individual economy systems and social economy systems.Government exists to make society more just and fair. Otherwise anarchy is a more viable solution. Thank you. Sometimes it is a bit surprising when one's concepts are contradicted by certain evidence, and it takes an open mind to realize when they are wrong.Now, perhaps we can ask if the same lesson applies to excess profit taken above the fair value of a product. As noted in previous posts, the basic concept is fairness, and that even small monkeys appreciate fairness in transactions, and get angry when this is violated. Yes, what makes people mad about the whole buyout thing (and Bernie and Enron and ... the list is endless eh?) is the fairness issue and the feeling that justice was not served (except in Bernie's case). Likewise, what burns ICANT, Faith, etc about welfare, healthcare, etc is the fairness thing, feeling that some people would be getting more than they deserve. Perhaps, perhaps not. I used to work for a family owned business, with several hundred happy workers that willingly worked extra to ensure that the product was the best that could be made for the price and that the consumer got a fair deal when buying the product. The CEO regularly walked through the plant and talked to all the workers, new their names and their families. The company made a very good profit, and shared that profit back with the employees. They became the leader in their sector, at which point they garnered the attention of a big corporation. The corporation made the family and very generous offer, and they were near retirement age, so they took it. In true fashion they also shared the buyout bonus with the workers. Two years later the company was broke, the dealers were all complaining about shoddy merchandise that was too cheaply and people were no longer buying at the price asked, and the product no longer performed as the previous product had, because corners were cut in production. Employees were asked to take wage cuts etc. Profit was maximized at the expense of everything else. The company was closed and the assets sold to the highest bidder, and employees that had worked there for years were left on their own.This may not be common, but the experience was pretty telling to me. One is a model of a fair company and the other is a model of a capitalistic company, one where profit was the only goal. Of course not. Not being satisfied with wealth, no matter how much one has, and still wanting more is greed. And yet we saw with the banking issue and interest, that it was not the market that dictates what is a fair price, but the people doing the lending (ie the sellers of loans). They know what their costs are, they know how much they need to cover their costs.Long story short, we should be able to agree that capitalism is not without faults, and that without regulation results in more problems than it solves. Likewise we can agree that marxism is not without faults, not least of which is finding some mechanism to implement it (the real version).We should also be able to agree that a good economic system needs to be fair to the largest majority possible.If we put marxism at one end of the scale, representing maximum sharing of resources (including welfare and allowing "welfare bums' to exist), and put capitalism at the other end of this scale, representing maximal self-interest (including and allowing selfishness, greed and individual hoarding of resources to thrive), then the question becomes where on a sliding scale a model system would be.This is the essence of socialism, a mixture of sharing and self-interest, allowing people to earn a fair wage, taking care of the sick, elderly and infirm, enable people to seek higher education, allow small businesses to thrive, and having those that benefit from such an economy paying taxes according to their degree of benefit to support the country that makes such benefit possible. There is no "market" entity, instead what you have are people. People will regulate their society, for good or bad, and including their economy, based on their collective will, including their sense of fairness.Every economy I am aware of has been forced to make concessions towards one end or the other of the spectrum because of the need for fairness and justice.Enjoy.

---

Fair enough. I asked because the conflation between communism and socialism is not limited to conservatives of any sort and because the distinction can be blurry.I would be interested in any thoughts you might have on Message 203

You are a lying accusing howling leftist. Liar. Either that or your brain is just so fried from all the leftist indoctrination you've undergone you can't think. You misread everything I've written. I've answered this as far as it deserves to be answered. You just want to browbeat a person into accepting your definition of everything. Leave people alone. You people are meddling harassing abusive bullying idiots.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I suspect that you and I (much like RAZD and I) will strongly agree on many social issues, strongly agree in objecting to many of the most well defined and evidentially outrageous religious positions but vehemently disagree on the relatively subtle issue of what does or does not constitute "evidence" in the much more abstract area of ontology.In this thread I have nothing but agreement and support for your position and the way that you have expressed it.Should we come on to considering Marx's advocacy of materialist atheism that may of course all change........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.