|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Marxism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
SUCH civility, such charity, such goodness of spirit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Whew! Thanks for the correction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh come now Faith. There is an evidenced and obvious political inclination. How does my saying that there are also rich liberals work out to a political inclination?
If Jesus were alive today what do you think his political inclinations would be? Jesus didn't have political inclinations, He didn't say a word against the Roman Empire that so many of His fellow Jews were revolutionaries against. He's willing to save anyone of any political inclination and He'd probably chide some of us for being too much of this world when we should just be privately involved in helping people. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That is a complete fabrication of how things work. Capitalism is consistent with human nature and the concept of reciprocity. You have something I want (your product), and I have something you want (my money). It is an exchange system and nothing more. That is a complete fabrication of how things really work. Sharing is consistent with human nature, you can see this in primate behavior, as well as the concept of justice, which is based on everyone getting fair shares. Capitalism = exchange plus profit. If you don't realize this then you know very little of how the capitalist system actually works. The more profit you make the better a capitalist you are. If you borrow money from the bank, you have to pay back what you borrowed plus interest = more than you borrowed. This is capitalism. If you borrow a hammer from a friend, all he asks is that you give it back in the condition it was lent in within a reasonable time. This is human nature. If you buy a product from a company you will usually pay the cost of materials plus the cost of manufacturing the part (includes all the overhead and labor) plus a margin. If the margin is 40% (common) then you pay
the cost of materials plus the cost of manufacturing the part
Next we can talk about how the profit is shared within the company, to see if that represents just payment for work done.0.60 = 1.67 x the real value of the product I don't know about you, but for me, greed and selfishness is about getting more than your fair share of any transaction, and that seems to be a built in element in unregulated capitalism.
Marxism doesn't work because it is inconsistent with human nature, much less a workable economic system. Capitalism doesn't work because it is inconsistent with human nature, much less a workable economic system. Now we can also discuss whether there are any fully implemented actual economic systems that are 100% capitalistic, or whether every one in the world today has some kind of regulation because capitalism on it's own is an abject failure. In every case I know of the regulations are to more justly balance the profits among people and to take into consideration the social aspects in regulating transactions. Bill Gates is not rich because he personally made things. He is rich because he charged more than a fair price. There is a reason that monopolies are outlawed: they are the personification of pure captilistic greed. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: But it doesn't mean there has to be a dictatorship with an immovable and unaccountable ruling elite who cream off the best for themselves at the expense of all others. Does it? If so why? How can a government run without people in charge running it? The vision was for the proletariat's, the working class, to end the class struggle that Marx and Engels saw was endemic of the overall problem. If this is the case, this is simply changing who controls power, not the abrogation of it.
I think there can be a consensus of some sort (even in a large population) of what constitutes a contribution to society and the relative basis upon which that might be rewarded. Then why is there so much political strife and division now and always has been? Are people suddenly and inexplicably going to come to some sort of consensus under Marxist rule? If so, why?
Our current system lets the market dictate that almost entirely. And we end up in the situation where a sports star is essentially deemed as millions of times more worthwhile than a nurse. Is this necessarily right? Is it socially unavoidable? Maybe. Maybe not. I am asking the question. That's a social phenomenon that is certainly not unique to any society. I don't see that as being relevant, except to note that people look upon the extraordinary because human nature marvels at those who break from the common modality and break free from the mold. Marxism is a cookie cutter that wants to make everyone the same and stamp out individuality. I don't see that as virtuous.
quote: Nor do I. Who does? Marxists!
The question is - What is success? And on what basis should it be rewarded? Success is something defined by the individual. What I imagine success as working hard, earning respect, and in the interest of high achievement, being compensated for that achievement. Should a highly specialised doctor make the same amount of money as a person who operates a cash register? If not, why not? And would that simple principle of being more highly compensated for a higher level of profession be the same under Marxism? If so, why? If not, why not?
My main concern remains the size of the population in which it is possible for this collective identity to manifest itself to the degree required by Marxism in practise. I don't understand. Can you please elaborate?
The self interest of the Western world does not benefit those working in third world slum conditions for poverty wages to provide us with cheap goods and services so that we can maintain that differential. Sure it does. Do you think these people work there with a gun to their head? What you consider a shitty job is an amazing job for them that is keeping them and their family alive. If you can't provide a basis for why they can't leave their job, then you have no basis for even mentioning it in a negative connotation.
Capitalism is great at providing a large portion of the wealthy with what they desire. But it indisputably has a massive cost in terms of requiring a majority labour market to do this in relative poverty and is also indisputably very wasteful in terms of finite natural resources. Capitalism is the only economic system that has proven to limit poverty in the known world. There is no room for comparison. Until it can be demonstrated that a better form of system exists, it is useless to even disparage it.
If you have to keep consuming you have to keep creating. Regardles of actual need. We operate the world on the basis of manufactured need in the first world largely supplied by impoverished labour in the third world. Who's fault is it that third world countries are third world? Are you suggesting that a country like the Bahamas would be better off without capitalism? Because from my vantage point, the only reason why Bahamians are still alive is because of capitalism. They have no natural resources and almost 90% of their economy comes from tourism. They benefit from it. Just because one nation is more prosperous than another doesn't mean the smart nation should be guilted for their success. It would be wise, like China finally wised up to, and to get in the game and compete. Because what else can you do?
No truly Marxist system would rely on a dictatorial elite as far as I understand the term "communism" in that conceptual context. That every "communist" system has been a trenchant and authoritarian dictatorship implies to me that "power to the people" has been used to dupe the populace into accepting such extreme governance rather than as any sort of manifestation of anything actually envisaged by Marx. The question that still begs to be answered by anyone is: If Marxism is theoretically so amazing, yet hasn't been tried, why has no one dared to implement it? Or is the truth that it has been tried numerous times, and numerous times has failed?
All EvC members are entitled to their view. But some members are more entitled than others. Touche! "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Yes they should assist. School lunch programs are for the masses. The Feds subsidize every school lunch. I asked you if the government should be paying for food (everyone's food) on the basis that people need food?
They stimulate the economy for one You know what stimulates the economy even better? Working and paying for your own food.
quote: They do for milk. I can't seem to find any evidence of that. If you have any corroborating evidence that the United States government tells grocery stores how much to sell milk for, please post it. Regardless, prices are determined by the market not the government. If you sell something for too much, people will go to the lowest bidder. If you want to compete for economic survival, you have to let the market dictate how much you sell something for.
One of the duties of our government is to not allow an unfettered free market. Only in the case of monopolies, which is a rarity.
quote: According to your right of center view. Many, many people would disagree with that interpretation. Just because this is your belief does not make it a correct belief. All we can know is what they stated, and the very clear message was the maximization of individual rights while minimizing the government's role.
quote: Oh so this was a list of dictators not communists. It was a list of dictators who are communists. My inclusion of Mussolini was accidental since he and other fascist regimes were against communism. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler,
Who would benefit and who would lose out? Ask yourself that and surely the answer is obvious. No? Then review the Cuban revolution for context. (of course you will need to refer to the real history, not some regurgitated interpretation). You also see the same thing where coups or revolutions are supposed to end in a democracy ... and suddenly you have a military leader ... Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Care to answer the question? So far you haven't answered my questions. All I get are whiney responses.
Why don't you try backing up your comments, with facts maybe. I will try again.What do you know about U.S. tax law? What do you think the top tax rate is and how do tax rates work? If someone is in the 32% tax rate are they taxed 32% for all their income? Is the top tax rate 10%, 35%, 60%, 75%? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
You missed the point of me defining and telling you the difference between communism and Socialism.
Taxes to fund government programs and regulating business in order to keep them from abusing and doing harm to other members of society IS NOT Marxist or communist it is socialist. Please learn the difference. These words have specific meanings. If you don't understand what they are then how are we to understand what you're trying to say? Communism is not socialism. Calling a socialist a communist is like calling a libertarian a Nazi. That's how big the difference is. (yes Nazi party ideas are to the "right" not the "left" but are a huge leap from libertarian)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Sharing is consistent with human nature, you can see this in primate behavior, as well as the concept of justice, which is based on everyone getting fair shares. Ah, so you go to work for strangers I take it, and give your paycheck to strangers, and your home is shared publicly with strangers, and your car is not really your car and so on? It's all publicly divided, I take it?
Capitalism = exchange plus profit. Of course profit is involved. That kind of goes without saying. Nobody makes products so they can break even, as it would tend to defeat the entire purpose of business.
If you borrow money from the bank, you have to pay back what you borrowed plus interest = more than you borrowed. This is capitalism. A more succinct term would be called business or commerce or credit.
If you borrow a hammer from a friend, all he asks is that you give it back in the condition it was lent in within a reasonable time. This is human nature. Yep, amongst friends or neighbors. But amongst strangers, there needs to be a system of collateral as there is less guarantee that you will recoup those funds that you invested in the hammer should that hammer mysteriously disappear. There would also be no incentive in lending the hammer out, and there would be no incentive on returning the hammer as it is "public domain" in a marxist society.
If you buy a product from a company you will usually pay the cost of materials plus the cost of manufacturing the part Is that extraordinarily strange? Because I'm wondering what place on earth deviates from such simple economic principles that doesn't include an incredibly repressive society.
I don't know about you, but for me, greed and selfishness is about getting more than your fair share of any transaction, and that seems to be a built in element in unregulated capitalism. If you as the consumer feel that you are not getting your fair share, you have the option to go to a lower bidder. Those kind of incentives drive the market, RAZD. No need for government spooks to determine the lives of free people in a free society to trade freely as they please in a free market.
Now we can also discuss whether there are any fully implemented actual economic systems that are 100% capitalistic, or whether every one in the world today has some kind of regulation because capitalism on it's own is an abject failure. In every case I know of the regulations are to more justly balance the profits among people and to take into consideration the social aspects in regulating transactions. Plead your case and I will follow.
Bill Gates is not rich because he personally made things. He is rich because he charged more than a fair price. He's rich because he sold massive amounts of his products. Simple supply and demand. The market had the demand, he had the supply. That's economics 101. Can you explain to me what version of society (as it applies to economics) you think a nation should aspire to? Because these invectives of the horrors of capitalism really make no sense without a detailed alternative. If RAZD could form his perfect society with willing participants, what would it look like? "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You missed the point of me defining and telling you the difference between communism and Socialism. Taxes to fund government programs and regulating business in order to keep them from abusing and doing harm to other members of society IS NOT Marxist or communist it is socialist. No they aren't. Those practices are standard in any civilized society that ever existed --- abe: OK, exaggeration -- they are COMPATIBLE with all civilized government. They are not socialism.
Please learn the difference. These words have specific meanings. If you don't understand what they are then how are we to understand what you're trying to say? Communism is not socialism. Calling a socialist a communist is like calling a libertarian a Nazi. That's how big the difference is. Well, I think somebody has been manipulating the language back in academia somewhere probably in the last few decades? for this to have become a rule we now have to obey in order not to be sent to political correctness hell. Here's a rough idea of how I use the terms: Socialism is a form of spreading the wealth and Marxism is the most ideologically tyrannical version of it. The idea of socialism started back in the 19th century among liberal Christians. Marx himself was from a liberal Christian family that had converted from Judaism and made use of many of those concepts in his theories. I really think you are insisting on too stringent a distinction and, like I said, it must have started somewhere back in academia, probably to make socialism palatable by erasing any connection with Marxism, right? If you know something of the history of this objection to equating the two perhaps you could spell it out?
(yes Nazi party ideas are to the "right" not the "left" but are a huge leap from libertarian) Actually the case can be made and I've seen it made though I don't claim the ability to make it myself for you here, that Nazism and all forms of Fascism have more in common with the Left than the Right. Something about having to control and dictate to people instead of allowing them freedom to live as they please. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Oni writes: Ehh, no not really. Saying it that way makes it sound (at least to me) that they had a problem with the rich.
Hyro writes: Do you know who the Bourgeoisie was? It wasn't the proletariat's. I'm sorry Hyro, but do you know who the bourgeoisie were in Marx's time? They weren't the rich, specifically. They could have been, but they were also the middle class. It didn't have to do with money, although those with money could also be bourgeois, or the more common name: Capitalist. Why? because they owned capital. They were the employers.
Oni, the two men were consumed by the concept of class struggle. The whole theory can be summarized in two words: Class Struggle Hyro, you're not understanding Marx's concept of "class". You're looking at it as upper/middle/lower class, but this is not the kind of 'class' Marx was talking about.
Sourcequote: There is a difference between Marx's use of the word 'class' and the contemporary use (the way you're using it). They mean two different things in two different times in history.
The impression that resonates is an affection towards marxism, a defending of marxism, and an alienation of anything contrary to marxism. Opinion's are one thing, we all have them. The fact that no one has stated that their particular opinion is the right one is the point. We are simply stating facts. The communism that has been tried is not Marx and Engel's theory. No one has lead anyone to believe it's a better theory than any other. I even argued in favor of slavery being better for production. Are you going to accuse me of thinking slavery is the only way to go? C'mon, Hyro.
That doesn't answer why no one has allegedly tried it. Why hasn't it been tried? I think Straggler's answer was great. Message 84quote: If no one stands to benefit, it's like asking why we haven't abopted any other form of social economics that no one would benefit from. Besides, you are making a big deal about Marx's theory. Marx did absolutely nothing. His original theory is gone. Never used. Thrown away. All we are left wih is this fake representation of communism by fascist governments. Any mention of a communist "state" with a ruling elite that controlled production, distribution and wages would have been in complete disagreement with Marx and Engel's theory. You need to understand this already. We keep repeating it.
Unions have exploited the hand that feeds them, so unions are not a good example. Again, its unions in a capitalist system, so you're going to get that exploitation, that Marx was against. This is why I said "in principle" they resemble Marxism. Marxism CAN"T work in a capitalist society. But it was just an example of ideologies. Whether they have worked or not, or whether they have been corrupted, etc., is irrelevant to my point.
Unions started out with good intentions and certainly have helped in many areas. So did communism.
With unions you have to pay your dues to the people on the top of the food chain, right? No. You pay it to your local. To yourself.
Unions are also incredibly political. They are the largest lobby for the democrat party. Wait, you're confusing something here. I'm not talking about the union reps, or the union lobbyist, or any of that. I'm saying the way a local union is run (example: Local 349 IBEW) in principle resembles Marx's idea of communism. That is all.
I have a huge bone of contention with unions. Ugh, so tempted to make a dick joke. You're seeing the big picture: lobbyist, the shady business guys, the one's who steal from the workers, the greedy side (the capitalist side) of unions. I agree, that is very ugly. But go to any Local and talk to those guys. Go to an area where huge corporate monsters have tried to drive wages down, but unions (that is to say, the memebers of the union) have stopped it. In right to work states where the wages are just lower except for union workers, example: right here in Miami. Union electricians (which is what I did before comedy) made 4-5 dollars more an hour than non-union guys. Now, I'm not saying unions are perfect, but they have done well for people in the past, and currently during this economy. So maybe just have a little chubby for unions? Not a huge bone. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Actually the case can be made and I've seen it made though I don't claim the ability to make it myself for you here, that Nazism and all forms of Fascism have more in common with the Left than the Right. Something about having to control and dictate to people instead of allowing them freedom to live as they please.
Ok maybe you don't realize it is crap. Whatever sources you are using they are lying to you. You constantly make comments about things you don't understand. Maybe you should understand the subject before you make uninformed comments.Here is an overview of fascism. Maybe you should read it. quote:Source Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Here for you to read THIS TIME is what I wrote in message 27
quote: No they aren't. Those practices are standard in any civilized society that ever existed --- abe: OK, exaggeration -- they are COMPATIBLE with all civilized government. They are not socialism. Why do you distant socialist policies from socialism? Do you think Socialism is bad even though socialist governments have been proven to work?
I really think you are insisting on too stringent a distinction and, like I said, it must have started somewhere back in academia, probably to make socialism palatable by erasing any connection with Marxism, right? They are two very different words with different meanings.... so no.Calling a socialist a communist is like calling a libertarian a Nazi. Actually the case can be made and I've seen it made though I don't claim the ability to make it myself for you here, that Nazism and all forms of Fascism have more in common with the Left than the Right. Something about having to control and dictate to people instead of allowing them freedom to live as they please. Except they would be wrong Nazism was founded as an extreme effort to fight communism. It is an extreme "right" wing idea. You continue to show your ignorance by throwing dictatorships into the mix. So you're saying that anything that oppresses people is to the left? Wow... Do you understand economics beyond Glen Beck's Chalk board? Edited by DC85, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks for proving that greed is indeed the basic element of capitalism.
Message 35: Hyroglyphx replying to slevesque:
(slevesque) Capitalism works because it feeds off the greed of people, but to a certain extent a form of Marxism is more biblical, because it feeds off the empathy of people.
That is a complete fabrication of how things work. Capitalism is consistent with human nature and the concept of reciprocity. You have something I want (your product), and I have something you want (my money). It is an exchange system and nothing more. If it were an exchange system and nothing more then A can be exchanged for B and B can be exchanged for A at any time. Thus the loan would be repaid with the same amount that was lent, just as the hammer was returned by the good neighbor.
Of course profit is involved. That kind of goes without saying. Nobody makes products so they can break even, as it would tend to defeat the entire purpose of business. Profit means charging more than the actual value of the product, it means charging B+P for A. Asking for more than the value of an item is being greedy.
He's rich because he sold massive amounts of his products. Simple supply and demand. The market had the demand, he had the supply. That's economics 101. He's rich because he not only charged more than the product was worth, but as much as he could coerce out of people with little other choice. So I'm glad that you agree that "Capitalism works because it feeds off the greed of people" and that all your equivocating shows exactly the same attitude: that greed is justified by capitalism.
If you buy a product from a company you will usually pay the cost of materials plus the cost of manufacturing the part
Is that extraordinarily strange? Nice quote mine. Now you have shown that you are dishonest as well as equivocating. For the casual reader the full quote would be
Message 94: If you buy a product from a company you will usually pay the cost of materials plus the cost of manufacturing the part (includes all the overhead and labor) plus a margin. and even a casual reader will note that eliminating that final bit substantially changes the meaning. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024