Moved from D1 forum

[Jester]

There seem to be No True Scotsmen left in your world. If Lenin, Castro, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin, Tito, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, and so on are *all* excluded from "true" Marxism, then we have been left with nothing but an ahistorical husk, an idea entirely severed from its body.

What Marx believed is not difficult to track down. While an interesting and original, if somewhat muddled thinker, he was not a pleasant man. A violent uprising followed by an indeterminate period of dictatorship by the working class and their (self-)appointed representatives (of which he was one himself), accompanied by a gradual disassembly of capitalism, is exactly what he called for. It is also what was tried, over and over, in Russia, in China, in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Yugoslavia. It has never worked. It has never come close to working. It has nearly always been accompanied by astounding bloodshed, extraordinary repression, and perhaps most hilariously, income inequality surpassing most modern capitalist democracies.

We can wait for our Communist New Jerusalem if we like, but we can't jettison its history, and the history is ugly.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

There seem to be No True Scotsmen left in your world. If Lenin, Castro, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin, Tito, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, and so on are *all* excluded from "true" Marxism, then we have been left with nothing but an ahistorical husk, an idea entirely severed from its body.

What Marx believed is not difficult to track down. While an interesting and original, if somewhat muddled thinker, he was not a pleasant man. A violent uprising followed by an indeterminate period of dictatorship by the working class and their (self-)appointed representatives (of which he was one himself), accompanied by a gradual disassembly of capitalism, is exactly what he called for. It is also what was tried, over and over, in Russia, in China, in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Yugoslavia. It has never worked. It has never come close to working. It has nearly always been accompanied by astounding bloodshed, extraordinary repression, and perhaps most hilariously, income inequality surpassing most modern capitalist democracies.

We can wait for our Communist New Jerusalem if we like, but we can't jettison its history, and the history is ugly.

-Jester

Incorrect, good sir. Again, you are confusing Marxism with Totalitarianism. I don't want to turn this into a discussion of semantics, but dammit, people need to know what things mean and differentiate between concepts before they talk about it. Also, your post seems to imply that the exploitation and alienation of lower classes is justified and thus goes against everything in Marxism.

The history of feudalism and capitalism is much uglier than Marxism, which is a mere reactionist idea on the part of the common citizens to free themselves from the financial elites (or aristocracy in the case of the pre-French Revolution era) which control their labor that they see no benefit from. As for him being unpleasant, this is a Red Herring, and even if it wasnt, it just helps my argument further since it goes hand in hand on how his theory reflects the perspective of the economically disenfranchised (aka the majority). Anyway, probably best if we agree to disagree. You have a better chance at finding a cure for cancer than you do convincing me that capitalism is an ideal, fair and just system.

And btw, Marx didn't necessarily so much hate capitalism and endorse communism so much as he said both systems simply represent the historical development of economics. In fact, he said an era of capitalism is NEEDED so that society is advanced and stable enough so that enough goods are produced and technology advanced enough when the inevitable transformation into state-sponsored socialism occurs, then finally into utopian communism in which then the people (NOT the state), control the means of production. There is no time limit on these eras given either, and considering feudalism lasted some 700 years or so, its impossible to say when capitalism will turn into socialism and then communism. Not likely to happen in our lifetime, but to say it will never happen, eh, thats not a bet i would take to Vegas. The USSR and China were not Marxist in the context of his theory of historical determinism, not even close. If anything, I think Stalin much more resembled a fascist, rather than a Marxist, heh. Him and Hitler, for as much as they hated one another, had much in common besides economic views. I consider myself a to be a moderate Marxist, and dont endorse the policies or actions of Stalin or Mao by any means, nor do any other objective Marxist enthusiasts I know. Just as im sure those who love Adam Smith and his theories do not approve of what is taking place, especially in the US, today (at least I hope not). If we use your argument and logic by linking Marxism in its actual context with Russia and China, and say it has failed based on these as true examples, than one could make the same argument about America and capitalism being as equally big of a failure. For the wealth and prosperity of a nation means little, if that wealth and prosperity is concentrated in the top 5% of the population and they own more then the bottom 95% COMBINED, resulting in the greatest income AND class disparity of a so-called advanced democracy. And whats worse, that gap continues to widen. Your post defeats itself. Good day sir.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Again, you are confusing Marxism with Totalitarianism.

No. Marxism is an economic model. Totalitarianism is a social model. They are quite separate. What is interesting is that, while many cases of totalitarianism without Marxism exist, there are no cases of Marxism without totalitarianism. Or, at least, none bigger than a few early Christian communities and some hippie communes. That brings up the question of why does it take an iron fist to attempt to force what is claimed to be a perfect economic solution.

In addition to being an economic model, Marxism is also a logical system. As with any logical system, all the conclusions are held within the hypotheses. Often these conclusions are difficult to tease out. Unlike a mathematical system, which is abstract and has no "correct" set of axioms, an economic model must reflect observed reality.

The problem with Marxism stems from its incorrect assumption about the nature of people. It shares this problem in form with Jeffersonian democracy, most forms of anarchy, Libertarianism, and too many other belief systems to list. The underlying error in Marxism is that people will work for the common good, putting aside their own desires and selfishness. While that may be true of a few people, the majority will not. Again, this is a small minded view. A "people are either selfish or altruistic" model. With that narrow outlook, one must pick an extreme. Only the "altruistic" extreme leads to Marxism. However, a realization that the actual nature of people runs the whole gauntlet and is not even consistent in most individuals, leads one to question that assumption.

In mathematics, when a poor postulate is used in building a system, the worse that happens is that the system is uninteresting. In social systems, a poor postulate often leads to unrealistic conclusions and expectations. When a government tries to impose those expectations, what happens is not the Utopia envisioned, but rather a very real disaster.

The history of feudalism and capitalism is much uglier than Marxism,

I'll grant you that feudalism was ugly. That's part of why it slowly faded away. Of course, to be self consistent, you should not be comparing a social system (feudalism) with an economic system (Marxism ). Or, you should not fault us for doing so, as you did above.

Capitalism didn't really turn ugly until the industrial revolution. (What, you didn't know that capitalism runs back to early medieval times when first the Jews and then the Italians started what became banking?) In Marx's time, the excesses of capitalism were being addressed by the emergence of a labor movement. Sure, in his days government and industry combined against labor often resulting in bloodshed. However, only a small minded and limited intellect would propose that the evils of one extreme could only be cured by the going to the opposite extreme. Nearly a hundred years of dynamic tension between labor and management, both supported and both restricted by government, shows that, once again, the solution is in the middle.

You have a better chance at finding a cure for cancer than you do convincing me that capitalism is an ideal, fair and just system.

Ah, yes. A fine example of an open mind.

Real adults are capable of realizing that not all discussions are for the purpose of converting. Sometimes, the purpose of discussions is to examine our own views as well as those of people we disagree with. There are many potential results. By explaining and defending our viewpoints, it might strengthen our beliefs -- sometimes even clarify them. Sometimes it exposes gaps or errors in our thinking. Sometimes it forces us to reevaluate those beliefs. Sometimes, though very rarely, it even forces us to abandon some or all of them.

Refusal to discuss one's beliefs -- especially after a long post discussing ones beliefs -- is a strong indicator of immaturity or fear. Immaturity in that it is the equivalent of putting ones hands over ones ears and taunting, "Nya, nya, nya, I can't hear you." Fear in that one who does that either feels that his position is untenable or that he can't defend it. Joining in a discussion, presenting one's viewpoint, and then refusing to participate further, is not a particularly mature behavior.

Also, I do believe that no one is arguing that capitalism is perfect system. Indeed, the only one stating that there is a perfect system, that it is Marxism, and that that claim is beyond argument is you.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

... he said an era of capitalism is NEEDED ...

Given that he lived in such a period, that's no great pronouncement. More like an intelligent fish admitting the existence of water.

... utopian communism in which then the people (NOT the state), control the means of production.

Right. But don't the people control the means of production right now? The smart people, the driven people, those who are willing to invest their time and money instead of spending the first watching TV and the second buying beer will trade what they have to those who are fools for a larger share of control.

If, tomorrow morning we were to wake up to a Marxist Utopia where everything (except human nature) was just as Marx wanted and predicted, by tomorrow evening there would be haves and have nots. It doesn't take deep philosophical thinking. A simple little book like Animal Farm is enough to show that the pigs will always end up ahead. And that philosophers who misunderstand human nature are jackasses.

... its impossible to say when capitalism will turn into socialism and then communism.

Right. And the rapture will happen any day now. And 12/12/12 will be the last page we'll ever need in our calenders.

So, your argument is that a theoretical system which has never existed is better than any and all the systems that have actually existed. And the reason every example of an attempt at implementing your perfect theoretical system failed was that it couldn't be your system, since they weren't perfect since they failed. And you see nothing wrong with that (lack of) reasoning?

Jester was right -- no true Scotsman indeed.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Socialism > capitalism.

Why can't it be a balance between the two? After all, lots of things in the US are socialist already (schools, garbage pickup, roads, etc). I don't think even the most fervent Tea Bagger is opposed to every single socialist government-run program (or are they? I'm not even sure anymore).

The problem isn't "big business" really, it's the influence that big business has on elected officials. I'm really not sure why lobbying is a legal practice. Can anyone explain to me in simple terms why it's not bribery?

You can call me materialistic and a consumerist all you want, but I really like being able to have stuff. I like my plasma TV. I like my computer. I like the fact that just today I washed my car and felt really good about owning it.

I also recognize the fact that I am better off than most people in my country, so I don't mind paying a little extra tax. Every bit of extra tax I pay goes to someone that probably needs it more than I do.

[eppie]

Why can't it be a balance between the two?

There has to be. You always hear the talk about how communism failed and capitalism won....but people forget that is up till now.....and has only worked out well for us in the west.
Capitalism, since it was 'invented', say in the 17th century, is a model that needs an endless supply of raw material to increase consumption and let the economy grow (together with population increase to fuel the extra consumption) That worked great for the dutch because we just emptied out Indonesia. It has worked great for the west up till some time ago because we were able to leave the largest part of earth population in poverty.
It will not work anymore now that more and more people in the bric countries for example get richer and want to consume as well.
Capitalism will need to drastically rethink it's methods. First and most important is including the cost of using earths resources in the price of the things we pay (so on top of the supply and demand number).

The capitalism that we know of and think is the best system will not work for a closed box such as planet earth once the number of inhabitants gets too big.

[FireIceTalon]

Socialism > capitalism.

Why can't it be a balance between the two? After all, lots of things in the US are socialist already (schools, garbage pickup, roads, etc). I don't think even the most fervent Tea Bagger is opposed to every single socialist government-run program (or are they? I'm not even sure anymore).

The problem isn't "big business" really, it's the influence that big business has on elected officials. I'm really not sure why lobbying is a legal practice. Can anyone explain to me in simple terms why it's not bribery?

You can call me materialistic and a consumerist all you want, but I really like being able to have stuff. I like my plasma TV. I like my computer. I like the fact that just today I washed my car and felt really good about owning it.

I also recognize the fact that I am better off than most people in my country, so I don't mind paying a little extra tax. Every bit of extra tax I pay goes to someone that probably needs it more than I do.

I more or less agree with this. Bribery is indeed a huge problem in our political arena because it gives those with wealth and power an unfair advantage in the political process over everyone else, thus civil society continues on a course that is not in our best interest. Would it be reaching to say that we are democracy only in name, and not so much in practice? And of course, politicians themselves tend to be rather well off, so Im sure it is difficult for them to understand the needs of the average person. But big business itself has become too powerful. Even within the corporations themselves, its anything but a democracy. Corporations by their very nature are authoritarian. All rights disappear once you go in the door, they make all the rules and determine the culture to the point where it can affect people's personal lives, everything from doing credit checks during the hiring process (a form of class warfare) to creating rules such as not being allowed to date someone within the company who is married. Now, im not one who condones adultery, but it is NOT the business of the corporation to tell someone who they can date in their personal life. The government could never get away with something like this, so why should corporations? Rights for a person are an obstacle to that evil P word (profit), so naturally, corporations gladly accept the rights of individuals but without the responsibility that comes with such freedom.

I dont think socialism is perfect by any means, as there is no such thing as a completely perfect system, not even Marxism which I have defended in my previous posts. That said, I think a social democracy as seen in the Scandinavian countries or France is the best system contrived thus far that contains some elements of capitalism but those who are less fortunate are taken care of much better than they are here, or so says the consensus. The crime in those countries, and social problems in general, are much less than here because there is much less economic inequality. Overall, I think socialism benefits a greater number of people. In capitalism, you are required to take risks in order to succeed to at least some degree. If one has alot of resources to fall back on, this is easy enough, but what about for those who don't (and there is alot more of these people, as the wealthy are a tiny minority)? My logic here is based on an idea of John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness. Rawls was a brilliant thinker as well, though he promoted equality of opportunity rather then equality of outcome as Marx did. But unfortunately we have a flawed logic here in America, a belief that all men are created equal and have an equal opportunity in the pursuit of life, liberty and success. But this is not so. And then its further compounded by the belief that if one does take responsibility for success, they must also do so for failure....this is a bad way of thinking because it implies that those who do fail are lazy or unmotivated or even unintelligent, which is not usually true. Since we do have socialism here to some degree as you mentioned, as seen in roads, drinking water, police, public transportation, etc.....why do we feel the need to privatize (uff, that is such a dirty word) quality healthcare and higher education into profit making commodities? Should not everyone be entitled to these things, regardless of their income or social class? Our social darwinistic culture says they shouldnt be, and only those who have the means to pay are entitled - Profits first, well-being and quality of life, integrity and character last. This is one of the fundamental problems I have with capitalism. It is ironic we want to be the worlds police and so-called role model nation for everyone else. We have this elitist attitude that the rest of the world has to catch up to us. If you ask me, it is US that has the catching up to do, not the other way around (at least in terms of healthcare and education, but probably much else as well).

Having material things is fine. Hell, I have a laptop of which I have used to type all my posts here, a cell phone, and yes, gasp, an Ipod. But that said, everything in moderation. I dont know how it is in other countries as I have admittedly never traveled outside the United States (I hope to change this one day, hopefully sooner than later), but our culture here promotes materialism and consumerism so heavily it seems to me that it becomes what defines many of us. And this is unfortunate. I guess its a status thing? If you ask most Americans what they would do if they won the lottery tomorrow, the typical answer of course is pay off all debt, buy some fancy car, a mansion, and every other material thing they ever wanted......if it were me, id buy a new car (not cause I want one, but cause I actually need it) but not a fancy sports car or even a luxury car, just a normal Toyota or something that is economical, and I would pay for my education and use the money to travel and read (Im one of those people who walks into a bookstore, goes to the political and history section and gets depressed because I know there isnt enough time in a lifetime to read them all), and save the rest for my retirement, though if I am doing what I love, I may never have to retire (truely a Marxist way of thinking right there ). But id' probably want to use it in some way that would benefit society as a whole, such as creating a needs based scholarship with it or something for dedicated but less fortunate students like myself. Ironically enough, if higher education was accessible to everyone, no one would need scholarships. Oh but wait a minute, that means those who come from a lower social class could attend Harvard alongside rich kids, and heaven forbid we allow that......heh.

I come from a middle class background I guess you could say. Neither of my parents are highly educated (my dad only obtained his AA in business, moms completed high school) by any means but they did work extremely hard and did fairly well for themselves, though now with this economy both are struggling and that hard work which paid off before seems to have gone down the drain, and it is this in part which has made me come to question and even downright loathe capitalism as a legitimate economic system. Our nature is very much determined by extrinsic factors such as our environment, in many ways. If you come from a wealthy background and have little to worry about in the way of survival and quality of life, capitalism is indeed an ideal and probably even preferable system. But for the rest of us, who lack the culture or social capital or resources of our wealthy counterparts, it seems much less appealing.

[kandrathe]

Too bad neither the USSR nor China were ever truly communist, but rather, totalitarian. A true communist society, in the context of Marx's theory, has never been seen before. So to say that Marxism has produced much blood shed is, technically, incorrect. It's so funny that people love to say Marxists are these evil people that want to kill everyone and control the world, yet if you read Marx's theories you would see there is a huge difference between Marxism and Stalinism or Maoism. Marx would have turned over in his grave if he knew the actions of either dictator.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, 5 January 1879 Marx was asked, "Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?” Karl Marx answered, “No great movement, has ever been inaugurated without bloodshed."

In a letter to William Blos, 21 February 1874, Friedrich Engels wrote, "The man is too wise. And on top of that, such offensive, vulgar, democratic arguments! To denigrate violence as something to be rejected, when we all know that in the end nothing can be achieved without violence!"

The communist revolution in the Soviet Union began directly according to Marxist theory. It deviated once power had been established in the government (by Stalin). And, while China had its own Confucian influence, their Marxism was fairly pure until Deng came to power (who was one of the "democracy roaders"). Marx and Engels in their writing, both in letters and published works seem to advocate the types to bloody purges exemplified by the democide in the USSR and China.

You guys may not agree with Marx, but the guy, right or wrong, was a genius and his theory represents, more than anyone else's, the central struggle of humankind. You can criticize him all you want, but at the end of the day, everyone on this board, including myself, is an intellectual peon compared to him

"We're not worthy!" Yeah, right. I've read all his works just this last year for an economics course I needed. Succinctly, Marx and Engels work is justified through dependence upon Hegelian dialectics, which fail miserably when applied to a *real* world where there are shades of gray.

And... Let me quote one of a series of anti-Semitic Marxism's... "So in Jewry we recognize a contemporary universal anti-social phenomenon, which has reached its present pitch through a process of, historical development in which the Jews have zealously co-operated. And this evil anti-social aspect of Jewry has grown to a stage at which: it must necessarily collapse." -Karl Marx-

Yeah, he's a friggin genius. Inspirational for at least one madman.

And as for the Tea Party, that's just their problem, they dont get it: big government isn't the problem, but rather big business is the problem, and that's what they fail to see. Transnationals have far more power and control in both the business world and our daily lives than so-called big government does.

Big business has no power over me, unless it is lent by big government. Only government has the police, the courts, and the army, and can coerce me to do things against my will. There will always be someone with enough cash to offer coercion, but it is benign as long as the government stands to defend my rights. If not, then the government becomes a tool of coercion by the wealthy.

We have constitutional amendments to protect us from "big government", but no such amendments to protect us from corporations. Yea, I have some problems with big government too, but most of that ties into the fact they act as an executive for carrying out the agendas of Wall Street banksters and CEO's who have far more political power than the common citizen. If big government is the problem, its only because of the symbiosis they have with big business, everyone else be damned.

If by symbiosis you mean graft, corruption, pay offs, kick backs, and a trampling of the Bill of Rights that you believe protects you.

As I said before, capitalism is not just merely bad for the economic inequality it creates between social classes as how Marx pointed out, but its evils go far beyond that: for what it PROMOTES: materialism, consumerism, anti-intellectualism, and "false consciousness".

In the Marxist states, everyone gets to be equally poor, and hopeless. And, then, how does Marxism cure the aspiration of people to own things? By making it impossible? How does Marxism promote intellectualism other than what is being practiced in every civilized nation? Marxist "false consciousness" is just another elitist way of declaring the masses too ignorant to understand their situation.

Americans in general are pretty stupid compared to their European counterparts when it comes to politics, and thus they take part less in the political process which is why our political culture here is so weak. Because were too busy worrying about buying that 3 million dollar mansion, filling up that Mercedes SUV and get raped at the pump while the oil companies laugh all the way to the bank, chatting on FaceBook and twitter, to the exclusion of almost everything else...

These are your self hating delusions of what America is about. You only see the world as stereotypes. Europe is better? Oil companies control price? 3 million dollar mansions? Get real. You should get out more and actually talk to people in the grocery store for a change.

...meanwhile the Republican Party and the Tea Party want to cut every social service in the book so civil society itself collapses, give tax breaks to the wealthy, all in the name of making oil and weapons contract companies richer by use of counter-terrorism. And no, im not bashing capitalism because its fashionable to do so, but rather because, it sucks.

On the other hand, the democrats (who are also in the pockets of big oil, and the defense contractors) just want to continue to borrow trillions of dollars until the people are unable to repay their debts. Again, you degenerate your argument to stereotypes and cliches.

Socialism > capitalism. For without equality, you cannot have freedom or democracy, not the other way around. Anyway, thats my perspective. But then again, im just a young naive, political science/sociology major in his 30's that thinks people can (and should) put their self interest aside for the greater good - nothing more, nothing less. Heh.

And, your problem is that you believe we should "put their self interest aside for the greater good" by force. Because, you cannot get there by free will.

You say, "For without equality, you cannot have freedom or democracy, not the other way around." But, you didn't define what you mean by equality. My neighbors house has 100 sq ft. more than mine, should we add onto mine or tear his down? I've spent 30+ years in my profession building up my skills and experience, so should I be paid at a higher rate than the person who started yesterday? My profession is quite demanding in both education, mental acuity and skill, so should the local grocery store clerk earn the same wage as I do? When Marx and Engels, and the colonial Americans, and the revolutionary French talked about equality, they meant that your station at birth was not a limitation to your ability to succeed. While there still tends to be an invisible class system (Havard / Yale etc), it is possible for people with meager beginnings to excel to great achievement as evidenced by people like Steve Jobs, Barrak Obama, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.

In fact, it is directly because of this equality that social mobility is possible. And... due to this social mobility, everyone in the US has the opportunity to aspire to improve the situation for themselves and their children. Hence, this is directly why Marx and Engels prediction of the proletariat in the US and Europe leading the revolutionary banner never came to pass. Why should we denounce those who achieve success, because if we are lucky and determined then we might be the success story. Only in the backward impoverished semi-feudal agrarian societies has Marxism gained a tenuous and brief foothold, until it consumes itself in the despotism, corruption and tyranny that ultimately spawns from those who do the central planning.

[kandrathe]

Every bit of extra tax I pay goes to someone that probably needs it more than I do.

Are you sure? I suspect some of my tax goes toward someones boondoggle (e.g. General Electric paid negative taxes last year...)

[shoju]

You have a better chance at finding a cure for cancer than you do convincing me that capitalism is an ideal, fair and just system.

Capitalism, in theory, is the most absolute fair and ideal system ever.

• private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages
  
• production is carried out to generate profit and is governed subject to the laws of capital accumulation, regardless of legal ownership titles
  
• Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including the determination of how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property.
  

Basically, If I can find a way to make money that is legal within the laws of the lands, I'm more than welcome to do so.

That to me sounds like Rising and falling based on the merits of ones actions. Free Will and what not. I like that idea.

[kandrathe]

Capitalism, in theory, is the most absolute fair and ideal system ever.

Generally, I agree. And, it is because it is "atomic" that it works. That is, stable systems (the corpus) usually are built from subsystems (organs), which are built from well differentiated building blocks (cells). Each of us is just an individual contributor to the entire economy, and our decisions don't mean anything unless they form a majority. Allowing people to price their own labor, and to exchange that labor for a wage, then take that wage to barter for goods and services is the crux of democracy. Our efforts therefore are directed towards those things that we want, whether that be a donation to relieve hunger in Africa, a donation to a political campaign, or to purchase an iPad. And, I've attempted to make this case before... When the government burdens the citizen with large taxes, especially on their labor (wages), they sap that individuals power directly in proportion to that individuals efforts. This is why I would be much more in favor of taxing spending, than taxing wages. Even if that meant you build in some form of progressiveness to make certain "needed" items tax exempt, and scaled them for things like houses, and vehicles.

I think where it breaks down is when you remove competition for crucial commodities. There are always bogus attempts to tear down corporations, like the NFL. They are not technically a monopoly because what they sell is entertainment, and we can find other forms of entertainment if they price themselves out of the consumers willingness to pay.

But, say it were an oil monopoly, then if one corporation or many colluded to create a shortage, well, then that is the type of malfeasance of monopoly. I suspect that this is the case currently. The demand for oil is continuously rising, but our governments are bent on curtailing any new domestic sources, and are dragging their feet on reissuing existing leases. This may be to cater politically to an environmental minority, but only a fool would sell his home before establishing a new place to live. Hitting "world peak oil" in the summer and fall of 2008 was the pin prick that popped the housing bubble which cascaded into this last recession/depression in the economy. I fear our government leadership is toying with setting an oil price that will motivate people to migrate away from fossil fuels, however, the risks, chaos and harms are great and "we the people" may not agree with that strategy. I would favor a public strategy to migrate away from fossil fuels that is bold and decisive, with a set time table, and clear objectives.

I believe there should be more scrutiny on the laws regarding the differences between an individual and a corporation. Currently the courts are treating the rights of a corporation akin to the rights of an individual, and that may give very powerful corporations more access to their rights than is afforded to individuals (i.e. they can afford many of the best lawyers).

An example; I know of a man who was injured on the job. He fell 5 stories down malfunctioning elevator shaft. The door opened, he stepped in and there was no elevator there. Needless to say he was disabled. He had to fight in court for a decade to get any compensation for his agony and injury. During that time he lived in extreme poverty and suffered greatly. This injustice was due to the power of the corporation in avoiding their responsibility.

So, while not perfect, with government playing the watchdog to reign in corporate abuses, the system works. On the other hand, the government can get over protective as well, as I've discussed before with bad legislation, like the Consumer Protection and Safety Improvement Act of 2008 which wastefully forces everyone to test and retest everything and forces hand made, cottage, and small businesses undue hardships.

[Kevin]

So, while not perfect, with government playing the watchdog to reign in corporate abuses, the system works. On the other hand, the government can get over protective as well, as I've discussed before with bad legislation, like the Consumer Protection and Safety Improvement Act of 2008 which wastefully forces everyone to test and retest everything and forces hand made, cottage, and small businesses undue hardships.

That is the key. You need the right amount of regulation, because most people agree that unchecked the abuses can be severe, while overchecked the system can collapse. While many, possibly most, of those situations that require regulation will self correct if left alone, that correction period can be very socially detrimental.

Monopolies are some of the more frequently policed, and most of the economic theory I've learned shows clearly that a monopoly is nearly always bad for everyone, except the monopoly holder. So there is great motivation to become a monopoly and there are markets with such high barriers to entry that a natural correction can be nearly impossible. I haven't studied it in depth, but the cursory info that I have seems to indicate that the break of the of the Bell phone company was a good thing.

Tuning regulation is not an exact science either, and is not universally agreed on. With our two party, winner take all, political system things can easily be shoved from one extreme to the other as well.

Part of the issue with this discussion in general is that political and economic systems can impact each other significantly and as several earlier posts in this thread show, you have untagle some of that at times, or if like me your understanding of both topics is only middling, learn some of it.

[FireIceTalon]

Too bad neither the USSR nor China were ever truly communist, but rather, totalitarian. A true communist society, in the context of Marx's theory, has never been seen before. So to say that Marxism has produced much blood shed is, technically, incorrect. It's so funny that people love to say Marxists are these evil people that want to kill everyone and control the world, yet if you read Marx's theories you would see there is a huge difference between Marxism and Stalinism or Maoism. Marx would have turned over in his grave if he knew the actions of either dictator.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, 5 January 1879 Marx was asked, "Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?” Karl Marx answered, “No great movement, has ever been inaugurated without bloodshed."

In a letter to William Blos, 21 February 1874, Friedrich Engels wrote, "The man is too wise. And on top of that, such offensive, vulgar, democratic arguments! To denigrate violence as something to be rejected, when we all know that in the end nothing can be achieved without violence!"

The communist revolution in the Soviet Union began directly according to Marxist theory. It deviated once power had been established in the government (by Stalin). And, while China had its own Confucian influence, their Marxism was fairly pure until Deng came to power (who was one of the "democracy roaders"). Marx and Engels in their writing, both in letters and published works seem to advocate the types to bloody purges exemplified by the democide in the USSR and China.[/quote kandrathe]

Once again, you are twisting history around to try and demonize Marx's theory. Marx's so-called bloody revolution that you speak of was to come from the bottom up, but in the USSR it did not, it came from the top down. This is supposedly because Lenin had no confidence in the peasants of who had no education from the Tsar era when the Bolshevik Revolution took place. Lenin's intention though wasnt to produce mass equality for the people but rather so he himself could maintain his own power and interests. And unfortunetly, this has created a stigma among Americans (who are practically taught from birth to despise Marxists) that thing all Marxists must be evil controlling people (lmao). And like most, you buy into it all the hype cause you are programmed to do so. So I guess im an evil elite controlling bastard that wants to make your life miserable, right?? ROFL...get real man.

You guys may not agree with Marx, but the guy, right or wrong, was a genius and his theory represents, more than anyone else's, the central struggle of humankind. You can criticize him all you want, but at the end of the day, everyone on this board, including myself, is an intellectual peon compared to him

"We're not worthy!" Yeah, right. I've read all his works just this last year for an economics course I needed. Succinctly, Marx and Engels work is justified through dependence upon Hegelian dialectics, which fail miserably when applied to a *real* world where there are shades of gray.

And... Let me quote one of a series of anti-Semitic Marxism's... "So in Jewry we recognize a contemporary universal anti-social phenomenon, which has reached its present pitch through a process of, historical development in which the Jews have zealously co-operated. And this evil anti-social aspect of Jewry has grown to a stage at which: it must necessarily collapse." -Karl Marx-

Yeah, he's a friggin genius. Inspirational for at least one madman.

Ad hominem attacks wont get you very far with me. You're last statement is wrong on so many levels, where do I begin? I suppose if it were up to you, we would go back to the Mccarthy era where it was banned to even teach Marx's readings in school, yet somehow im the dictator and madman. Way to put your foot in your mouth, genius. As for Marx's anti semetic comments, he isnt necessarily attacking Jews themselves (afterall, Marx himself was Jewish and likely would have been put to death had he lived during the 1940's in Germany) so much as he was the Jewish bankers and factory owners of the Industrial Revolution. This isnt a race or religion issue, this is a CLASS issue. LOL again at me being a madman, and lol even more at me being the only one that appreciates Marx's theories. You my friend, are hypocritical, and delusional. Its easy to denounce someone who is a greater thinker than you are that you dislike Afterall 20 years from now, Marx will no longer be taught and instead we will study the works of the great kandrathe right? Rofl!

And as for the Tea Party, that's just their problem, they dont get it: big government isn't the problem, but rather big business is the problem, and that's what they fail to see. Transnationals have far more power and control in both the business world and our daily lives than so-called big government does.

Big business has no power over me, unless it is lent by big government. Only government has the police, the courts, and the army, and can coerce me to do things against my will. There will always be someone with enough cash to offer coercion, but it is benign as long as the government stands to defend my rights. If not, then the government becomes a tool of coercion by the wealthy.

Big business has all the power in the world over you, you just dont realize it. Minute you turn on the TV and see an advertisment for a product and you go out and buy it, thats power. Minute you step into your job and have to submit to the will of whatever corporation it is, that is power. And do you think the government will protect your rights over those of a corporation? Dont be so sure. Corporations are considered individuals too and thus have the same rights, but WITHOUT the responsibility of a single person. So, keep thinking big business has no power of you.....lmao!

We have constitutional amendments to protect us from "big government", but no such amendments to protect us from corporations. Yea, I have some problems with big government too, but most of that ties into the fact they act as an executive for carrying out the agendas of Wall Street banksters and CEO's who have far more political power than the common citizen. If big government is the problem, its only because of the symbiosis they have with big business, everyone else be damned.

If by symbiosis you mean graft, corruption, pay offs, kick backs, and a trampling of the Bill of Rights that you believe protects you.

Indeed.

As I said before, capitalism is not just merely bad for the economic inequality it creates between social classes as how Marx pointed out, but its evils go far beyond that: for what it PROMOTES: materialism, consumerism, anti-intellectualism, and "false consciousness".

In the Marxist states, everyone gets to be equally poor, and hopeless. And, then, how does Marxism cure the aspiration of people to own things? By making it impossible? How does Marxism promote intellectualism other than what is being practiced in every civilized nation? Marxist "false consciousness" is just another elitist way of declaring the masses too ignorant to understand their situation.

Funny how you claim Marxists are elitists, when you want one select group of people to be wealthy and another select group to be poor which is what happens in a capitalistic system. Is that not elitist? And lol at Marxists suffering from false consciousness!! No, Marxists are much more intellectual and deep thinkers than working class Tea Baggers, who sip on that capitalism kool-aid at the drop of a dime, even though it is that very system which holds them back and they dont even realize it. Marx's theory seek to promote what he wanted people to see their full potential of being a "Species Being"....which has two tenants: 1. life needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, and everything else on the lowest level of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs pyramid. 2. All labor is done for the sake of itself, as the ends, and not the means to an ends. This is to eliminate alienation concept of workers only working to get their basic needs met and nothing more and make full realization of class consciousness. Marxism doesnt promote equal misery and poorness for all, but this occurs in any system because jackass who want power for themselves make it this way. But in capitalism, this happens regardless because the system defeats itself from the very beginning. The idea of course is to make a profit and create competition, but you see, these little things called monopolies get formed which ironically enough, destroy the competition that capitalism seeks to create. Thus the system guarantees the failure of some individuals no matter how diligent they may be.

Americans in general are pretty stupid compared to their European counterparts when it comes to politics, and thus they take part less in the political process which is why our political culture here is so weak. Because were too busy worrying about buying that 3 million dollar mansion, filling up that Mercedes SUV and get raped at the pump while the oil companies laugh all the way to the bank, chatting on FaceBook and twitter, to the exclusion of almost everything else...

These are your self hating delusions of what America is about. You only see the world as stereotypes. Europe is better? Oil companies control price? 3 million dollar mansions? Get real. You should get out more and actually talk to people in the grocery store for a change.

You cannot deny the facts. Europeans are far more educated, less materialistic and more intellectual than the average American. This is a fact, and has nothing to do with "self hating delusions" that you use an excuse to justify our weak political culture and anti-intellectualism, lol. I need to get out more? No, you need to stop sipping on that patriotic kool-aid and take a look around you. Almost 1/3 of Americans dont even know who the vice president is, and roughly half cannot even name the 3 branches of government, lmao! If this makes me elitist sounding, so be it. I call it as it is Truth hurts I suppose. But its part of the reason the rest of the world thinks we are a complete joke.

...meanwhile the Republican Party and the Tea Party want to cut every social service in the book so civil society itself collapses, give tax breaks to the wealthy, all in the name of making oil and weapons contract companies richer by use of counter-terrorism. And no, im not bashing capitalism because its fashionable to do so, but rather because, it sucks.

On the other hand, the democrats (who are also in the pockets of big oil, and the defense contractors) just want to continue to borrow trillions of dollars until the people are unable to repay their debts. Again, you degenerate your argument to stereotypes and cliches.

Indeed, I dislike both parties, just the Republicans more so, naturally I have lots of problems with Obama, though not for the same reasons the right wingers do, but this is another matter.

Socialism > capitalism. For without equality, you cannot have freedom or democracy, not the other way around. Anyway, thats my perspective. But then again, im just a young naive, political science/sociology major in his 30's that thinks people can (and should) put their self interest aside for the greater good - nothing more, nothing less. Heh.

And, your problem is that you believe we should "put their self interest aside for the greater good" by force. Because, you cannot get there by free will.

You say, "For without equality, you cannot have freedom or democracy, not the other way around." But, you didn't define what you mean by equality. My neighbors house has 100 sq ft. more than mine, should we add onto mine or tear his down? I've spent 30+ years in my profession building up my skills and experience, so should I be paid at a higher rate than the person who started yesterday? My profession is quite demanding in both education, mental acuity and skill, so should the local grocery store clerk earn the same wage as I do? When Marx and Engels, and the colonial Americans, and the revolutionary French talked about equality, they meant that your station at birth was not a limitation to your ability to succeed. While there still tends to be an invisible class system (Havard / Yale etc), it is possible for people with meager beginnings to excel to great achievement as evidenced by people like Steve Jobs, Barrak Obama, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.

In fact, it is directly because of this equality that social mobility is possible. And... due to this social mobility, everyone in the US has the opportunity to aspire to improve the situation for themselves and their children. Hence, this is directly why Marx and Engels prediction of the proletariat in the US and Europe leading the revolutionary banner never came to pass. Why should we denounce those who achieve success, because if we are lucky and determined then we might be the success story. Only in the backward impoverished semi-feudal agrarian societies has Marxism gained a tenuous and brief foothold, until it consumes itself in the despotism, corruption and tyranny that ultimately spawns from those who do the central planning.

LMAO......more capitalism folklore. And that is just it, our birth station DOES greatly determine where we will end up in life, all the available empirical evidence points to this. There is little economic and social mobility in the US, and the mobility that does occur does so only modestly most of the time (if you are poor, you have a chance to become working class, a smaller chance to become middle class, and almost no chance to become affluent), usually within one class bracket in either direction. So mobility, while somewhat possible, is not PROBABLE. You perfectly demonstrated my point when you said that Obama, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates can make it. Thats Horatio-Alger myth nonsense. These individuals you named, among several others, are the exception, NOT the rule. Due to the fact there are invisible socially constructed barriers that prevent such mobility from occuring in most circumstances. If we were in person, could you sit here and tell me with an honest straight face that everyone here has an equal opportunity for success? Do you really think someone who grows up in Harlem has the same opportunities to achieve the American Dream (just that, a dream for most, a reality for only a few, though I guess this depends on what your version of the American Dream is but lets use sterotypical example of a nice house in the burbs, a family, a dog, backyard, and a good job/car) as someone who grew up in the Hamptons or even a more modestly nice area like San Diego? Do African Americans have the same opportunities as whites? Hispanics? Does a kid from a working class background have the same resources and thus opportunity to get a good education compared to a trust fund Wall Street baby? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are completely shaded from reality. Even women, who have come a long way, still only earn 70 cents on the dollar compared to what men make. If we have such an equal opportunity for success here, then explain to me why top 400 wealthiest individuals in the country have more than the bottom 150 MILLION combined (yes, that is a real statistic). Equality of opportunity my ass. I think you should put the economics down and take a sociology class, then we will continue this discussion when you are more informed (or maybe less misinformed)

[shoju]

Do you really think everyone here has an equal opportunity for success? Do you really think someone who grows up in Harlem has the same opportunities to achieve the American Dream

Yes. And if you miss out on all the "feel good" stories of it happening all the time in america, you need to stop watching whatever it is you are watching and do some research. Loser Makes Good, Poor man ends up rich, and similar tales happen all the time in America. But because of the media are swept under the rug for the more "enticing and scandalous" stories about wieners, and boehners and other political partisan crap.

I'm not saying that everyone will end up a rags to riches story, but the fact that they happen is further proof that anyone with enough determination, grit, and desire can make things better for themselves.

Being ignorant to the possibility of that happening doesn't make your point correct.

[FireIceTalon]

Do you really think everyone here has an equal opportunity for success? Do you really think someone who grows up in Harlem has the same opportunities to achieve the American Dream

Yes. And if you miss out on all the "feel good" stories of it happening all the time in america, you need to stop watching whatever it is you are watching and do some research. Loser Makes Good, Poor man ends up rich, and similar tales happen all the time in America. But because of the media are swept under the rug for the more "enticing and scandalous" stories about wieners, and boehners and other political partisan crap.

I'm not saying that everyone will end up a rags to riches story, but the fact that they happen is further proof that anyone with enough determination, grit, and desire can make things better for themselves.

Being ignorant to the possibility of that happening doesn't make your point correct.

This post is the definition of "ignorance is bliss". Take the rose colored glasses off.

I think you need to quit watching Hoax News, sorry Fox News, and pick up a book. LOL at people becoming rich all the time in America and the media sweeping them under the rug!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! That is probably the funniest thing ive read in a while, it truly made my day. Now, explain the 45 million people who live in poverty and the top 400 wealthiest citizens having more then the bottom 150 million combined. You are so delusional and misinformed, its a joke. Though the statistics prove you wrong, simple common sense here I think is enough. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between rules and exceptions, as I stated before the "rags to riches" individuals are a very very tiny minority. LOL at someone from Harlem, who has to worry about survival and just walking down the street safely to get home having the same opportunity as someone in the Hamptons......just, LMAO. Wow. I am right, Americans truly dont get it, and the above post confirms it. Im done with this thread, you guys keep sipping on that Horatio Alger Myth kool-aid. ROFL.

[shoju]

You certainly do make wonderful accusations. I wouldn't be caught dead in a room that had Faux News on.

45 million people living in poverty is ~18% of the country in poverty. That, last time I checked is pretty freaking stellar compared to MANY nations.


If you don't even live in the US, you aren't really qualified to speak about the day to day danger of Harlem the way someone who has spent time volunteering there has. Please don't speak about Harlem in such broad terms and damn the residents of the neighborhood if you know nothing about them except what you have heard on the news in a different country. So pardon me if I discount your opinion. There have been plenty of people who have made it out of Harlem, Out of Skid Row in LA, Out of the worst neighborhoods in our country and gone on to be amazing examples of their profession.

[FireIceTalon]

You certainly do make wonderful accusations. I wouldn't be caught dead in a room that had Faux News on.

45 million people living in poverty is ~18% of the country in poverty. That, last time I checked is pretty freaking stellar compared to MANY nations.


If you don't even live in the US, you aren't really qualified to speak about the day to day danger of Harlem the way someone who has spent time volunteering there has. Please don't speak about Harlem in such broad terms and damn the residents of the neighborhood if you know nothing about them except what you have heard on the news in a different country. So pardon me if I discount your opinion. There have been plenty of people who have made it out of Harlem, Out of Skid Row in LA, Out of the worst neighborhoods in our country and gone on to be amazing examples of their profession.

Comparing us to other worse off nations to try and make us look better than we are will not help your argument. 18% of people living in poverty, in what is supposed to be the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, is dismal. And on the HDI index, we rank #11 last I looked. For being the leading advanced democracy in the world, that number, is again, dismal. In the big scheme of things, this looks good, but compared to most of the advanced industrialized nations in the world, we are near the bottom. France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and Finland absolutely own us in terms of economic prosperity, equality, and overall quality of life and happiness (maybe Germany not so much now, but at least in the past).

Second, I do live in the US, in Los Angeles in fact, in a ok (not great, not terrible) neighborhood, and have lived here all my life (unfortunately). So yes, if that is one of the qualifications that is needed to make a judgement, I believe I meet that expectation and then some. And im not making broad generalizations attacking the people in Harlem, lol. Afterall, im a Marxist, im fighting for their cause, not against it Yes, people have made it out of these bad areas and achieved success, but once again, they are a very small minority.....EXCEPTION, NOT RULE.

Capitalism is not free will, it is social darwinism. It is only free will for those who have the necessary resources to fall back on, aka the rich. For everyone else, no.

[--Pete]

Hi,

... as there is no such thing as a completely perfect system, not even Marxism ...

But you are more than willing to compare your ideal, theoretical system to the real systems which have or do exist, and to claim that some untested system (for you exclude the tests which have been tried and have failed) is better.

Only in the backward impoverished semi-feudal agrarian societies has Marxism gained a tenuous and brief foothold, until it consumes itself in the despotism, corruption and tyranny that ultimately spawns from those who do the central planning.

Indeed. Marxism only appeals to young, inexperienced, ignorant nations. And people.

You need the right amount of regulation, because most people agree that unchecked the abuses can be severe, while overchecked the system can collapse.

I added the emphasis. What you said is the crux of the matter. However, it is not easy to do. It is not easy to describe. It is not easy to understand. It is not easy to label. So, for those incapable of thinking at that level, clear cut extremes, labels, slogans and sound bites replace understanding.

If we have such an equal opportunity for success here, then explain to me why top 400 wealthiest individuals in the country have more than the bottom 150 MILLION combined.

This is the kind of illogical nonsense that makes me wonder if you have brain damage beyond stupidity.

There is equal opportunity for success. Get a Ouija board and ask Carnegie who did it at a time when the deck was even more stacked against individuals than it is now. Or ask my parents, who came into the USA in '51 with two suitcases and $31. Neither of them had much education -- a little thing called WW II interfered with that. And yet, withing three years they had their own millinery company; they were able to retire, comfortably, in their own house; they were able to live in that house for almost 30 years past retirement.

I don't know if your claim about the top 400 is true or not, and I don't care because it is meaningless. How does the average person live? Do they have food, clothing, and shelter? Can they afford the necessities and some of the luxuries? Do they have access to education and health care? Those are the real questions.

But, what makes your statement ignorant nonsense is that it implies that somehow "equal opportunity" and the disproportional amount held by the very rich somehow are related. Consider how those very rich got there. Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family. Warren Buffett was from a middle class family. I'd consider Larry Ellison to be from a lower middle class family. And, yet, they are the three top names on the Forbes 400 list. Next is Christy Walton who inherited from her husband who in turn inherited from his father Sam Walton who came from a middle class farm family.

So, the fact that many of those top 400 got there because of their abilities and efforts shows that equal opportunity is there and they are proof of it. Makes your request to reconcile the two appear rather foolish.

--Pete

[Jester]

Your post defeats itself. Good day sir.

I had a post written, but this gem really encapsulates the entire thing. Your posts have taken nonsensical ranting, self-contradiction, and a total disregard for everyone else's arguments to an entirely new level. I can't decide whether you are ignorant of the relevant history, ignoring it by living in a fantasy world, or both. (Clue no. 1: "Marxist" and "Totalitarian" can, and frequently do, describe the same thing. Labels are not exclusive.)

You're either trolling, or you can't help it. Either way.

-Jester

[Jester]

Warren Buffett was from a middle class family.

Most middle class families are not headed by businessmen-turned-Congressmen. Warren Buffett's superwealth is a matter of his own brilliance as an investor, which is entirely in line with your point, but I'm not sure his origins were quite so humble. His father, by most standards, was quite successful, although nowhere near as much as his son.

-Jester