Just For Grampa, the Karl Marx thread

[Uncensored2008]

Quote: Originally Posted by konradv

That's the point isn't it? What's "fraud and coercion" and who decides?

Words have meanings.


fraud
   [frawd] Show IPA
noun
1.
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2.
a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3.
any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4.
a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.


co·er·cion
   [koh-ur-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Quote:

There's many a "voluntary agreement" that's really been coerced.

There are many bodies of water that are really sand....

You write utter and complete nonsense.

"Voluntary" and "coerced" are antonyms.

Quote:

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ring any bells?

A treaty signed at the cessation of a war is anything but "voluntary."

[Uncensored2008]

Quote: Originally Posted by ilia25

Why? Only an idiot would believe in all capitalists conspiring to keep worker wages down.

True.

Of course Marx never made such a claim. The idea of the middle class being organized is something that contradicts the most basic of Marxian philosophy.

{It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production.}

Marx viewed the middle class as an untamed force with no purpose other than to produce and consume. (Sound familiar?) The concept of a conspiracy among the bourgeoisie is laughable. The Marxian view is that the middle class is entirely of a "dog eat dog" mentality and cannot cooperate beyond immediate goals of production.

Quote:

And only an idiot would believe in the class warfare and the dictatorship of proletariat as a solution.

Class warfare is precisely the what the democratic party, under the auspice of George Soros and Barack Obama are using as a basis for power. If it is idiotic, how is it that Obama is in office?

Quote:

I believe in free markets and in invisible hand -- they work perfectly in the micro-level. But on the macro-level market can make mistakes, and that is where the government should step in.

You believe in free markets, as long as they aren't free.

“This is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to research their own interests. We do not rely on their humanity, but their selfishness” - Adam Smith

Quote:

I heard about Rachel Maddow, but I never watched her show. And I don't know who is Jon Stewart.

Really? The leftists here get 100% of their "news" from Stewart.

Quote:

The person whose blog I follow most is Paul Krugman

Since Bozo died, what choice is there?

Quote:

I think it is you who are not willing to leave the comfort zone by believing that the lefts are Marxists.

The reason you erect straw man arguments is that your comfort zone is in arguing against such false constructs.

Quote:

No, they were not. The economy is driven by the demand.

So the reason that there is no vehicle that runs without fuel is that there is no demand?

Marx was not an idiot - Krugman is.

[ilia25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Quote: Originally Posted by ilia25

Why? Only an idiot would believe in all capitalists conspiring to keep worker wages down.

True.

Of course Marx never made such a claim. The idea of the middle class being organized is something that contradicts the most basic of Marxian philosophy.

OK, then why would he think that worker wages would remain low unless there is a revolution?

Quote:

Class warfare is precisely the what the democratic party, under the auspice of George Soros and Barack Obama are using as a basis for power. If it is idiotic, how is it that Obama is in office?

Like I said, you are delusional. You erect straw man arguments is that your comfort zone is in arguing against such false constructs.

Quote:

You believe in free markets, as long as they aren't free.

Yes, they work on micro level, but have to be corrected on the macro level. I feel your desire for an intellectual purity, but this is a complicated world and there are no simple solutions.

Quote:

“This is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to research their own interests. We do not rely on their humanity, but their selfishness” - Adam Smith

And he as absolutely right -- greed can be good for the society as a whole. But it does not mean that the greed ALWAYS leads to the correct behaviour -- that is simply not true.

Quote:

Really? The leftists here get 100% of their "news" from Stewart.

Well, I'm not.

Quote:

Since Bozo died, what choice is there?

I don't know who's Bozo either. But Krugman is not the only good economist.

Quote:

No, they were not. The economy is driven by the demand.

Quote:

So the reason that there is no vehicle that runs without fuel is that there is no demand?

The fuel -- people pursuing their self-interest -- is always present, lack of it is never a problem. The problem is that you have to steer the car, or you won't get far.

Quote:

Marx was not an idiot - Krugman is.

Well it is easy to prove that Marx was an idiot. I want to see you doing that in Krugman's case.

[Uncensored2008]

Quote: Originally Posted by ilia25

OK, then why would he think that worker wages would remain low unless there is a revolution?

What do Obama and Krugman say?

{Occupy Wall Street gave the issue visibility, while the Congressional Budget Office supplied hard data on the widening income gap. And the myth of a classless society has been exposed: Among rich countries, America stands out as the place where economic and social status is most likely to be inherited. }

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/op...nd-morals.html

According to Krugman, the worker will never rise because wealth is inherited rather than earned.

Is this an original thought, or did Krugman simply repeat the idea of another?

{"The disappearance of the right of inheritance will be the natural result of a social change superseding private property in the means of production; but the abolition of the right of inheritance can never be the starting point of such a social transformation." } - Communist Manifesto.

So Marx identifies inheritance as the means of keeping Capital from the the hands of the proletariat?

Wow, either Krugman was channeling Marx, or the more logical assumption, Marx is the basis of his ideas.

Quote:

Like I said, you are delusional. You erect straw man arguments is that your comfort zone is in arguing against such false constructs.

Which "false constructs," specifically?

Quote:

Yes, they work on micro level, but have to be corrected on the macro level. I feel your desire for an intellectual purity, but this is a complicated world and there are no simple solutions.

"Corrected" by rulers - for a fee, of course... You advocate for the looters.

Quote:

And he as absolutely right -- greed can be good for the society as a whole. But it does not mean that the greed ALWAYS leads to the correct behaviour -- that is simply not true.

Another post, another straw man....

Quote:

I don't know who's Bozo either. But Krugman is not the only good economist.

Krugman is not a good economist, on that we agree.

Quote:

The fuel -- people pursuing their self-interest -- is always present, lack of it is never a problem. The problem is that you have to steer the car, or you won't get far.

The point is, demand never drives the introduction of products - not ever. No one sat demanding an iPod at the door of Apple, it was the SUPPLY of iPods that led people to demand them.

This is always the case. Supply creates demand. There is overwhelming demand for a car that will run off of free electrons in the atmosphere and as such has no fuel cost, but the demand does nothing to create a supply. Demand cannot create supply

Quote:

Well it is easy to prove that Marx was an idiot. I want to see you doing that in Krugman's case.

If it is easy to "prove" Marx was an idiot, then do so.

Further, if Marx was an idiot, how could Krugman not be?

[Toro]

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Marx understood perhaps sooner than most that the concept of capital is elastic and at least partially dependent upon confidence, and thus intrinsic and separate from currency in circulation. He is generally correct about this nature of capital. (He is wrong about capital being exploitive.)

In the Marxian view, the wielders of capital are often exploitative. The question then becomes, what is exploitation?

If I plant a tomato vine in my yard, have I exploited the land? When I pick the fruit, have I exploited the vine?

If I offer a man $10 to mow my lawn so that I can drink beer and watch the game without my wife getting mad, have I exploited that man? How can a voluntary agreement between individuals, free of fraud or coercion, be exploitative?

I agree.

Marx's Labour Theory of Surplus Value is not correct.

[Douger]

Marxizm 101

Duck Soup: Mirror - YouTube

Duck Soup: Mirror - YouTube

[Steelplate]

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Steelplate

the problem with ANY ideology is that when applied to the public, it will fail... or at least become bastardized into something different.

Compromise is a key element in the ability of people to deal with each other. Is any philosophy or economic systems viable that has a rigidity that precludes points of compromise?

Quote:

You saw it with Communism, you see it today with Reagan's vision of Capitalism(Supply Side, or Trickle Down). The bottom line is that people tend to be greedy and self serving.

Yet supply side methods worked well for 40 years.



Is that a flaw in the ideas of Marx, or in the various implementations by Lenin, Mao, etc?



Nonsense, that was not the basis of Laffer's economic model. But I'm not looking for a debate on Laffer.



How do your words materially differ from those of Marx?

{The bourgeoisie (middle class,) wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade.}

He is more eloquent, but the essence of his words and yours are identical.

Quote:

Neither Communism or Supply Side Economics are a very good system.

You show little to no understanding of either one, how do you reach conclusions? Pundits and demagogues?

Quote:

There has to be a balance, a middle ground where people are paid and get rewarded for their labors, but yet are REQUIRED to give back to society when they "make it".

Through a graduated tax system?

Ok... first off... fuck you. You do not understand human nature... which is leaps and bounds more important than which economic system is undertaken. How do I reach Conclusions? Look around you, you pompous dickwad. The Global economy damned near collapsed because of the greed and the lack of accountability of our wealthiest class. But You'd rather discuss a book instead of looking and observing. You'd rather have someone else spoon feed your opinions to you.

Cold War Communism died a horrible death in the Soviet Union and it's annexes, and is being forced out of China by our companies throwing huge sums of money into their economy. Cuba is still being punished for Castro, even though they aren't even close to the same country as during the Cold War.

So yeah... neither seems to all that fucking wonderful in my book. They are two sides of the same damned coin. Just because YOU think your viewpoints and those of people who agree with you are the only valid ones, doesn't mean you are correct.

Well, anyway... I'll just put you down on the side of more Casino Wall Street tactics, Big Conglomerates running the country, and people who have to bust their humps to make ends meet being more and more marginalized and their quality of life increasingly downgraded.

[Uncensored2008]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steelplate

Ok... first off... fuck you. You do not understand human nature... which is leaps and bounds more important than which economic system is undertaken. How do I reach Conclusions? Look around you, you pompous dickwad. The Global economy damned near collapsed because of the greed and the lack of accountability of our wealthiest class. But You'd rather discuss a book instead of looking and observing. You'd rather have someone else spoon feed your opinions to you.

Cold War Communism died a horrible death in the Soviet Union and it's annexes, and is being forced out of China by our companies throwing huge sums of money into their economy. Cuba is still being punished for Castro, even though they aren't even close to the same country as during the Cold War.

So yeah... neither seems to all that fucking wonderful in my book. They are two sides of the same damned coin. Just because YOU think your viewpoints and those of people who agree with you are the only valid ones, doesn't mean you are correct.

Well, anyway... I'll just put you down on the side of more Casino Wall Street tactics, Big Conglomerates running the country, and people who have to bust their humps to make ends meet being more and more marginalized and their quality of life increasingly downgraded.

Hanky?

[ilia25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Quote: Originally Posted by ilia25

OK, then why would he think that worker wages would remain low unless there is a revolution?

What do Obama and Krugman say?

{Occupy Wall Street gave the issue visibility, while the Congressional Budget Office supplied hard data on the widening income gap. And the myth of a classless society has been exposed: Among rich countries, America stands out as the place where economic and social status is most likely to be inherited. }

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/op...nd-morals.html

According to Krugman, the worker will never rise because wealth is inherited rather than earned.

OK, here is your problem -- the reading comprehension. Krugman never said that worker's salary never rise -- in fact, he is arguing quite the opposite, that it was rising fast until 70s. Now, however, "America stands out as the place where economic and social status is most likely to be inherited" -- and by saying this he simply acknowledges the facts on the ground.

Quote:

{"The disappearance of the right of inheritance will be the natural result of a social change superseding private property in the means of production; but the abolition of the right of inheritance can never be the starting point of such a social transformation." } - Communist Manifesto.

Nobody calls for abolishing the right of inheritance. Though it make sense to tax the estate above a certain level -- like it is done now.

Quote:

So Marx identifies inheritance as the means of keeping Capital from the the hands of the proletariat?

Marx was an idiot.

Quote:

Wow, either Krugman was channeling Marx, or the more logical assumption, Marx is the basis of his ideas.

Reading comprehension.

Quote:

Quote:

Like I said, you are delusional. You erect straw man arguments is that your comfort zone is in arguing against such false constructs.

Which "false constructs," specifically?

That the liberals are Marxists.

Quote:

"Corrected" by rulers - for a fee, of course... You advocate for the looters.

No, by a democratically elected government (that is, BTW, another reason for Marx failure -- he never understood that democracy is a game changer).

Quote:

Quote:

The fuel -- people pursuing their self-interest -- is always present, lack of it is never a problem. The problem is that you have to steer the car, or you won't get far.

The point is, demand never drives the introduction of products - not ever.

Yes, that the people pursuing their self interest -- but that is a given. You don't need to invent the supply-side economics to enable that. What supply-side economics postulate is that deregulation and lower taxes always lead to a better life -- but that is an obvious fallacy.

We need regulations to correct for the market shortfalls, and there are plenty of those.

Quote:

Well it is easy to prove that Marx was an idiot. I want to see you doing that in Krugman's case.

Quote:

If it is easy to "prove" Marx was an idiot, then do so.

I already did -- he had no reasons to believe that the worker wages will always remain at the level just enough to prevent them from starving to death.

Yet he developed a vast theory on that very assumption. That is dumb.

I would ask you were do you think Krugman failed, but I am pretty sure I will get another example of your problem with reading comprehension.

[Unkotare]

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Is the question of class struggle in America, the first classless nation in history, meaningful?

It is to the extent that certain parties would try to fabricate such distinctions in order to manipulate voters via crass and transparent demagoguery.

[Uncensored2008]

Quote: Originally Posted by ilia25

OK, here is your problem -- the reading comprehension. Krugman never said that worker's salary never rise -- in fact, he is arguing quite the opposite, that it was rising fast until 70s. Now, however, "America stands out as the place where economic and social status is most likely to be inherited" -- and by saying this he simply acknowledges the facts on the ground.

You make a distinction without a difference.

The common refrain of the left is that we were on a meteoric rise until X. Usually they choose 1980 due to the hatred of Reagan by the left.

Do you agree with Krugman that wealth is most likely to be inherited in the USA?

Quote:

Nobody calls for abolishing the right of inheritance. Though it make sense to tax the estate above a certain level -- like it is done now.

Even Marx was all over the map on that - what Marx and Obama call for is heavy taxes be levied on inheritance.

{In treating of the laws of inheritance, we necessarily suppose that private property in the means of production continues to exist. If it did no longer exist among the living, it could not be transferred from them, and by them, after their death. All measures, in regard to the right of inheritance, can therefore only relate to a state of social transition, where, on the one hand, the present economical base of society is not yet transformed, but where, on the other hand, the working masses have gathered strength enough to enforce transitory measures calculated to bring about an ultimate radical change of society.

Considered from this standpoint, changes of the laws of inheritance form only part of a great many other transitory measures tending to the same end.

These transitory measures, as to inheritance, can only be:

a. Extension of the inheritance duties already existing in many states, and the application of the funds hence derived to purposes of social emancipation.

b. Limitation of the testamentary right of inheritance, which -- as distinguished from the intestate or family right of inheritance -- appears as arbitrary and superstitious exaggeration even of the principles of private property themselves.} - Barack Obama

(Or was it Marx?)

{“the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates.” He said, “Republicans have asked for more generous treatment of the estate tax than I think is wise or warranted.”} - Karl Marx

(Or was it Obama?)

Quote:

Marx was an idiot.

You keep repeating the same ignorant mantra.

Quote:

Reading comprehension.

Marching in lockstep is not evidence of reading comprehension.

Quote:

That the liberals are Marxists.

Show me where I made that claim?

First off, you aren't "liberals," you're leftists. I am a liberal.

What I said is that many of the ideas and most of the rhetoric of the party is derived from Marx.

Reading comprehension.

Quote:

No, by a democratically elected government (that is, BTW, another reason for Marx failure -- he never understood that democracy is a game changer).

Lenin's USSR is arguably the most democratic state in human history. Democracy isn't a pleasant system when whether you really need to eat or have shelter from an arctic winter in St. Petersburg is being voted on by committee.

Quote:

Yes, that the people pursuing their self interest -- but that is a given. You don't need to invent the supply-side economics to enable that. What supply-side economics postulate is that deregulation and lower taxes always lead to a better life -- but that is an obvious fallacy.

What partisans don't grasp is the economics is not an "invention," but the observations of facts supported by mathematical formulas to predict and explain occurrences in the market.

I understand why you follow Krugman. Krugman is a left-wing pundit who shoe-horns Keynesian theory into a mold to fit with leftist politics. He is an utterly shitty economist, mainly because he alters economic fact to fit his political agenda.

Quote:

We need regulations to correct for the market shortfalls, and there are plenty of those.

I'm not sure debating a managed market is productive in a debate on Marx, unless you are saying that the party is using market control to seize the means of production?

Quote:

I already did -- he had no reasons to believe that the worker wages will always remain at the level just enough to prevent them from starving to death.

Sure he did, he assumed that the failing feudal system of 19th century Prussia was capitalism. It wasn't and his misconceptions are based on this critical flaw. That still doesn't make him an "idiot."

Quote:

Yet he developed a vast theory on that very assumption. That is dumb.

I don't agree. He used what he observed.

Quote:

I would ask you were do you think Krugman failed, but I am pretty sure I will get another example of your problem with reading comprehension.

Paul Krugman Is Still Wrong about Texas - By Kevin D. Williamson - Exchequer - National Review Online

[JoeB131]

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeB131

Does your doctor know you are off your medication?

Go back down to the basement and let the grownups talk.

Anyone screaming about "Marxism" isn't a grownup, guy...

[Unkotare]

He's discussing Marx, not screaming about Marxism, you moron.

[ilia25]

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Quote: Originally Posted by ilia25

OK, here is your problem -- the reading comprehension. Krugman never said that worker's salary never rise -- in fact, he is arguing quite the opposite, that it was rising fast until 70s. Now, however, "America stands out as the place where economic and social status is most likely to be inherited" -- and by saying this he simply acknowledges the facts on the ground.

You make a distinction without a difference.

The difference is between Marx saying that in a capitalist society the worker wages always remain at its minimum, and Krugman and other Keynesians who acknowledge that the worker wages do rise, often faster than GDP growth.

What you need to understand that Keynes actually showed that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with capitalism ("magneto problem") at the time when many people were losing their faith in it.

Quote:

The common refrain of the left is that we were on a meteoric rise until X. Usually they choose 1980 due to the hatred of Reagan by the left.

They don't choose anything, they just look at the data -- like the stagnating middle class incomes.

Quote:

Do you agree with Krugman that wealth is most likely to be inherited in the USA?

His phrase could be interpreted as "most likely compared to other developed countries". In any case, he is just reporting the facts in that statement.

Quote:

Nobody calls for abolishing the right of inheritance. Though it make sense to tax the estate above a certain level -- like it is done now.

Quote:

Even Marx was all over the map on that - what Marx and Obama call for is heavy taxes be levied on inheritance.

Good for him -- and I'm pretty sure Marx sad some reasonable things. Agreeing with them does not make you (or even Obama) a Marxist.

Quote:

What I said is that many of the ideas and most of the rhetoric of the party is derived from Marx.

They differ from Marx in very fundamental (to Marx) things.

Quote:

Lenin's USSR is arguably the most democratic state in human history.

Oh boy... Now you really want proving to everyone that YOU are an idiot?

Quote:

What partisans don't grasp is the economics is not an "invention," but the observations of facts supported by mathematical formulas to predict and explain occurrences in the market.

And the supply-side economics are simply wrong by postulating that less taxes and regulation always lead to a better life for everyone. Becuase that is all that the supply-side economics is about.

Quote:

I'm not sure debating a managed market is productive in a debate on Marx, unless you are saying that the party is using market control to seize the means of production?

It is useful to point out -- again -- that those who you are accusing of being Marxists are in fact supporters of managed markets. You know, those are quite different approaches -- abolishing capitalism, and using it for everyone's benefit.

Quote:

Sure he did, he assumed that the failing feudal system of 19th century Prussia was capitalism. It wasn't and his misconceptions are based on this critical flaw. That still doesn't make him an "idiot."

The notion that the greedy capitalist pigs will eventually start competing for the workers (which are the source of their profits) is not that complicated. The fact that it never came to his mind makes him quite dim and shortsighted.

Quote:

Quote:

I would ask you were do you think Krugman failed, but I am pretty sure I will get another example of your problem with reading comprehension.

Paul Krugman Is Still Wrong about Texas - By Kevin D. Williamson - Exchequer - National Review Online

Yeah, there are a lot of people trying to take on Krugman. Usually by taking his writing out of context. the article above ignores the main point Krugman makes:
"What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.

In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs — because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem."

Also:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...earning-minim/

[Toro]

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeB131

Quote: Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Quote: Originally Posted by JoeB131

Does your doctor know you are off your medication?

Go back down to the basement and let the grownups talk.

Anyone screaming about "Marxism" isn't a grownup, guy...

You and Marx share a lot in common. Both of you think capitalism is evil.

Well, that's not really true. Marx didn't think capitalism was evil per se. He thought it was a phase that would eventually and inevitably pass through towards communism.

So congrats. You hate capitalism more than Marx did.



Oh yeah, and you're a Republican.

rofl