CDZ Ask Me About Marxism

[westwall]

if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working.

That is the exact system we live under now. If you had read Kapital you would understand that to be Marx's theory of alienation. Why do believe it to be fair practice for one class but not the other?

I read Kapital before you were born junior. And no, it isn't. If a person works, they get to keep what they have save for the taxes that are dragged out of them. But, they always have the option of leaving if the job they are doing isn't paying them well enough. Under marxism the government controls where the worker can work. They have no control, they can only go where they are told to.

Obviously the worker gets a wage. Derp. You have no clue what Marx wrote. You didn't even acknowledge the question.

The question was not whether the worker got a wage, but what happens when he works, and the other guy doesn't work, but the guy who does work, has to give up his cash to pay for the guy who doesn't work.

Actually, the question relates to the product produced. But that's alright, I shouldn't expect you to understand.

It does? How, and for the record this is the CDZ so your snarky responses are against the rules. Shape up or ship out.

 

[Tehon]

That is the exact system we live under now. If you had read Kapital you would understand that to be Marx's theory of alienation. Why do believe it to be fair practice for one class but not the other?

I read Kapital before you were born junior. And no, it isn't. If a person works, they get to keep what they have save for the taxes that are dragged out of them. But, they always have the option of leaving if the job they are doing isn't paying them well enough. Under marxism the government controls where the worker can work. They have no control, they can only go where they are told to.

Obviously the worker gets a wage. Derp. You have no clue what Marx wrote. You didn't even acknowledge the question.

The question was not whether the worker got a wage, but what happens when he works, and the other guy doesn't work, but the guy who does work, has to give up his cash to pay for the guy who doesn't work.

Actually, the question relates to the product produced. But that's alright, I shouldn't expect you to understand.

It does? How, and for the record this is the CDZ so your snarky responses are against the rules. Shape up or ship out.

It does. You would have to look back to your first post in this thread to see that your concern was what happened to the product once produced. That is what elicited my response.

For the record, how is condescension treated in this forum? Does it fall under "putting down posters"?

 

[flacaltenn]

We will see how things pan out...at the moment I'm not entirely so optimistic, considering the trend of wealth being concentrated in the very highest elites of our society. But if such a world can exist where literally everyone can be an entrepreneur and the capitalist economy still has room for everybody, hey, it still means everyone's equal I suppose = P.

That's exactly where we're heading. You can buy a 3D printer for $1500 and start pumping custom products that no giant company could justify. All that Marxist theory goes out the window, when "the means of production" is that accessible. Jobs WILL be either in the service industry (some hit by automation) OR you will be in some shape or form "self-employed".

To operate a society on THAT level requires max Economic Freedom, not central command, slow as molasses economic tyranny..

 

[flacaltenn]

As for the "wealth concentration" -- that's an artifact of destroying the easy path to entrepreneurism. Excessive Central regulation and control REDUCES the number of start-ups and IPO that can COMPETE with a few giant corporations. The best ideas and products end up as vulture meat for Google, Amazon, etc when they mature.

The number of IPOfferings on the NYSE/NASDAQ have TANKED since the 90s. So -- everythings' been acquistions and mergers. That's a SIGN that there's already TOO MUCH central planning which ENCOURAGES the consolidation of wealth in fewer hands.

OR -- at least in the hands of stockholders holding FEWER named equity stocks.

 

[flacaltenn]

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

The point of a planned economy is to have it under control of the social good, the popular consensus, rather than random market directions and the consensus of a few billionaires. Also if there are socialist parties that exist under a capitalist government, I see no reason why capitalist parties can't exist under a socialist government.

This is my main issue with Marxism, the planned economy. We're not smart enough to plan an economy, it must be free to react to changes and evolve. Like biological evolution, there has to be competition to improve efficiency. Capitalism in a more natural system, it just needs to be strictly policed so everyone plays by the same rules.

Where does Marx call for a planned economy in his writing?

It's "planned" as soon as you dictate the terms under which transactions occur. And who gets to determine "fair compensation" and "control of production"..

 

[Anathema]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas...

I have a question for you...

A former coworker of mine grew up behind the Iron Curtain in Poland before coning to the US for college. She told us all about the lines for the minimal amounts of available food every week and how her mother nearly had a heart attack the first time she ever walked into an American grocery store.

If Marxism is such a worthwhile system, why didn't Soviet bloc countries have enough food availability compared to the Capitalust nations of the West.

 

[Tehon]

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

The point of a planned economy is to have it under control of the social good, the popular consensus, rather than random market directions and the consensus of a few billionaires. Also if there are socialist parties that exist under a capitalist government, I see no reason why capitalist parties can't exist under a socialist government.

This is my main issue with Marxism, the planned economy. We're not smart enough to plan an economy, it must be free to react to changes and evolve. Like biological evolution, there has to be competition to improve efficiency. Capitalism in a more natural system, it just needs to be strictly policed so everyone plays by the same rules.

Where does Marx call for a planned economy in his writing?

It's "planned" as soon as you dictate the terms under which transactions occur. And who gets to determine "fair compensation" and "control of production"..

In a Marxist system the fair compensation would be determined by the labor hours required to produce the commodity. No one would "control" production, that is the point.

 

[Tehon]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Hey OP, what did Marx think about government redistribution of wealth?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

If it's such a great idea, why do you have to kill off millions of people to enforce it?

 

[Two Thumbs]

How do you get people to do the hard work that needs to be done when they see people working in the AC getting the same outcome?

 

[flacaltenn]

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

The point of a planned economy is to have it under control of the social good, the popular consensus, rather than random market directions and the consensus of a few billionaires. Also if there are socialist parties that exist under a capitalist government, I see no reason why capitalist parties can't exist under a socialist government.

This is my main issue with Marxism, the planned economy. We're not smart enough to plan an economy, it must be free to react to changes and evolve. Like biological evolution, there has to be competition to improve efficiency. Capitalism in a more natural system, it just needs to be strictly policed so everyone plays by the same rules.

Where does Marx call for a planned economy in his writing?

It's "planned" as soon as you dictate the terms under which transactions occur. And who gets to determine "fair compensation" and "control of production"..

In a Marxist system the fair compensation would be determined by the labor hours required to produce the commodity. No one would "control" production, that is the point.

It's USUALLY "labor hours" in ANY system -- isn't it? The real difference is "equity share" when it's Marxism. And the fact that laborers are ENTITLED to an equity share by edict. So they can vote themselves higher wages and other controlling issues. That's from the OLD vision of a job. Where careers were often spent in the SAME job and position. THAT is history. Ain't gonna happen anymore. The Unions and Marxism have an 18th Century vision of "a job" and NEGLECT TOTALLY -- the concept of CAREERS...

What Maxists ignore is that CEO positions pass OWNERSHIP rights to the new guy and over time that person acquires HIS equity stake in the company. It's fair that the ownership gets equity to go with the "mobile job".

 

[Two Thumbs]

how are you going to make people work?

 

[Two Thumbs]

How would you convince people to protect such a country?

how is the same pay of a person that risks nothing = to me risking my life for it?

 

[Natural Citizen]

How do you get people to do the hard work that needs to be done when they see people working in the AC getting the same outcome?

Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS

 

[Tehon]

The point of a planned economy is to have it under control of the social good, the popular consensus, rather than random market directions and the consensus of a few billionaires. Also if there are socialist parties that exist under a capitalist government, I see no reason why capitalist parties can't exist under a socialist government.

This is my main issue with Marxism, the planned economy. We're not smart enough to plan an economy, it must be free to react to changes and evolve. Like biological evolution, there has to be competition to improve efficiency. Capitalism in a more natural system, it just needs to be strictly policed so everyone plays by the same rules.

Where does Marx call for a planned economy in his writing?

It's "planned" as soon as you dictate the terms under which transactions occur. And who gets to determine "fair compensation" and "control of production"..

In a Marxist system the fair compensation would be determined by the labor hours required to produce the commodity. No one would "control" production, that is the point.

It's USUALLY "labor hours" in ANY system -- isn't it? The real difference is "equity share" when it's Marxism. And the fact that laborers are ENTITLED to an equity share by edict. So they can vote themselves higher wages and other controlling issues. That's from the OLD vision of a job. Where careers were often spent in the SAME job and position. THAT is history. Ain't gonna happen anymore. The Unions and Marxism have an 18th Century vision of "a job" and NEGLECT TOTALLY -- the concept of CAREERS...

What Maxists ignore is that CEO positions pass OWNERSHIP rights to the new guy and over time that person acquires HIS equity stake in the company. It's fair that the ownership gets equity to go with the "mobile job".

I see now that I misunderstood your question as it relates to fair compensation. As it relates to labor, each worker's share would be determined by the producers of the commodity in a democratic fashion. And before you say it can't work please look into the Mondragon Corporation.

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

 

[Pete7469]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

When is it ok for someone to seize what you own, under the threat of deadly violence, to use it for something that does not benefit you, and that you might even object to?

So... the soviets XXXXXXXX it up? They got all medieval and wiped out 10's of millions for what reason?

I can see how marxism "works" if all humans get frontal lobotomies and assume the cognizance of an ant colony. Otherwise you will ALWAYS have the non-team player that will do as little as possible and expect the same rations. You'll always have the tool who sucks up to bosses but actually produces little, and ends up with better rations, or the sociopath sort who will find a way to scam the system because all people want to upgrade their standard of living. Period.

If it were possible to make a collectivist society function, North Korea's borders would be trying to keep people out, or they would be delighted to bring the whole world in and "share" the utopia.

In the brief history of the US when we actually had a free market economy, we had unparalleled PROGRESS. No one else has ever had the prosperity we enjoyed before the nanny statists came in and stifled innovation.

Was it always perfect?

No.

I can't think of anyone who got fucked harder than Tesla, but he signed the paper himself.

Maybe the guys who created McDonald's, they got XXXXXX hard, but they got outsmarted. That's why capitalism creates more wealth. It's based on natural selection sometimes. If the strongest and smartest are left unencumbered by robin hood government they create massive wealth.

The hard part is the free market. When there is an abundance of labor, wages are lower. Right now we have a SEVERE shortage of labor. Wages should be rising, but the left insists we allow people to come in from countries that don't want them, for reasons that are pretty obvious so they wages have stayed stagnant.

It's a long rant, so I broke it up for you to address piece meal.

 

[Bush92]

Two problems. 1. The rich and the poor tend to be very conservative. 2. Most people are too uneducated to know they are going against their own best interests. Electing Trump is a perfect example. There was a fighter for the poor and what's left of the middle class. It wasn't Trump.

Trump spoke to the immediate concerns of the working class, which were charged with rhetoric about immigration, terrorism, and the like. They had been disenfranchised for a long time, and Trump was what they perceived to be their only option...it was either him, a...successful(?) businessman that oozed bravado and promises to take America back for the sections of the working class that had been forgotten by every administration that came before it, or the demonic entity known as Hillary Clinton. In short, the only reason he was voted for was because he claimed to have their interests at heart...populism is a novel concept in a government dominated by neoliberals with capitalist interests at the forefront of their policy decisions.

However, upon seeing what he actually does for the working class (which I predict to be very little), I believe that people will begin to understand that candidates like Trump are not the answer to their problems; the people themselves are.

Also worth mentioning, Bernie Sanders (though not a hardcore Marxist), a self-labeled socialist, almost won the DNC nomination. I genuinely believe a strong labor movement can be formed out of the left and the disenfranchised right.

We already have an American communist here.
Right JakeStarkey

Another American Communist?

*insert get off my lawn pic*

Labor is not the answer. Class is. As for labor the focus needs to be on a universal basic income to keep what capitalism we can manage going. AI and the robots will be doing most of the work soon. The humans are going to need money and something to occupy their time.

Those who perform labor, rather than control it, form a class. The Proletariat.

Also, if we won't be doing work, why is capitalism still important? If we're all living off basic income, why even have corporate executives and concentrations of wealth and power? Why not provide democratic equality instead of having some dystopian 1984-type future where a wealthy upper class can control everything?

What do Marxists think about Prison?

An interesting question. I can tell you what I personally think about it, to begin with:

It is necessary, but rehabilitiation should be the focus of most correctional facilities. If someone isn't pathologically disposed to violence and utterly hopeless, they should be brought back into society. A rehabilitative focus would also reduce the labor and (in a capitalistic society, at least) monetary cost in terms of taking care of inmates.

Also, prison shouldn't be so overused as punishment. Especially when it comes to nonviolent crimes, or drug usage.

As for Marx himself, he was a social constructionist, believing that humans feel at their best when contributing to a society, and the greater good of others, at the same time as their work provides for themselves. Thus, if someone who broke the law in some way...let's say, a burglar that has some sort of kleptomaniacal tendency, received rehabilitation in the form of directing their energies to productive and rewarding work, like, getting a job they genuinely enjoyed, that provided them a way to both contribute to society as well as to successfully make a comfortable living, their tendency to commit wrongdoing would be greatly lessened.

Another thing worth mentioning; prison time shouldn't be something that hangs with you like it does in our current justice system. It affects peoples' abilities to get good jobs nowadays, when it should be a vehicle to becoming a better person than you were when you went in.

The Cause That Failed: Communism in American Political Life by Guenter Lewy

 

[flacaltenn]

This is my main issue with Marxism, the planned economy. We're not smart enough to plan an economy, it must be free to react to changes and evolve. Like biological evolution, there has to be competition to improve efficiency. Capitalism in a more natural system, it just needs to be strictly policed so everyone plays by the same rules.

Where does Marx call for a planned economy in his writing?

It's "planned" as soon as you dictate the terms under which transactions occur. And who gets to determine "fair compensation" and "control of production"..

In a Marxist system the fair compensation would be determined by the labor hours required to produce the commodity. No one would "control" production, that is the point.

It's USUALLY "labor hours" in ANY system -- isn't it? The real difference is "equity share" when it's Marxism. And the fact that laborers are ENTITLED to an equity share by edict. So they can vote themselves higher wages and other controlling issues. That's from the OLD vision of a job. Where careers were often spent in the SAME job and position. THAT is history. Ain't gonna happen anymore. The Unions and Marxism have an 18th Century vision of "a job" and NEGLECT TOTALLY -- the concept of CAREERS...

What Maxists ignore is that CEO positions pass OWNERSHIP rights to the new guy and over time that person acquires HIS equity stake in the company. It's fair that the ownership gets equity to go with the "mobile job".

I see now that I misunderstood your question as it relates to fair compensation. As it relates to labor, each worker's share would be determined by the producers of the commodity in a democratic fashion. And before you say it can't work please look into the Mondragon Corporation.

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

Don't care about Democratic process. I care about producing goods and services are reasonably available and USEFUL to other members of society.. The idea of "fair compensation" is WAY too nebulous to assure that happens. It does not take into account skill, efficiency, or the innate understanding of the BUSINESS that those workers support. It's the VISION of what product and services are PRODUCED that assures the survival of any business venture. Not the means of how compensation is handled.

 

[Bush92]

Capitalism can have a mixed economy and incorporate elements of socialism within it(Social Security , Medicare) and Marx could not see this. His revolution never came and that happened in the communist block nations was a new class system with communist party members at the top.

 

[Tehon]

Where does Marx call for a planned economy in his writing?

It's "planned" as soon as you dictate the terms under which transactions occur. And who gets to determine "fair compensation" and "control of production"..

In a Marxist system the fair compensation would be determined by the labor hours required to produce the commodity. No one would "control" production, that is the point.

It's USUALLY "labor hours" in ANY system -- isn't it? The real difference is "equity share" when it's Marxism. And the fact that laborers are ENTITLED to an equity share by edict. So they can vote themselves higher wages and other controlling issues. That's from the OLD vision of a job. Where careers were often spent in the SAME job and position. THAT is history. Ain't gonna happen anymore. The Unions and Marxism have an 18th Century vision of "a job" and NEGLECT TOTALLY -- the concept of CAREERS...

What Maxists ignore is that CEO positions pass OWNERSHIP rights to the new guy and over time that person acquires HIS equity stake in the company. It's fair that the ownership gets equity to go with the "mobile job".

I see now that I misunderstood your question as it relates to fair compensation. As it relates to labor, each worker's share would be determined by the producers of the commodity in a democratic fashion. And before you say it can't work please look into the Mondragon Corporation.

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

Don't care about Democratic process. I care about producing goods and services are reasonably available and USEFUL to other members of society.. The idea of "fair compensation" is WAY too nebulous to assure that happens. It does not take into account skill, efficiency, or the innate understanding of the BUSINESS that those workers support. It's the VISION of what product and services are PRODUCED that assures the survival of any business venture. Not the means of how compensation is handled.

You brought it up.

The whole point of Marxism is to do away with the hierarchic system. True freedom.