Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You brought it up.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.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 "planned" as soon as you dictate the terms under which transactions occur. And who gets to determine "fair compensation" and "control of production"..
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".
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.
The whole point of Marxism is to do away with the hierarchic system. True freedom.
But it only produces a new hierarchical system. Read Orwell’s Animal Farm.You brought it up.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.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 "planned" as soon as you dictate the terms under which transactions occur. And who gets to determine "fair compensation" and "control of production"..
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".
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.
The whole point of Marxism is to do away with the hierarchic system. True freedom.
Marx laid out his criticism of the capitalist mode of production. He showed why it would ultimately fail as an economic system and gave a vision of how the next system might look based on the shortcomings of the previous system. That's it. He didn't leave a set of blueprints to be followed. There isn't a single path to be taken. It is not limited to only one outcome. When the capitalist mode of production becomes a hindrance to society then society will come up with a new arrangement.But it only produces a new hierarchical system. Read Orwell’s Animal Farm.The whole point of Marxism is to do away with the hierarchic system. True freedom.
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 the capitalist mode of production becomes a hindrance to society then society will come up with a new arrangement.
How does Marxism not going against human nature?
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.
If the American Dream was feasible for most now, I wouldn't be a Marxist. I feel as though the capitalist engine eventually consumes genuinely important things like family structure and an affluent middle class in the drive for profit.
Hereditary rights beyond passing down things like houses and heirlooms should be abolished, I agree. But do you think the upper class will allow that to happen without some sort of long, drawn out fight?
Capitalism going strong.Marx laid out his criticism of the capitalist mode of production. He showed why it would ultimately fail as an economic system and gave a vision of how the next system might look based on the shortcomings of the previous system. That's it. He didn't leave a set of blueprints to be followed. There isn't a single path to be taken. It is not limited to only one outcome. When the capitalist mode of production becomes a hindrance to society then society will come up with a new arrangement.But it only produces a new hierarchical system. Read Orwell’s Animal Farm.The whole point of Marxism is to do away with the hierarchic system. True freedom.
What you are talking about is monetarism. Monetarism is an economic theory that focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. It is unrelated to capitalism. You can have capitalism under a central bank or the gold standard.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.
We have a Keynesian planned economy now. We have economic intervention. We have a central bank. We have corporatism. We have inflationism. We have a managed economy that is far removed from capitalism in every fundamental way. That's why the socialists are so interested in providing their 'solution' to it.
We do not have capitalism. And this is the Marxist's strength. The Marxist attacks capitalism knowing full well that we have no such economic system of the sort. Then the Marxist offers socialism as the solution because most people don't understand that we don't have capitalism. It's extremely deceptive because they trick people into defending capitalism when people are unknowingly defending the Keynesian managed economy that we actually have except in the name of capitalism. Which is patently in the Marxist's favor. It's a loaded discussion. Bait. The less astute play right into their hand. It's their only way in. And they know it.
The solution to our doomed Keynesian economic system is not Marxism. The solution is free markets. Free markets will restore capitalism because the way capitalism is supposed to work is that free markets tell the government what to do. Not the other way around as it is now with a doomed Keynesian economic system where the government is in control of the economy. The Keynesian system is equally as designed to fail as the socialist system. Both are managed economies. Which is why the socialists are interested in 'fixing' it when all they're really going to do it tailor it to their social structure. They're licking their chops.
The op is just reciting amateur script. A drone, so to speak. And his intention isn't as innocent as he claims in the op. Which, itself, is a common tactic. I'm gonna keep an eye on him. Heheh.
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.
Catalans were Marxist during Spanish Civil War. When given the choice between Marxism or fascism...I will side with Franco every time. In fact, when given the choice of Marxism or “anything else”...I would choose “anything else.”
How does Marxism not going against human nature?
To repeat, the natural human condition is suppressed under the communist model. They ignore human nature's desire to better oneself and to aspire for a better standard and wage of living.
Again, the communist relies on the state changing human nature, which in reality and in historical application can only be attempted by coercion, repression, and tyranny at the barrel of the state gun.
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.
To the nearest ten million, can you give us an estimate of the number of people murdered by their own Marxist governments?
What you are talking about is monetarism. Monetarism is an economic theory that focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. It is unrelated to capitalism. You can have capitalism under a central bank or the gold standard.
Take off you tin hat, there is no conspiracy just a mature monetary system that can scale and react to fluctuations in the markets. The Keynesian theory is that changes in the money supply can soften the erratic nature of the free market, not fundamentally control it.