CDZ Ask Me About Marxism

[Votto]

The US fought two bloody wars against the Nazi Socialists in order to remain free, just to later lay down and let Bernie and his crew take over.

 

[Votto]

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.

Forcing everyone to be "equal" is the most oppressive form of government I can think of.

 

[Bush92]

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.

But it only produces a new hierarchical system. Read Orwell’s Animal Farm.

 

[Two Thumbs]

How will the 'voting' go when it comes time to vote how much we each get paid or compensated?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why do you think it will work 'this time'?

 

[Marxist_Trash]

I feel semi-overwhelmed lol, but I will do my best in responding when I have the chance.

I also must say I'm genuinely appreciative of the viewpoints I've been given, thank you all for being so patient with me.

 

[Bush92]

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.”

 

[Tehon]

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.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Okay.

How does Marxism not going against human nature? Humans are selfish.

 

[Natural Citizen]

When the capitalist mode of production becomes a hindrance to society then society will come up with a new arrangement.

Precisely. Except that the new arrangement should be free markets.

To repeat, however, we do not have a capitalist system. And you know that.

Free markets are the solution to getting back to true capitalism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The ultimate Marxist goal is to destroy American free-enterprise capitalism by undermining its economic engine, the Middle Class and the basic building block of society, the family unit. Period.

The Frankfurt School, a Marxist splinter group, established itself at Columbia University and began "the long march through the institutions." The idea was, and still is, to infiltrate every corner of Western culture, including places like this and elsewhere philosophical discussion often takes place, to pervert traditional values with political correctness and Marxist ideologies.

In most cases, the seemingly "well-intentioned" communists (like the op who presents himself as such) are in the lower ranks and are dominated by a clique of malintentioned conspirators such as those in the Frankfurt School as mentioned above as well as the Marxists in the institutions who feed the youth with Marxist propaganda before sending them out to pervert traditional American values. Again, see here - Stalking horse - Wikipedia

Know this: No matter how well intentioned the agitators of communist revolution may present themselves to be, their system of government has always led to, continues to lead to, and will always lead to total tyranny by the state. Statism. Hence, Communism. Total control by the state.

 

[SeaGal]

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.

Social good and popular consensus?...best achieved by a constitutional republic.

Capitalism is an economic system...which is why various political parties can exist. Socialism is a governing system controlling the economic system. China is probably the closest to a modern mix of the two - but look at the blood left in its wake. And who came out on top in that 'revolution'?

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.

Reports of the death of the American Dream due to capitalism are greatly exaggerated. However - the closer we drive to socialism, the fainter the dream becomes. See how that works?

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?

That right there is revealing of the contradiction that inherently exists in socialism. Marx theory always devolves into a totalitarian state in practice - because it takes ruthlessness to force man to live in an unnatural/repressed state. Revolution is the fun part...what follows is human misery.

Socialism can be feasible in small, homogenous communities. It's no way to run a large, diverse country.


Taking you at face value I see a nice young person who is genuinely seeking other points of view. Now I wonder - still nice, and polite - but I get a whiff of the committed subversive every now and then...conducting market research probing the concerns of the 'opposition' with the intent of developing a slick 'ad campaign' aimed at sugar coating the poison pill. That wouldn't be your motivation, would it?

There is nothing benign in the application of Marx theory - in the US it would require the destruction of the only truly revolutionary form of government in the history of mankind...along with an economic system that has afforded even the poorest among us a lifestyle that is the envy of the much of the rest of the world. Capitalism is difficult to wipe out because it is inherently a part of human nature - so the aim is to destroy the system of government that allows for it.

In the simplest of terms - Capitalism nurtures the goose that lays the golden eggs - Marxism eats it.

 

[Bush92]

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.

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.

Capitalism going strong.

 

[alang1216]

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.

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

 

[Votto]

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.”

Both the Nazi regime and Russian regimes during WW2 were collectivist regimes that controlled pretty much every aspect of society. In that regard, they were alike.

What separated them was the fact that Hitler allowed industry to run their own affairs, so long as they did what they were told. After all, Hitler understood he was not a CEO, and let the professionals run their own affairs. Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"

With communism/socialism, that is not the case. Those in power think they will make a great CEO, as they drive competition and their business into the ground, destroying wealth along the way, then wonder why they have become like Venezuela. The problem is, they just don't own up to their failures. It's like it all never happened.

Very bizarre.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Yes, Xi Jinping is trying to do this in China, though not necessarily Marxism.

 

[Votto]

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?

How could history possible matter to a Marxist? They either are willfully ignorant of it, or think it is all fake news.

Either that or they have some marvelous plan to finally make it work.

They are a very sick lot.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

It's much broader than your intellectually dishonest minimization.

And as far as tin hats and conspiracy theories, these are weasel words and cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is qualified to speak to the topic.

Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism dooms our economy to failure. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today.

Free markets are the solution to reintroducing fundamental capitalism.

We do not want to trade one government controlled economy for another such as the resident Marxist offfer as the solution.