Valox
Senior Member
- Dec 1, 2011
- 1,023
- 129
- 48
Is that your way of completely avoiding the topic?
Is this your way of avoiding the cold, hard facts?
For fuck's sake, even the trolls suck on this board.
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.
Is that your way of completely avoiding the topic?
{If we abstract from the material substance of the circulation of commodities, that is, from the exchange of the various use-values, and consider only the economic forms produced by this process of circulation, we find its final result to be money: this final product of the circulation of commodities is the first form in which capital appears.
As a matter of history, capital, as opposed to landed property, invariably takes the form at first of money; it appears as moneyed wealth, as the capital of the merchant and of the usurer. [1] But we have no need to refer to the origin of capital in order to discover that the first form of appearance of capital is money. We can see it daily under our very eyes. All new capital, to commence with, comes on the stage, that is, on the market, whether of commodities, labour, or money, even in our days, in the shape of money that by a definite process has to be transformed into capital. }
Marx is arguing that the base of capital is represented by money. That wealth, rather than value is the primary medium of exchange in markets.
Is that your way of completely avoiding the topic?
Is this your way of avoiding the cold, hard facts?
For fuck's sake, even the trolls suck on this board.
a serious discussion of the ideas of Karl Marx - not a caricature, but the actual ideals of Marx.
Gampa Murked U was complaining that there aren't serious discussion threads. At the same time I was complaining that most of the leftists on this board don't know anything about Karl Marx and the Marxism they based their political views (via Olbermann, Maddow, Stewart, et al) on.
So, I figured I'd address both complaints in one thread, a serious discussion of the ideas of Karl Marx - not a caricature, but the actual ideals of Marx.
Here are the basic resources needed:
Manifesto of the Communist Party
The Communist Manifesto is the foundational work of Marx and Engles that defines what Communism is.
Economic Manuscripts: Capital: Volume One
Das Kapital is the economic treatise underpinning Marxism and modern leftism. 80% or more of the concepts present in any given Obama speech are derived from Das Kapital.
Discuss.
I'm sure that's comforting.That's not what Reagan said. Perhaps you need to read what he wrote. And try to understand it.
i read the quote. and it seems to me that the people throwing around the words marxist and socialist haven't a clue about what those things are. you telling me to "understand it" is pretty funny.
Thanks for proving my point.And the stupid ones believe Marx and Engels.
marx's miscalculation was in believing anyone willingly gives up either money or power. which is why such systems naturally fail.
Looks like we've found a Marx believer.marx's miscalculation was in believing anyone willingly gives up either money or power. which is why such systems naturally fail.
Actually, you are a stupid bitch who just made up a sentence that makes no complete sense at all, yet you probably hypocritically self-congratulated yourself for your elucidation.
WTH does this even mean and what pages are you quoting your drivel from?
If Marx believed this willingly, then why did he advocate for transitional period of statism, which Proudhon rightfully lambasted? Please, elucidate us....after all, you political science majors read Proudon.....you dumb troll.
Is that your way of completely avoiding the topic?
Is this your way of avoiding the cold, hard facts?
For fuck's sake, even the trolls suck on this board.
the o/p's insanity isn't worth participating with anyway.
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.)
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?
How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
-- Ronald Reagan
i read the quote. and it seems to me that the people throwing around the words marxist and socialist haven't a clue about what those things are.
you telling me to "understand it" is pretty funny.
marx's miscalculation was in believing anyone willingly gives up either money or power. which is why such systems naturally fail.
Given the fact that the Obama administration is 80% continuation of the Bush administration, then we can safely call Republicans Marxists too.
The better question to start with would be whether "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," as Marx claims.
If you want to tie something to today's politics (and the presidential campaign specifically), this would be a better angle.
the problem with ANY ideology is that when applied to the public, it will fail... or at least become bastardized into something different.
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.
In Communism, they tend not to work hard to produce...after all, their labors are for the collective, not themselves and their families, so why bother busting their asses when it's just going to get divvied out anyway?
In Reagan's Capitalism, the idea is that when the top does well, they will share their wealth of their own accord...hence...trickle down. The thing Reagan failed to realize(or ignored) is that those people at the top got their by being the MOST greedy and the MOST self serving of the population. You can't get a leopard to change it's spots.... they want more and they always will.
Neither Communism or Supply Side Economics are a very good system. 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".
Really? Maybe, I didn't understand that quote at all. And I don't care -- Marx was an idiot. Why do you care?
You really think that everyone on the left is a secret Marxist? That's pretty dense.
the problem with ANY ideology is that when applied to the public, it will fail... or at least become bastardized into something different.
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.
In Communism, they tend not to work hard to produce...after all, their labors are for the collective, not themselves and their families, so why bother busting their asses when it's just going to get divvied out anyway?
In Reagan's Capitalism, the idea is that when the top does well, they will share their wealth of their own accord...hence...trickle down.
The thing Reagan failed to realize(or ignored) is that those people at the top got their by being the MOST greedy and the MOST self serving of the population. You can't get a leopard to change it's spots.... they want more and they always will.
Neither Communism or Supply Side Economics are a very good system.
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".