Just For Grampa, the Karl Marx thread

[Valox]

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.

 

[ilia25]

{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.

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.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Try reading the posts before jumping right to being a defensive little bitch.

 

[Steelplate]

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".

 

[editec]

a serious discussion of the ideas of Karl Marx - not a caricature, but the actual ideals of Marx.

When does that actually start?

Perhaps I can help start a real discussion of Marx's POV regarding capitalism


concerning the origin of capital

A summary of the Marxist view of how CLASS DISINCTIONS between possessors and non-possessors came to be.

primitive accumulation "entailed taking land, say, enclosing it, and expelling a resident population to create a landless proletariat, and then releasing the land into the privatized mainstream of capital accumulation to the (ALREADY) landed gentry.

I believe that -- at least as it regards class development -- is historically inaccurate.

The great enclosing of land in ENGLAND occurred roguhtly beginnning in the early 1500s, after Feudalism (which is the ultimate Western example of CLASSISM in action) was already on the wane.

However, it might not be too great a stretch to suggest that MODERN ANGLO-CAPITALISM was initiated because of the enclosures of land in the 1500s.

During that period land that was formerly COMMUNIALLY OWNED and farmed by the peasnat class, became property of the crown, and use of that land was granted to individiduals (usually the already landed gentry) .

Enclosing the land was done for what economic purpose?

To make it possible for landholding gentry with enough capital to raise SHEEP for wool. Why then>? Because England's woolen industry was just them becoming a viable commercial industry

Thoughts?

 

[konradv]

The problem with the "isms" is that, whether you're talking Marxism or Libertarianism, they both require a basic shift in human nature to work.

In Marxism everyone is expected to work for everyone else toward some goal, forgetting that some will not work at all, if rewards aren't immediate. Libertarianism expects individuals to work for themselves alone with nearly all agreements being between individuals with little if any government interference, forgetting that ineviably some of the strong will prey on the weak.

Back to the OP. The question is leading. Lay out your whole argument and quit playing games.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Does your doctor know you are off your medication?

 

[daveman]

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.

I'm sure that's comforting.

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.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[daveman]

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.

Looks like we've found a Marx believer.

 

[daveman]

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.

You mean cold, hard facts like "Communism is an utter, bloody failure"?

 

[Uncensored2008]

the o/p's insanity isn't worth participating with anyway.

Even you are welcome to share what substitutes as thought, Jillian.

What do you think your position is supposed to be regarding the supposition by Marx that capital is founded on currency?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

 

[konradv]

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?

That's the point isn't it? What's "fraud and coercion" and who decides? There's many a "voluntary agreement" that's really been coerced. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ring any bells?

 

[Dragon]

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

Almost. That's really how you tell an EX-Communist -- like me.

I guess I'll weigh in here. Karl Marx was a brilliant idiot. I mean both sides of that. His critique of capitalism and identification of the importance of class struggle were brilliant. His grasp of human psychology was idiotic. And he had a few ideas, like the labor theory of value, which were neither particularly brilliant nor particularly idiotic but simply wrong.

He failed to grasp the implications of one of his own core ideas, dialectical materialism, in terms of predicting the course of the class struggle. The dialectic is a type of reasoning that opposes one force or principle (the "thesis") to another (the "antithesis") and generates a compromise or fusion of the two (the "synthesis"), which then opposes the antithesis of itself, and so on. Marx borrowed this idea from Hegel, but gave it a twist that was non-religious in contrast to Hegel, hence dialectical materialism.

In Marx' view, there was the feudal class (thesis) opposed by the rising capitalist class or bouregoisie (antithesis), generating the capitalist economy (synthesis) in which the capitalists became the equivalent of feudal lords but operating on a different principle. Then they were in turn opposed by the proletariat or working class (antithesis) generating a socialist economy (synthesis) in which there were no classes -- and there lay his error, because the true fusion between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, the true synthesis, as it turned out, was not a full-on socialist economy but a mixed or social-democratic economy dominated by strong labor unions, and that in turn generated an antithesis of its own. If the dialectic is valid at all (and I am somewhat of a skeptic on the point), it is not subject to arbitrarily cease working when things reach a point that you like.

Marx also supposed that class struggle was the only type of struggle that human beings engage in, and that the state, whose purpose is to mediate and resolve human struggles within a society, would have no function once classes were abolished and would wither away, leaving an anarchistic communist utopia. Which is why I say that his understanding of human nature was idiotic. Only a German romantic could believe such drivel as that.

The labor theory of value, on which a lot of his economic ideas were based, also runs into problems. The value of something is not a static quality dependent on objective properties of the item itself, but a fluctuating quality dependent on prospective buyer's perception of the item and on what they have to trade for it and on its scarcity and the bargaining power of the seller. It's also a fact that greater efficiency of production reduces the amount of labor required to produce a given item, without (necessarily) reducing its value.

Long story short is that Karl Marx was a seminal and important thinker of the 19th century who should be read by everyone who wants to understand history and economics -- but not believed as if he were a prophet. One must approach his ideas with an open but critical mind.

Which is why neither a Communist NOR an anti-Communist can understand him. A Communist lacks a critical mind, and an anti-Communist lacks an open one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

That's the point, jilly.

Most of those who most adamantly advocate Marxist dogma don't even grasp that they are indeed advocating such.

you telling me to "understand it" is pretty funny.

Those expecting anything beyond the most rudimentary grasp of any subject by you are indeed, funny.

However, a factual examination of the ideas of Marx is worthwhile and a good basis for a serious debate in this forum.

marx's miscalculation was in believing anyone willingly gives up either money or power. which is why such systems naturally fail.

I disagree. Communities often see people who give money, time and authority. This is particularly true in smaller communities. As a child, I remember a family losing their home due to fire. The church organized a relief program with the owner of the local hotel, bar, restaurant coordinating efforts and donating most of the capital, both in cash and materials.

People give these things up to help others all the time - maybe not among the left, but with most Americans they do.

People are charitable by nature, but will not work to their own detriment. However, it was Lenin, and not Marx, who advocated that people sacrifice and work against their own interests.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Given the fact that the Obama administration is 80% continuation of the Bush administration, then we can safely call Republicans Marxists too.

Rhetoric, not policy.

The policies of Bush and Obama are similar, the rhetoric of each is wildly different.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Good point.

If you want to tie something to today's politics (and the presidential campaign specifically), this would be a better angle.

Is the subjugation of a serf class in feudal France germane to the actions of the OWS Shitters? Is the question of class struggle in America, the first classless nation in history, meaningful?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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".

We have that system already. It's our taxes. Only everyone doesn't contribute. So in a way you're right. It isn't working because everyone doesn't have skin in the game.

Oh and I forgot to mention that DC keeps blowing the money those that pay do give. So don't ask for more from them before you demand DC use it accordingly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? Maybe, I didn't understand that quote at all. And I don't care -- Marx was an idiot. Why do you care?

Marx was not an idiot, and much of the crap YOU spew on this forum is based on Marx. It wouldn't hurt you to learn the basis of the ideas that you support. Despite your fantasy, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow didn't come up with these ideas on their own.

You really think that everyone on the left is a secret Marxist? That's pretty dense.

I understand, you have a comfort zone that you lack the ability to work outside of.

Join in the conversation - you might learn something, or let the grownups talk.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?