Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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.
Does your doctor know you are off your medication?
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.
Yet supply side methods worked well for 40 years.
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.
In the opening post, I make no argument.
I laid out a question as to whether you agree or disagree with Marx on the nature of capital, but that isn't an argument by me. Read what Marx wrote and comment on whether you believe he was correct or incorrect.
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?
Why? Only an idiot would believe in all capitalists conspiring to keep worker wages down.
And only an idiot would believe in the class warfare and the dictatorship of proletariat as a solution.
I believe in free markets and in invisible hand -- they work perfectly in the micro-level. But on the macro-level market can make mistakes, and that is where the government should step in.
I heard about Rachel Maddow, but I never watched her show. And I don't know who is Jon Stewart.
The person whose blog I follow most is Paul Krugman
I think it is you who are not willing to leave the comfort zone by believing that the lefts are Marxists.
No, they were not. The economy is driven by the demand.
Why? Only an idiot would believe in all capitalists conspiring to keep worker wages down.
True.
Of course Marx never made such a claim. The idea of the middle class being organized is something that contradicts the most basic of Marxian philosophy.
Class warfare is precisely the what the democratic party, under the auspice of George Soros and Barack Obama are using as a basis for power. If it is idiotic, how is it that Obama is in office?
You believe in free markets, as long as they aren't free.
“This is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to research their own interests. We do not rely on their humanity, but their selfishness” - Adam Smith
Really? The leftists here get 100% of their "news" from Stewart.
Since Bozo died, what choice is there?
No, they were not. The economy is driven by the demand.
So the reason that there is no vehicle that runs without fuel is that there is no demand?
Marx was not an idiot - Krugman is.
OK, then why would he think that worker wages would remain low unless there is a revolution?
Like I said, you are delusional. You erect straw man arguments is that your comfort zone is in arguing against such false constructs.
Yes, they work on micro level, but have to be corrected on the macro level. I feel your desire for an intellectual purity, but this is a complicated world and there are no simple solutions.
And he as absolutely right -- greed can be good for the society as a whole. But it does not mean that the greed ALWAYS leads to the correct behaviour -- that is simply not true.
I don't know who's Bozo either. But Krugman is not the only good economist.
The fuel -- people pursuing their self-interest -- is always present, lack of it is never a problem. The problem is that you have to steer the car, or you won't get far.
Well it is easy to prove that Marx was an idiot. I want to see you doing that in Krugman's case.
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?
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.
Is that a flaw in the ideas of Marx, or in the various implementations by Lenin, Mao, etc?
Nonsense, that was not the basis of Laffer's economic model. But I'm not looking for a debate on Laffer.
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?
Ok... first off... fuck you. You do not understand human nature... which is leaps and bounds more important than which economic system is undertaken. How do I reach Conclusions? Look around you, you pompous dickwad. The Global economy damned near collapsed because of the greed and the lack of accountability of our wealthiest class. But You'd rather discuss a book instead of looking and observing. You'd rather have someone else spoon feed your opinions to you.
Cold War Communism died a horrible death in the Soviet Union and it's annexes, and is being forced out of China by our companies throwing huge sums of money into their economy. Cuba is still being punished for Castro, even though they aren't even close to the same country as during the Cold War.
So yeah... neither seems to all that fucking wonderful in my book. They are two sides of the same damned coin. Just because YOU think your viewpoints and those of people who agree with you are the only valid ones, doesn't mean you are correct.
Well, anyway... I'll just put you down on the side of more Casino Wall Street tactics, Big Conglomerates running the country, and people who have to bust their humps to make ends meet being more and more marginalized and their quality of life increasingly downgraded.
OK, then why would he think that worker wages would remain low unless there is a revolution?
What do Obama and Krugman say?
{Occupy Wall Street gave the issue visibility, while the Congressional Budget Office supplied hard data on the widening income gap. And the myth of a classless society has been exposed: Among rich countries, America stands out as the place where economic and social status is most likely to be inherited. }
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/krugman-money-and-morals.html
According to Krugman, the worker will never rise because wealth is inherited rather than earned.
{"The disappearance of the right of inheritance will be the natural result of a social change superseding private property in the means of production; but the abolition of the right of inheritance can never be the starting point of such a social transformation." } - Communist Manifesto.
So Marx identifies inheritance as the means of keeping Capital from the the hands of the proletariat?
Wow, either Krugman was channeling Marx, or the more logical assumption, Marx is the basis of his ideas.
Like I said, you are delusional. You erect straw man arguments is that your comfort zone is in arguing against such false constructs.
Which "false constructs," specifically?
"Corrected" by rulers - for a fee, of course... You advocate for the looters.
The fuel -- people pursuing their self-interest -- is always present, lack of it is never a problem. The problem is that you have to steer the car, or you won't get far.
The point is, demand never drives the introduction of products - not ever.
Well it is easy to prove that Marx was an idiot. I want to see you doing that in Krugman's case.
If it is easy to "prove" Marx was an idiot, then do so.
Is the question of class struggle in America, the first classless nation in history, meaningful?
OK, here is your problem -- the reading comprehension. Krugman never said that worker's salary never rise -- in fact, he is arguing quite the opposite, that it was rising fast until 70s. Now, however, "America stands out as the place where economic and social status is most likely to be inherited" -- and by saying this he simply acknowledges the facts on the ground.
Nobody calls for abolishing the right of inheritance. Though it make sense to tax the estate above a certain level -- like it is done now.
Marx was an idiot.
Reading comprehension.
That the liberals are Marxists.
No, by a democratically elected government (that is, BTW, another reason for Marx failure -- he never understood that democracy is a game changer).
Yes, that the people pursuing their self interest -- but that is a given. You don't need to invent the supply-side economics to enable that. What supply-side economics postulate is that deregulation and lower taxes always lead to a better life -- but that is an obvious fallacy.
We need regulations to correct for the market shortfalls, and there are plenty of those.
I already did -- he had no reasons to believe that the worker wages will always remain at the level just enough to prevent them from starving to death.
Yet he developed a vast theory on that very assumption. That is dumb.
I would ask you were do you think Krugman failed, but I am pretty sure I will get another example of your problem with reading comprehension.
Does your doctor know you are off your medication?
Go back down to the basement and let the grownups talk.
OK, here is your problem -- the reading comprehension. Krugman never said that worker's salary never rise -- in fact, he is arguing quite the opposite, that it was rising fast until 70s. Now, however, "America stands out as the place where economic and social status is most likely to be inherited" -- and by saying this he simply acknowledges the facts on the ground.
You make a distinction without a difference.
The common refrain of the left is that we were on a meteoric rise until X. Usually they choose 1980 due to the hatred of Reagan by the left.
Do you agree with Krugman that wealth is most likely to be inherited in the USA?
Nobody calls for abolishing the right of inheritance. Though it make sense to tax the estate above a certain level -- like it is done now.
Even Marx was all over the map on that - what Marx and Obama call for is heavy taxes be levied on inheritance.
What I said is that many of the ideas and most of the rhetoric of the party is derived from Marx.
Lenin's USSR is arguably the most democratic state in human history.
What partisans don't grasp is the economics is not an "invention," but the observations of facts supported by mathematical formulas to predict and explain occurrences in the market.
I'm not sure debating a managed market is productive in a debate on Marx, unless you are saying that the party is using market control to seize the means of production?
Sure he did, he assumed that the failing feudal system of 19th century Prussia was capitalism. It wasn't and his misconceptions are based on this critical flaw. That still doesn't make him an "idiot."
I would ask you were do you think Krugman failed, but I am pretty sure I will get another example of your problem with reading comprehension.
Paul Krugman Is Still Wrong about Texas - By Kevin D. Williamson - Exchequer - National Review Online
Does your doctor know you are off your medication?
Go back down to the basement and let the grownups talk.
Anyone screaming about "Marxism" isn't a grownup, guy...
