Marxism: JakeStarky V. Uncensored2008

[Yurt]

interesting...jakey avoided yet another actual debate

 

[TakeAStepBack]

First of all, Marxism like any other label or group, has its extreme fundamentalist factions who stick to the letter and won't budge or work with others

That actually characterizes MArx himself. During the revolutionary times of his writings, Marx was known to hold disdain for any who tried to argue with them. He was a rigid dogmatic that would ridicule any who tried to debate the merits of his work....even amongst those in his inner circle.

He was a childish, over educated, son of a rich man who spent his time jumping from subject to subject without investing himself into any discipline or study fully. Which is why he never released the third installment of his doctrine.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hi Uncensored:
First of all, Marxism like any other label or group, has its extreme fundamentalist factions who stick to the letter and won't budge or work with others, and its liberal followers that take the basic concepts and apply them where they work, but don't get so rigid they defeat their own goals.

Hi Emily, thanks for your response.

I wonder about "fundamentalist" in Marxism, since what Marx advocated was often far more tame than what those who followed him promoted. While I wouldn't want to live under fundamental Marxism, it would beat living under Lenin's revised version.

I have run into both.

A history professor and his wife, who are highly respected by me personally as a believer in isonomy under the Constitution (and by his many students over the years including very traditional conservative capitalists who have written recommendations for his tenure) apply their Marxist principles in the peace and justice community to work OPENLY "with everyone"

The problem here is that Marxism cannot be "applied peacefully," because revolution is not a peaceful act. Marxism advocates violence and promotes violence as a key component in social reformation.

WITHIN the current system of capitalist and political competition that otherwise reinforces class separation. They just don't "abuse" that to the point of oppression exclusion and bullying, but work within an "inclusive" approach that lives up to the "classless" ideal, even WITHIN a class-structured system. So working toward classlessness does NOT mean you wipe out the social groupings organized into classes! This man is a professor on a college level, so of COURSE there classes of people on different levels, as part of social structure and order, and of course he recognizes and works within that given system. The "classlessness" is in "respecting people equally" and not "discriminating or abusing" people of different classes, but working with each one fairly so it does not become a problem of unfair treatment. The class or levels people choose to group or affiliate, still exist.

In my opening remarks, I took care to write "caste" rather than "class." Class is a transient condition. Most people go through several classes in their lives. As an undergrad working as a busboy while going to school, I was in the lower class, then lower-middle, middle and upper-middle as time went on. Economic classes are of this nature. There will never be a "classless society," nor can there be. I took my MBA classes on-line, never seeing other students in person, yet there were still classes within the students. Those who applied themselves and took lead roles in projects and discussions formed an elite, even though income and title were absent. People are not equal, and cannot be forced to equality.

I also ran into some people with a communist group, where some could and some could not relate to the idea of using the given academic system of organizing students and workers by class to provide education and training to 'move people' toward independence and even managing their own cooperatives and school/work programs on a sustainable basis.

But this is a perversion of the academic system. Advocacy perverts the concept of imparting knowledge. Too many institutions are more interested in indoctrination than education. I have no tolerance for such perversions of academia. I teach an introduction to economics course at a private university. I say absolutely nothing about my political views to students. I provided them the facts (and this is introductory, so ANOVA, NPV, FV, annuity calculations, etc. are more the subject) and let them decide what the political ramifications are. If asked who I admire, I'll point to Rothbard, Hayek, Von Mises, etc. - but I don't bring this up in class.

Some of these people were personally too closed on the idea of REJECTING CLASSES to even work with reality, on a practical level,
of how to get TO the point of "open inclusion of all people" by actually USING the current system of social and economic classes
as a tool for ORGANIZING the masses so society CAN get there.

Organizing the masses is done purely to empower the organizers. The concept of a classless society defies both human nature and reality.

I argued that not all people are trained to resolve conflicts and manage their own communities and economies yet, so that is why people are not equal.

That, and genetic reality. People are different.

But this can be taught over time in an educational environment, combining the best ideals of "free enterprise" and Constitutional rights/freedoms of the INDIVIDUAL with the ideals of collective equality of all humanity that would fulfill the ideals and goals in communism, marxism, socialism and other such systems. You can have both; you can acknowledge and work with the given system of "classes" and yet still treat people with equal respect and justice, no matter what level of development or group affiliation they identify with.

Education imparts knowledge. Education cannot impart intelligence. You cannot teach a stupid man to be smart, it is not possible. Classes will form around intellect, ambition, and attractiveness, regardless of how stringently authoritarian a system is in subverting class formation.

We just have to organize resources by these affiliations, instead of losing energy resources and focus fighting over whose system needs to be imposed on whom and which need to be eradicated. Let people organize themselves and take responsibility for their own systems, then link up the different schools of thoughts, like separate self-governing city-states under a central union, and set up systems of representation, conflict resolution within each group, and mediation teams to handle issues between groups, organizing locally first then globally.

Global governance of any sort will be totalitarian in nature, there is no option when there is no escape from a given authority.

Global communism fits my definition of "hell," quite well.

 

[Steelplate]

OK, I've waited long enough. The fatal flaw with any absolute system is simple. You can't trust people. Be it Communism, Socialism, or yes....even Capitalism.

What you say is certainly true.

So an effective socioeconomic system would be one that relied on mechanics rather than people?

People are greedy and self centered.

So then, an effective system would recognize this fact and build on these mechanisms?



True.

Marx spoke of "enlightened self interest" as a means of combating this. Marx believed that an educated populace could be made to see that communism served their own interests.



Capitalism precludes slavery. Capitalism is based on the concept of trade. All interaction between men is based on voluntary trade. Thus, you cannot have any one person or group who controls everything, by design. Class is not a feature of true capitalism and cannot exist in a Laissez Faire system. A laborer in capitalism is a free trader, who can negotiate and trade his labor for the best price someone is willing to pay. This means that no one can "control everything" by the very fact that they will have to cede some portion to buy labor. Under capitalism, people sell their labor to the highest bidder. In effect, each works for themselves. Their employer is their customer.



You misunderstand and misuse terms. There is no such thing as a "capitalist class." Capitalism is the act of trade. All participants engage in trade. These trades should be free and uncoerced.



In a capitalist system the only way to stop competition is to use the government. "Too big to fail" or corrupt unions like the UAW who bribe politicians subvert free trade using the implied violence of the government. Without this, competition cannot be stopped.

So, they fight to keep the labor class down as much as possible. Shitty wages, high consumer costs, being against education, etc.... because all of those things reduce the labor class's chances of acquiring enough Capital to become part of the Capitalist class.

What you claim is of course complete nonsense. But from the perspective of Marx, should lead to a proletarian revolt.

So, why hasn't it?

That's why I personally believe in a hybrid system like ours that promotes both individuality AND community.

Again, why has there been no proletarian revolt?

ok....I don't do the multiple quote thing....so I'll address your response by number on points we disagree.....

1. The thing you don't understand is that the employer has most of the negotiating power.....especially with the crony capitalist system we have in the global economy. With all the outsourcing that our companies have done, our economy is left with crappy jobs.....that puts potential employees in a position where it's accept that shitty wage or go on welfare....it's not a voluntary trade....it's take it or leave it. Even skilled people can't find a decent job, because there's someone in China with lesser skills, but can be trained to do the production part of the job that will work for $.75/hour. That's not an honest, voluntary negotiation, because not one person in this country can afford to accept that as a wage....hell, in this country....one can't hardly raise a family on TWO minimum wage incomes.

2. This continuous struggle between labor needing a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and management trying to make as much money as humanly possible is the very reason how unions came about. The employer got way too much leverage and the employee had to survive on less and less....only to be met with apathy by management.....only through organizing and entering into negotiations in a United front gave the employee enough leverage to improve their lot in life......and a funny thing happened. The country grew by leaps and bounds....the wealthy STAYED wealthy.....simply because their employees could afford luxuries that previously they could not....orders boomed, sales boomed, and employment boomed because of it.....Labor and management both benefited because they fed off of each other.......UNTIL.....and I remember this, even though I was young....the OPEC oil embargo. We were no where near prepared for that crisis and it crippled our economy....Where unions made their biggest mistake was to stand firm on their demands when things were falling apart for their counterparts in the business world.....and they never got a chance to learn from their mistake because shortly after that, Reagan came along with the beginning of our modern day crony capitalism, called trickle down economics. Government gives business breaks....they(theoretically) take advantage of those breaks and pass it down to their employees and ultimately, the consumer. So....while I understand your personal disdain for unions....your synopsis of them is not necessarily accurate.

3. Just because the "revolt" hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Obama's election alone could have been an opening salvo. Fortunately for us.....Obama isn't nearly the Marxist that FOX makes him out to be.....You see, I don't believe in a Communist society....I'm not a "Marxist". I'll admit to SOME.....as in limited....Socialist leanings...like the areas of Health Care, and our own Social Security system....but as far as welfare for people that could, but don't work? Nope....IMO, if they want their benefits(as is)....they would have to put 40 hours/week laboring on public works projects. The minimalist lifestyle that welfare benefits provides should be plenty of motivation for them to get off the dole and onto a real job where they can improve their situation....and for some of those that have been chronically dependent.......develop a work ethic and some self pride.

4. Why hasn't there been a "revolt" yet? I hope that there never is. I hope that our business community comes to their senses and realizes that a broke, underemployed American citizenry that can't afford to live in their own country is not only bad for everyone, but invites just what you speak of....Marxism, revolution, and this beloved country going down a path.that we don't want to go.....in short, I'm not so sure that things like "occupy" aren't the rumblings of that revolution. As more and more get disaffected, don't be surprised if it does happen....and may God help us if it does.

You see, the "1%" have to use their heads too. Unabashed greed can easily become their downfall. The middle class became the buffer zone that kept the wealthy from being overrun.....That middle class is shrinking dramatically and soon may not have the power and influence to be that buffer much longer.....because not too long ago, the American Dream wasn't to be crazy wealthy.....it was to own a home with a white picket fence, hold down a good job and raise your 2.5 kids, giving them a better life than you had, then to retire with dignity and perhaps do a little traveling before you get too old and feeble.

In other words.....it was ATTAINABLE.....even reasonable.....That's what kept the proletarian revolution at bay.....not so much anymore, huh?

 

[oldfart]

But this is a perversion of the academic system. Advocacy perverts the concept of imparting knowledge. Too many institutions are more interested in indoctrination than education. I have no tolerance for such perversions of academia. I teach an introduction to economics course at a private university. I say absolutely nothing about my political views to students. I provided them the facts (and this is introductory, so ANOVA, NPV, FV, annuity calculations, etc. are more the subject) and let them decide what the political ramifications are. If asked who I admire, I'll point to Rothbard, Hayek, Von Mises, etc. - but I don't bring this up in class.

First, you hav my curiosity piqued. What introductory economics course were you teaching? It sounds more like a finane course than a traditional microeconomics or macroeconomics course.

I agree that economics (and for that matter history or any other academic discipline) hould not be used as political indoctination; I am not so sure that advocacy is inconsistent with learning. In most of the classes I have taught, I advocate for those principals and positions I think are the foundation for thinking about the subject. Not everyone has to agree with Ricardian economics, but at some point in an economist's career he or she needs to understand it. Advocacy can also be a learning tool in the classroom allowing students to take their best shots pro or con on a concept.

There is a difference between economics and political economy, and I think it is a good idea to expose students to both.

 

[regent]

My first college class and the instructor used the Socratic method. For most of the term I was completely baffeled, but I prepared for that class, as for no other. By the term's end I hoped I could hold my own, but who knows. I still use brother Socrates but am careful not to agitate too much. That method does not lend itself to the boards or letters to the editor, but is great for some subjects and I think the learning is like no other. I thought of that class as I read of Ryan's walking out of the interview, that's another method, the Ryan method.

 

[Uncensored2008]

ok....I don't do the multiple quote thing....so I'll address your response by number on points we disagree.....

We all have our own style.

1. The thing you don't understand is that the employer has most of the negotiating power.....

Why?

How could a farmer with crops in the field ready to spoil have more negotiating power than the picker?

especially with the crony capitalist system we have in the global economy.

"Crony capitalism" is a feature of government. Ayn Rand spoke of these as the "looters," those who use pull rather than production to succeed. When we look at the "too big to fail" banks, this is a perfect example. They cannot develop into what they are without the government putting them in a favored position.

With all the outsourcing that our companies have done, our economy is left with crappy jobs.....that puts potential employees in a position where it's accept that shitty wage or go on welfare....it's not a voluntary trade....it's take it or leave it.

Nonsense.

Too many think that employment is an entitlement, that others owe you a job because, well, just because. But reality is that in a free society, you are selling yourself, your talents, and if you have no talent, then just your time.

Even skilled people can't find a decent job, because there's someone in China with lesser skills, but can be trained to do the production part of the job that will work for $.75/hour. That's not an honest, voluntary negotiation, because not one person in this country can afford to accept that as a wage....hell, in this country....one can't hardly raise a family on TWO minimum wage incomes.

Again, what you post here is populist pablum, with almost no substance. This is a debate on Marx, and the economic underpinnings of outsourcing stray too far from the subject, but briefly, outsourcing is rarely done because of labor costs. If you are unhappy that the iTurd is made in China, talk to the EPA.

2. This continuous struggle between labor needing a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and management trying to make as much money as humanly possible is the very reason how unions came about.

Each person is a free trader, selling their time and talent. Each must negotiate the best deal they can get, every day. A "fair days pay" is merely the honest agreement between buyer and seller.

Unions are the natural offset to corporations. Both are merely collectives of respective buyers and sellers. There is nothing "wrong" with unions, no more than there is with corporations. They are two sides of the same coin. But just as a monopoly in a corporation is harmful, so is a monopoly in unions. The AFL/CIO is a much more destructive monopoly than Standard Oil ever was, and should not be tolerated.

The employer got way too much leverage and the employee had to survive on less and less....only to be met with apathy by management.....only through organizing and entering into negotiations in a United front gave the employee enough leverage to improve their lot in life......and a funny thing happened. The country grew by leaps and bounds....the wealthy STAYED wealthy.....simply because their employees could afford luxuries that previously they could not....orders boomed, sales boomed, and employment boomed because of it.....Labor and management both benefited because they fed off of each other.......UNTIL.....and I remember this, even though I was young....the OPEC oil embargo. We were no where near prepared for that crisis and it crippled our economy....Where unions made their biggest mistake was to stand firm on their demands when things were falling apart for their counterparts in the business world.....and they never got a chance to learn from their mistake because shortly after that, Reagan came along with the beginning of our modern day crony capitalism, called trickle down economics. Government gives business breaks....they(theoretically) take advantage of those breaks and pass it down to their employees and ultimately, the consumer. So....while I understand your personal disdain for unions....your synopsis of them is not necessarily accurate.

I don't have a personal disdain for unions, I have a disdain for corruption and monopolies. Unions are a normal part of a capitalist economy. Our issue is that unions have been subverted by organized crime and are generally criminal elements.

3. Just because the "revolt" hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. Obama's election alone could have been an opening salvo. Fortunately for us.....Obama isn't nearly the Marxist that FOX makes him out to be.....You see, I don't believe in a Communist society....I'm not a "Marxist".

I've never heard Fox News claim Obama is a Marxist. While I mostly started this thread to force JakeStarky to debate honestly or be shamed, I think this discussion has merit on it's own. The ideals of Marx are generally understood, I've not seen anyone here disagree with the definition of dialectic materialism, the process of dictatorship of the proletarians and establishment of a classless state that fades into pure communism.

Given this as a definition, Obama is not a Marxist. While Obama favors authoritarian government which controls business, his economic model is that of Mussolini, not Marx. Favored pseudo-private business that follows production goals set by the state.

I'll admit to SOME.....as in limited....Socialist leanings...like the areas of Health Care, and our own Social Security system....but as far as welfare for people that could, but don't work?

Marx was not an advocate of welfare, the concept that one would take from the system without contributing is contrary to the goals of the Marxist society. Lenin called these "worthless eaters" and shot them.

Welfare is a concept only found in Western economies. Communist nations have forced labor camps for those who cannot find a job.

Nope....IMO, if they want their benefits(as is)....they would have to put 40 hours/week laboring on public works projects. The minimalist lifestyle that welfare benefits provides should be plenty of motivation for them to get off the dole and onto a real job where they can improve their situation....and for some of those that have been chronically dependent.......develop a work ethic and some self pride.

Then your views are right in line with Marx, Lenin, and Pol Pot - save that the former would push a 120 hour week.

4. Why hasn't there been a "revolt" yet? I hope that there never is. I hope that our business community comes to their senses and realizes that a broke, underemployed American citizenry that can't afford to live in their own country is not only bad for everyone, but invites just what you speak of....Marxism, revolution, and this beloved country going down a path.that we don't want to go.....in short, I'm not so sure that things like "occupy" aren't the rumblings of that revolution. As more and more get disaffected, don't be surprised if it does happen....and may God help us if it does.

Our society is crumbling, and we all know it. I see collapse, rather than revolution as the likely outcome. We have the well connected stealing everything that isn't tied down while the ship sinks. Obama and his ilk do nothing to strengthen the nation, rather they fill their own pockets with the other looters.

You see, the "1%" have to use their heads too. Unabashed greed can easily become their downfall. The middle class became the buffer zone that kept the wealthy from being overrun.....That middle class is shrinking dramatically and soon may not have the power and influence to be that buffer much longer.....

A middle class is unique to capitalism. As capitalism is routed, then the unique middle vanishes. Socialism provides for an elite ruling class, essentially an Aristocracy. Then a bureaucrat class of government apparatchiks. These are the corrupt public unions and the hoards of government employed drones who have overrun the nation. And then the peasants. There is no room for a middle class; an obedient and subservient apparatchik class supplants the free middle class.

because not too long ago, the American Dream wasn't to be crazy wealthy.....it was to own a home with a white picket fence, hold down a good job and raise your 2.5 kids, giving them a better life than you had, then to retire with dignity and perhaps do a little traveling before you get too old and feeble.

Expect government housing as the model, followed by a government retirement home.

In other words.....it was ATTAINABLE.....even reasonable.....That's what kept the proletarian revolution at bay.....not so much anymore, huh?

What was "attainable and reasonable?"

Do you honestly think that people in the 50's and 60's enjoyed a higher standard of living?

Really?

 

[Uncensored2008]

First, you hav my curiosity piqued. What introductory economics course were you teaching? It sounds more like a finane course than a traditional microeconomics or macroeconomics course.

I facilitate for the largest private university system in the world. We use 100% working professionals to teach.

Finance and micro-economics are inseparable. Those who cannot calculate the net present value of an annuity or the future value of a bond will be incapable of engaging in an investment.

This course, econ-301, touches on many areas. What I find most students struggle with is understanding and calculating value. But we do explain fiat currency, how the Fed works, Treasury bonds and float, et al.

I agree that economics (and for that matter history or any other academic discipline) hould not be used as political indoctination; I am not so sure that advocacy is inconsistent with learning.

If I look at a course my son took for the International Baccalaureate Program, where they used Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the United States" as a text, I cannot see that any education was provided, it was purely indoctrination based on fabricated text.

In most of the classes I have taught, I advocate for those principals and positions I think are the foundation for thinking about the subject. Not everyone has to agree with Ricardian economics, but at some point in an economist's career he or she needs to understand it.

I understand your point, and in advanced economic courses, the examination of various models is appropriate.

Advocacy can also be a learning tool in the classroom allowing students to take their best shots pro or con on a concept.

The key is letting the students debate pro and con. Once the instructor takes a position, then that has a stamp of authority. The instructor should provide the facts, and allow then facilitate discussion based on those facts. Conclusions must be left to the student.

There is a difference between economics and political economy, and I think it is a good idea to expose students to both.

Exposure and indoctrination are different concepts. Exposure to both Hayek and Keynes is vital to a well rounded understanding of macro-economics. But if one turns into Paul Krugman in classroom, then learning is supplanted by indoctrination.

 

[Some Guy]

A middle class is unique to capitalism. As capitalism is routed, then the unique middle vanishes. Socialism provides for an elite ruling class, essentially an Aristocracy. Then a bureaucrat class of government apparatchiks. These are the corrupt public unions and the hoards of government employed drones who have overrun the nation. And then the peasants. There is no room for a middle class; an obedient and subservient apparatchik class supplants the free middle class.

If i'm following everything correctly, in response to the decline of the American middle class, you would argue that favoritism being shown to both corporations and unions by various factions of governmentis bastardizing the system and moving it more toward the Aristocracy vs. the Proletariat?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If i'm following everything correctly, in response to the decline of the American middle class, you would argue that favoritism being shown to both corporations and unions by various factions of governmentis bastardizing the system and moving it more toward the Aristocracy vs. the Proletariat?

I think that is very well stated. The only area where I don't agree is with "versus." The system is moving us toward a permanent Aristocracy of government elites, and a vast proletarian class of disposable peasants, with the apparatchiks enforcing the will of the elite on the proletariat.

 

[Freemason9]

This is the problem with capitalism:

Eventually, it leads to ONE company. Due to "competitive advantages" through purchased political influence, economies of scale, and lack of regulation (achieved, again, through political influence), larger companies will always dominate smaller ones. And they will continue to seek to increase their power, profit, and influence. They do this by eliminating (engulfing) smaller companies.

How many automobile companies existed 50 years ago in the U.S.? How many exist today?

How many companies control the operating systems for computers today? How many existed 35 years ago?

How many companies control petroleum distribution today? How many oil companies were there 70 years ago?

Get it yet?

Once all business has been consolidated into one giant corporation (call it the U.S. Government, since that will be its main tool), you can bet you will officially become a serf.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is the problem with capitalism:

Eventually, it leads to ONE company.

You know nothing of capitalism.

Due to "competitive advantages" through purchased political influence, economies of scale, and lack of regulation (achieved, again, through political influence), larger companies will always dominate smaller ones.

So, political corruption rather than capitalism is the issue, one which you would solve through greater political control?

And they will continue to seek to increase their power, profit, and influence. They do this by eliminating (engulfing) smaller companies.

Where did Facebook come from? MySpace was a much larger and established company, how is it possible that the smaller one was not engulfed and eliminated?

I mean, it isn't possible that they simply had a better product and market forces led them to success, is it?

How many automobile companies existed 50 years ago in the U.S.? How many exist today?

In 1962?

There were four automobile companies making cars in the USA. Ford, General Motors, American Motor Company (AMC), and Chrysler.

Today, there are 7.

AMC was bought by Chrysler.

Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, and Nissan.

What was your point?

How many companies control the operating systems for computers today? How many existed 35 years ago?

What do you mean "control?"

IBM has AIX and the awful OS400. Novel is still trucking with Suse, HP has UX-1, there are 30,000 Nix flavors, (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Mint) Then the BSD systems, Free and PC BSD, Mac OSX. Then there is Windows.

The most prevalent OS in the world is NOT Windows, it's Android. The most closed and proprietary system is not Windows, it's IOS.

Did you have a point?

How many companies control petroleum distribution today? How many oil companies were there 70 years ago?

Get it yet?

That you don't really know what you're talking about?

Yes, I get it.

Once all business has been consolidated into one giant corporation (call it the U.S. Government, since that will be its main tool), you can bet you will officially become a serf.

Of course.

On the other hand, should we get government out of business, then supply, demand, and competition will take care of the issues you fear.

 

[Freemason9]

You know nothing of capitalism.

Which is apparently more than you.

So, political corruption rather than capitalism is the issue, one which you would solve through greater political control?

This isn't all that complex. Even you, as ideologically entrenched as you are, should be able to understand it. Today, as has happened for many decades, the political system is largely owned by capitalists; capitalism enables (and even encourages) political corruption. Capitalists buy politicians (now, with the full approval of the US Supreme Court).

I mean, it isn't possible that they simply had a better product and market forces led them to success, is it?

Are you dense, or what? This does nothing to deny my contention that big companies will engulf small ones. The reasons this might happen are immaterial; companies that control the most stuff will, of course, be able to offer the better products at lower prices through economies of scale (and political corruption).

There were four automobile companies making cars in the USA. Ford, General Motors, American Motor Company (AMC), and Chrysler.

WRONG. Do some research.

What do you mean "control?"

I mean elimination of competitors. Thank you for citing examples.

On the other hand, should we get government out of business, then supply, demand, and competition will take care of the issues you fear.

When you "get government out of business," business gets in government. That's my point. Corruption ensues, because profitability always trumps ethics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Freemason; this is the clean debate zone. I realize that you seek to engage in ad hom, but this is not the place.

IF you can come up with facts or evidence, I will consider them, else you will be ignored.