What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
373
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
The soviets and national socialists turned the Marxist economy into a very successful holocaust on everyone who ever owned anything.

But Marx didn't go like that. Marx said only, that forcing extra labor out of people creates profits and poverty, plus replacing all labor with machines is a necessity. Then Marx said that the essence of humans is their labor as it defines them.

So now, that we have almost completed the above requirement of eliminating all labor, how do we define a new essence of being human?

Discuss.
 

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,761
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
You do know there's a difference between an mixed economy and an marxist one? right???

jeezz

Marxist nations trend to be dictatorships or very controlling of their political process. You will see (or seen) this in Cuba or the USSR. What might come as a shock to you is "social democracies" or mixed economy states trend to very democratic and many of them are far more freer politically then the Untied states offering in some cases half a dozen choices for their voters. Some examples of this is Sweden, France, Germany, etc....

Another difference is the marxist state micromanages everything and control production outright...There is little or no capitalism or private sector in these states at least not the kind that a person can freely create ideas without government signing off on it...Can you please point out what state that is considered first world does this? You can't. But you will find that every single one of them have governments regulating their economies(standards and rules) and promoting human rights, workers standards and investing in their own societies....Governments purpose within an mixed economy doesn't control the production as it is true it doesn't do a very good job at it, but instead acts as moderator which makes it work far better for everyone then a pure capitalist society would.

Dude, we wouldn't do away with labor or the private sector...Has Sweden, Germany, Japan, South Korea or any number of mixed economies that you're attempted to call marxist societies. lol. Fuck no.

Learn the difference...
 
Last edited:
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
373
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
You do know there's a difference between an mixed economy and an marxist one? right???

jeezz

Marxist nations trend to be dictatorships or very controlling of their political process. You will see (or seen) this in Cuba or the USSR. What might come as a shock to you is "social democracies" or mixed economy states trend to very democratic and many of them are far more freer politically then the Untied states offering in some cases half a dozen choices for their voters. Some examples of this is Sweden, France, Germany, etc....

Another difference is the marxist state micromanages everything and control production outright...There is little or no capitalism or private sector in these states at least not the kind that a person can freely create ideas without government signing off on it...Can you please point out what state that is considered first world does this? You can't. But you will find that every single one of them have governments regulating their economies(standards and rules) and promoting human rights, workers standards and investing in their own societies....Governments purpose within an mixed economy doesn't control the production as it is true it doesn't do a very good job at it, but instead acts as moderator which makes it work far better for everyone then a pure capitalist society would.

Dude, we wouldn't do away with labor or the private sector...Has Sweden, Germany, Japan, South Korea or any number of mixed economies that you're attempted to call marxist societies. lol. Fuck no.

Learn the difference...

Okay, here is France. It is realized here, that the mixed economic models you mention have this 21st century problem, namely that they count by human labor. On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
So now, that we have almost completed the above requirement of eliminating all labor,
.

actually 96% of Americans work so that would mean we have not eliminated almost all labor. If only 4% worked you might say that. Do you understand?
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
. On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?

we have had automation or tools for 5000 years and still 96% work so you should find a new subject. Do you understand?
 

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,238
Points
275
On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?
Karl Marx's philosophy centers on the relationship between capital and labor. Without labor he has no philosophy for you and Matthew to pervert.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
You do know there's a difference between an mixed economy and an marxist one? right???

jeezz

Marxist nations trend to be dictatorships or very controlling of their political process. You will see (or seen) this in Cuba or the USSR. What might come as a shock to you is "social democracies" or mixed economy states trend to very democratic and many of them are far more freer politically then the Untied states offering in some cases half a dozen choices for their voters. Some examples of this is Sweden, France, Germany, etc....

Another difference is the marxist state micromanages everything and control production outright...There is little or no capitalism or private sector in these states at least not the kind that a person can freely create ideas without government signing off on it...Can you please point out what state that is considered first world does this? You can't. But you will find that every single one of them have governments regulating their economies(standards and rules) and promoting human rights, workers standards and investing in their own societies....Governments purpose within an mixed economy doesn't control the production as it is true it doesn't do a very good job at it, but instead acts as moderator which makes it work far better for everyone then a pure capitalist society would.

Dude, we wouldn't do away with labor or the private sector...Has Sweden, Germany, Japan, South Korea or any number of mixed economies that you're attempted to call marxist societies. lol. Fuck no.

Learn the difference...

Okay, here is France. It is realized here, that the mixed economic models you mention have this 21st century problem, namely that they count by human labor. On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?

on account of automation??? Still insanely pretending nobody is working because of automation? Liberals tell this utterly insane line as an excuse to give people more crippling welfare and thus create more dependent voters!!
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
373
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
You do know there's a difference between an mixed economy and an marxist one? right???

jeezz

Marxist nations trend to be dictatorships or very controlling of their political process. You will see (or seen) this in Cuba or the USSR. What might come as a shock to you is "social democracies" or mixed economy states trend to very democratic and many of them are far more freer politically then the Untied states offering in some cases half a dozen choices for their voters. Some examples of this is Sweden, France, Germany, etc....

Another difference is the marxist state micromanages everything and control production outright...There is little or no capitalism or private sector in these states at least not the kind that a person can freely create ideas without government signing off on it...Can you please point out what state that is considered first world does this? You can't. But you will find that every single one of them have governments regulating their economies(standards and rules) and promoting human rights, workers standards and investing in their own societies....Governments purpose within an mixed economy doesn't control the production as it is true it doesn't do a very good job at it, but instead acts as moderator which makes it work far better for everyone then a pure capitalist society would.

Dude, we wouldn't do away with labor or the private sector...Has Sweden, Germany, Japan, South Korea or any number of mixed economies that you're attempted to call marxist societies. lol. Fuck no.

Learn the difference...

Okay, here is France. It is realized here, that the mixed economic models you mention have this 21st century problem, namely that they count by human labor. On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?

on account of automation??? Still insanely pretending nobody is working because of automation? Liberals tell this utterly insane line as an excuse to give people more crippling welfare and thus create more dependent voters!!

This is true, but the automation thing is new. With non automated production, the conveyer belt was the highest tech and you still needed people with it. After automation, i.e. In the Internet age, even the door to door salesman is replaced by spam software. This is new, and if Marx was afraid that the essence of being human is destroyed by capitalist division of labor, then now labor itself is destroyed.
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
373
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
You do know there's a difference between an mixed economy and an marxist one? right???

jeezz

Marxist nations trend to be dictatorships or very controlling of their political process. You will see (or seen) this in Cuba or the USSR. What might come as a shock to you is "social democracies" or mixed economy states trend to very democratic and many of them are far more freer politically then the Untied states offering in some cases half a dozen choices for their voters. Some examples of this is Sweden, France, Germany, etc....

Another difference is the marxist state micromanages everything and control production outright...There is little or no capitalism or private sector in these states at least not the kind that a person can freely create ideas without government signing off on it...Can you please point out what state that is considered first world does this? You can't. But you will find that every single one of them have governments regulating their economies(standards and rules) and promoting human rights, workers standards and investing in their own societies....Governments purpose within an mixed economy doesn't control the production as it is true it doesn't do a very good job at it, but instead acts as moderator which makes it work far better for everyone then a pure capitalist society would.

Dude, we wouldn't do away with labor or the private sector...Has Sweden, Germany, Japan, South Korea or any number of mixed economies that you're attempted to call marxist societies. lol. Fuck no.

Learn the difference...

Mixed economies have proven to fall behind aggressive capitalism. So I don't understand how they work. The only exception seems China.
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
373
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?
Karl Marx's philosophy centers on the relationship between capital and labor. Without labor he has no philosophy for you and Matthew to pervert.

This is exactly the challenge. How to further Marx's observational model when not only what he calls the essence of human is eliminated, but labor itself too.
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
373
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
So now, that we have almost completed the above requirement of eliminating all labor,
.

actually 96% of Americans work so that would mean we have not eliminated almost all labor. If only 4% worked you might say that. Do you understand?

No, 96% means of 100 % labor market participants. That itself is an unmeasured and unrepresented % of labor age people.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
So now, that we have almost completed the above requirement of eliminating all labor,
.

actually 96% of Americans work so that would mean we have not eliminated almost all labor. If only 4% worked you might say that. Do you understand?

No, 96% means of 100 % labor market participants. That itself is an unmeasured and unrepresented % of labor age people.
wrong, U6 measures everybody and it is about where it always has been so there is no sign that we have eliminated labor. This is kindergarten stuff!!!! Sorry to break it to you?
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
373
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
So now, that we have almost completed the above requirement of eliminating all labor,
.

actually 96% of Americans work so that would mean we have not eliminated almost all labor. If only 4% worked you might say that. Do you understand?

No, 96% means of 100 % labor market participants. That itself is an unmeasured and unrepresented % of labor age people.
wrong, U6 measures everybody and it is about where it always has been so there is no sign that we have eliminated labor. This is kindergarten stuff!!!! Sorry to break it to you?

If what you are saying is that these economic pointers are frequently manipulated in order to influence stock exchange trends, then I tend to agree.
 

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
So now, that we have almost completed the above requirement of eliminating all labor,
.

actually 96% of Americans work so that would mean we have not eliminated almost all labor. If only 4% worked you might say that. Do you understand?

No, 96% means of 100 % labor market participants. That itself is an unmeasured and unrepresented % of labor age people.
wrong, U6 measures everybody and it is about where it always has been so there is no sign that we have eliminated labor. This is kindergarten stuff!!!! Sorry to break it to you?

If what you are saying is that these economic pointers are frequently manipulated in order to influence stock exchange trends, then I tend to agree.
If the nut job liberal has evidence of that I will pay him $10,000. Bet?
 
OP
anotherlife

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,456
Reaction score
373
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
So now, that we have almost completed the above requirement of eliminating all labor,
.

actually 96% of Americans work so that would mean we have not eliminated almost all labor. If only 4% worked you might say that. Do you understand?

No, 96% means of 100 % labor market participants. That itself is an unmeasured and unrepresented % of labor age people.
wrong, U6 measures everybody and it is about where it always has been so there is no sign that we have eliminated labor. This is kindergarten stuff!!!! Sorry to break it to you?

If what you are saying is that these economic pointers are frequently manipulated in order to influence stock exchange trends, then I tend to agree.
If the nut job liberal has evidence of that I will pay him $10,000. Bet?

The very purpose of automation or even mechanization is to reduce the inefficient and unreliable human element. In Marx's time as well as now. Are you claiming that there is no automatization?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,786
Reaction score
12,736
Points
2,180
The soviets and national socialists turned the Marxist economy into a very successful holocaust on everyone who ever owned anything.

But Marx didn't go like that. Marx said only, that forcing extra labor out of people creates profits and poverty, plus replacing all labor with machines is a necessity. Then Marx said that the essence of humans is their labor as it defines them.

So now, that we have almost completed the above requirement of eliminating all labor, how do we define a new essence of being human?

Discuss.




False premise. Thread fail.
 

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,238
Points
275
On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?
Karl Marx's philosophy centers on the relationship between capital and labor. Without labor he has no philosophy for you and Matthew to pervert.

This is exactly the challenge. How to further Marx's observational model when not only what he calls the essence of human is eliminated, but labor itself too.
Where exactly did Marx say that replacing labor with machines is necessary? And where did he say that labor defined human existence?

What, then, constitutes the alienation of labor?

First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.
Estranged Labour, Marx, 1844
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
7,622
Reaction score
480
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?
Karl Marx's philosophy centers on the relationship between capital and labor. Without labor he has no philosophy for you and Matthew to pervert.

This is exactly the challenge. How to further Marx's observational model when not only what he calls the essence of human is eliminated, but labor itself too.
Bookworms Turn Into Snakes

There's no reason to take Marx seriously at all. He was a sheltered rich kid living all his life in an isolated fantasy world, whether in the Ivory Tower or in romantic poverty.
 

Tehon

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
8,938
Reaction score
1,238
Points
275
On account of automation, if you take out the human labor part, then you end up with the Marxist model, purely, don't you?
Karl Marx's philosophy centers on the relationship between capital and labor. Without labor he has no philosophy for you and Matthew to pervert.

This is exactly the challenge. How to further Marx's observational model when not only what he calls the essence of human is eliminated, but labor itself too.
Bookworms Turn Into Snakes

There's no reason to take Marx seriously at all. He was a sheltered rich kid living all his life in an isolated fantasy world, whether in the Ivory Tower or in romantic poverty.
His criticisms of capitalism remain relevant to this day.
 
Last edited:

EdwardBaiamonte

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
34,607
Reaction score
2,142
Points
1,100
actually 96% of Americans work so that would mean we have not eliminated almost all labor. If only 4% worked you might say that. Do you understand?

No, 96% means of 100 % labor market participants. That itself is an unmeasured and unrepresented % of labor age people.
wrong, U6 measures everybody and it is about where it always has been so there is no sign that we have eliminated labor. This is kindergarten stuff!!!! Sorry to break it to you?

If what you are saying is that these economic pointers are frequently manipulated in order to influence stock exchange trends, then I tend to agree.
If the nut job liberal has evidence of that I will pay him $10,000. Bet?

The very purpose of automation or even mechanization is to reduce the inefficient and unreliable human element. In Marx's time as well as now. Are you claiming that there is no automatization?
1) I guess you didn't take the bet and changed the subject because you know you lied?

2) there have been new machines invented to replace human beings every year for the last 2000 years and still 95% are employed. You need to find a new subject.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top