The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right?

The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

OrionTheWolf -> The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 3:42:57 PM)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/187119-the-fate-of-capitalism-was-marx-right " Marx argued that at capitalism would succeed in its initial stages quite well in promoting growth by means of capital investment in new technology and improved means of production. Everyone would prosper. As capitalism developed, however, he argued that capitalists would appropriate to themselves more and more of the profits or income from the economy and that laborers would come to have increasingly less. "

Sanity -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 4:04:21 PM)
Your OP is absurd and completely ridiculous on many levels... First, Marxism is succumbing to Capitalism, not the other way around. The problem Marxists keep running into is that those pesky Capitalist pigs always want to improve their lot in life, and no matter how many millions of them the Marxists manage to slaughter there are always more Capitalists willing to take that chance for a better life for themselves and their families stepping up to replace them. Further, Capitalism isnt a "system" its the natural order, which is why the rigid system of Marxism is doomed over and over again to fail. You just cant beat mother nature.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 4:14:16 PM)
Ill answer a little less combatively than Sanity...no Marx wasn't right, and it's being proven every day. [/thread]

jack8007 -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 4:37:15 PM)
quote: Marxism is succumbing to Capitalism Not true. The Chinese are doing just fine, and are indeed our most serious adversary. Yes, I regard them as crony capitalists - but it's not the economic system that is causing problems, it's the impact of political systems on economics. The Soviets failed because they were rigid authoritarians. I think the Chinese are historically alert enough to know that corruption only goes so far - they have perennial corruption scandals (just like us) but when somebody is caught there, they shoot people. Seriously. Ken Lay would have been shot, along with a few of his Enron buddies. Bernie Madoff, his wife and son would have all been shot. (Street criminals rarely think that far ahead, but multi-millionaire criminals do think ahead, and few of them like the thought of being shot.) What you mean is that free markets are good. The problem is keeping them free, and as I have pointed out, capitalists are the free market's worst enemy. We figured that out a few years after Marx, and we solved a lot of the problem with anti-trust legislation. Sure we had the Great Depression because of a stock bubble (and coinciding with the dust bowl weather problems) but we learned. Until of course the religious right whores teamed up with the greedhead whores (and her I use whore in the pejorative sense, not as I would usually) and decided that corrupting the economy and government was a good idea. Tricky Dick "I Am Not a Crook" Nixon was notable in setting modern Republican policy. Then of course came Reagan, who advocated borrow and spend would eliminate the debt, and didn't want to know arithmetic; and of course sold weapons financed thru drug sales (so much for just saying no, I guess) to terrorists, and negotiated with terrorists as a private citizen. And then we have the Evil Duo of Dick Cheney and Bush the Lesser. Where can we start? Oops, wrong country? Free market until the invisible hand turns out to be paralyzed, then the taxpayers need to pitch in to preserve investment bankers' bonuses. So whose idea was TARP? Goddamn right, it was the Republicans whoring to their base. No, they don't give a rat's ass about religion. It's money they want, because they are too stupid to see that money is a symbolic medium for barter only, and isn't useful in itself. It's social relationships that are most important, because that's how resources are manipulated. I'd love to get back to a free market. But what we see now is Marx's worst predictions of greed overwhelming capitalism. Do you really think TARP is capitalism? It's one-way socialism. The taxpayers should own Wall Street, and take them in every orifice as our compliant whores (I'm sure I could find at least 1 fetching young capitalist of the feminine persuasion). But Democrats are way too easy to get along with, and Republicans are of course all masochistic slaves who cannot imagine switching.

Sanity -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 5:02:36 PM)
Considering all the millions and millions and millions of people who have been murdered in cold blood by Marxists trying to make that failed ideology work perhaps thinking people everywhere should be even more combative than I whenever some so-and-so tries to float an outrageous lie like this. I didnt think this flavor of Kool-Aide was still available except possibly in North Korea and some parts of Cuba. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Ill answer a little less combatively than Sanity...no Marx wasn't right, and it's being proven every day. [/thread]

Politesub53 -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 5:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Further, Capitalism isnt a "system" its the natural order, which is why the rigid system of Marxism is doomed over and over again to fail. You just cant beat mother nature. Speaking of "absurd and ridiculous on many levels" dont you do history at all ? Capitalism only dates back to the 14th centuary, mother nature, it certainly isnt. Since humans have been wroking together in social groups ( socialism ) for thousands of years. For whats its worth, a rigid system of either capitalism or marxism is doomed to fail. I have often said here capitalism is needed to produce money in a modern society, but if it isnt done fairly then it is due to fail. Its also worth noting that you, the champion of capitalism, rant at unions bartering for a fair wage. This is exactly the very first form of wage clashes dating to the middle ages, a fair days work for a fair days pay. The point which most historians ( see earlier point on history) agree that capitalism was formed.

jack8007 -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 5:34:15 PM)
quote: no matter how many millions of them the Marxists manage to slaughter there are always more Capitalists willing to take that chance for a better life for themselves and their families stepping up to replace them. Further, Capitalism isnt a "system" its the natural order, which is why the rigid system of Marxism is doomed over and over again to fail. A couple points. Stalin and Mao were Marxists like Torquemada or Cortez was a Christian. Not Marx's fault that somebody bumbled into his theory as a rationalization for centralized genocide. Yeah, it's a damned handy theory for dictatorship, but so is Catholicism, and indeed, Pat Robertson's TV club. Be that as it may - communism, and marxism, are dead letters, straw men. They aren't an issue. But labor vs capital is an issue, and the way we manage our economy is an issue, and if you call what we have capitalism, I think your argument misses the point, it's sure no free market. GW Bush drove the last nails in that coffin. "Capitalism" is an ex post facto rationalization for the way we do things, 1st described methodically by Adam Smith, but you are correct, it does derive from very pragmatic and more or less universal ideas that what I make or tend is mine, as long as I can fend off the various robbers. And these days of course, the biggest robbers are in the finance industry, with due credit to their Republican whores. Pretty much like the age of the robber barons, only on steroids. The robber barons never had the chutzpah to pick the government pocket en masse.

MrRodgers -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 5:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your OP is absurd and completely ridiculous on many levels... First, Marxism is succumbing to Capitalism, not the other way around. The problem Marxists keep running into is that those pesky Capitalist pigs always want to improve their lot in life, and no matter how many millions of them the Marxists manage to slaughter there are always more Capitalists willing to take that chance for a better life for themselves and their families stepping up to replace them. Further, Capitalism isnt a "system" its the natural order, which is why the rigid system of Marxism is doomed over and over again to fail. You just cant beat mother nature. Well as for mother nature being a motivator you would be correct...it's called survival. As for capitalism, it is nothing at all. It is merely paper trading, lending an otherwise meaningless piece of paper and determining both its supply and cost (interest rate)...is arbitrary the foundation of which is the Federal reserve...the politburo of the monetary system. Thus capitalism is reduced to vacuousness, merely speculation...hot air made liquid by our $trillions in labor 'retirement' wealth...real wealth to give any value to their paper. For 100 years, capitalism has been turning their paper into our money. Marx was quite correct and our founding fathers warned us of what we are seeing now. Only his solution is in error. Simply the fulfilling (paying) to satisfy demand in a truly free market, free enterprise system, whose central difference is the recognition and protection of private property and contracting. Real reform here would have us devolve from here to a state managed with national laws only when necessary That...is where Marx is incorrect. There is no natural or practical reason for govt. to own any of the means of production...except temporarily like in times of war. (?)

Sanity -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 5:55:42 PM)
Oh bullshit. People have been buying and selling goods and services, and bartering, and bringing goods to market ever since there were villages. Socialism is more akin to fiefdoms the way it is practiced, bow ye down to your lord and master Fidel or Mao or Stalin or whoever your leftist dictator happens to be. And many modern unions are more about monopolizing labor market and bankrupting their employers or driving industry offshore (while making the fat cat union bosses wealthy) than what unions were about in their earlier days. Unions are about slimy politicians catering to them while ignoring the real needs of the voters and the citizens at large. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Speaking of "absurd and ridiculous on many levels" dont you do history at all ? Capitalism only dates back to the 14th centuary, mother nature, it certainly isnt. Since humans have been wroking together in social groups ( socialism ) for thousands of years. For whats its worth, a rigid system of either capitalism or marxism is doomed to fail. I have often said here capitalism is needed to produce money in a modern society, but if it isnt done fairly then it is due to fail. Its also worth noting that you, the champion of capitalism, rant at unions bartering for a fair wage. This is exactly the very first form of wage clashes dating to the middle ages, a fair days work for a fair days pay. The point which most historians ( see earlier point on history) agree that capitalism was formed.

jack8007 -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 6:16:49 PM)
quote: Socialism is more akin to fiefdoms the way it is practiced Capitalism grew out of medieval (and earlier) ideas of property. It only took the modern form when technology allowed significant mobile capital (especially money) to evade purely military control. Once again you are stuck in Hollywood, where you think the label is the reality.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 6:26:03 PM)
"As he shows in this inconsistent postscript, even with superior technology modern mass murderers could hardly match the achievements of barbarians, crusaders, colonialists and civil warriors. China's Taiping rebellion alone annihilated more people than the First World War. Pol Pot was responsible for two million deaths in Cambodia, but at least seven million died in King Leopold's Belgian Congo. The Second World War killed 59 million, 2.6 per cent of the world's population; Genghis Khan, who killed 37 million, reduced it by a tenth. He habitually butchered all the inhabitants of cities in his path - 1.6 million in Herat, about six times the number massacred during the Japanese "Rape of Nanking"." http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-war-of-the-world-by-niall-ferguson-480679.html Mass-murdering butchers are mass-murdering butchers, and ideology has little to do with it. In fact, prior to and during Stalin's forced collectivization of the peasants, much of the death attributed to Stalin was actually caused by ethnic and even inter-village warfare. Don't know why I'm trying to educate the ineducable.

eihwaz -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 7:24:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity First, Marxism is succumbing to Capitalism, not the other way around. First, you're confusing Marxist economic analysis with a Marxist approach to socialism. The OP refers to the former. "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson

Marini -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 8:16:55 PM)
Hell yes Marx was right! Look how great the United States used to be! Look at the last 50 years! Many in the middle class are spiraling downhill. This next generation will probably NOT do better than their parents. I hope I live to see the fall. I agree with politesub, I would love to see a blend of both socialism and capitalism. I don't think either extreme alone is best for most of society.

pyroaquatic -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 8:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Your OP is absurd and completely ridiculous on many levels... First, Marxism is succumbing to Capitalism, not the other way around. The problem Marxists keep running into is that those pesky Capitalist pigs always want to improve their lot in life, and no matter how many millions of them the Marxists manage to slaughter there are always more Capitalists willing to take that chance for a better life for themselves and their families stepping up to replace them. Further, Capitalism isnt a "system" its the natural order, which is why the rigid system of Marxism is doomed over and over again to fail. You just cant beat mother nature. By saying order you are indeed implying it is a system. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Ill answer a little less combatively than Sanity...no Marx wasn't right, and it's being proven every day. [/thread] I would wait for the pudding but I would surely starve. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity bow ye down to your lord and master Fidel or Mao or Stalin or whoever your leftist dictator happens to be. And many modern unions are more about monopolizing labor market and bankrupting their employers or driving industry offshore (while making the fat cat union bosses wealthy) than what unions were about in their earlier days. Unions are about slimy politicians catering to them while ignoring the real needs of the voters and the citizens at large. bow ye down to your lord and master the paper dollar and the metal coin. Forbid us workers and peons from forming any sort of unity to protect ourselves from being buttraped. The problem does not seem to be the union exactly... just the people the union consists of. The same could be said for these politicians, dictators, government elected officials... What is the bottom-line and how can we get more money? Oh, union membership is a tad bit pricey... let us look overseas shall we? Point the finger at an imaginary legal entity and you will get nowhere. I agree there is a problem. Look at the constituents though. ah but what do I know. Who needs logic and reason when you have power and authority.

hlen5 -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 8:33:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini .....I hope I live to see the fall........ Why?

Sanity -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 8:33:51 PM)
Thats the guy providing for his family. Marxists / socialists / communists / liberals / leftists / progressives call it greed but its not greed at all, its love of family. Its natural instinct, its survival. And you dont come by it without working your ass off, either. Making things for people, providing goods and services that others need, which that kind of effort should be rewarded while Marxism punishes that effort. quote: What is the bottom-line and how can we get more money?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 8:34:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Hell yes Marx was right! Look how great the United States used to be! Look at the last 50 years! Many in the middle class are spiraling downhill. This next generation will probably NOT do better than their parents. I hope I live to see the fall. I agree with politesub, I would love to see a blend of both socialism and capitalism. I don't think either extreme alone is best for most of society. We're seeing the Fall. We have already passed Peak Oil. Our entire civilization runs on oil. And the rightards laughed at Jimmy Carter, who was a visionary of the First Rank. If we had embarked on a conservation/alt energy program like he envisioned, we would be way better off today.

Sanity -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 8:39:48 PM)
The sun is barely rising on the nuclear age, there is all kinds of energy out there waiting to be unleashed. The tar sands and natural gas fields of North America alone hold massive reserves just waiting to be tapped, and they will be tapped. The Obamas of this world can only choke off our energy supplies for so long before the reality hits that we need energy to live.

Marini -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 8:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: Marini .....I hope I live to see the fall........ Why? Because I believe the things I type here. I don't like the way things are going, and again I would not type things I don't believe. If I say this system is not working, I believe that. Why wouldn't I hope to live to see things better?

hlen5 -> RE: The Fate of Capitalism - Was Marx Right? (3/7/2011 8:52:26 PM)
I can appreciate your desire for a change. What I read with that statement is a not a change for the better. What I read was you hope you live to see the fall of the US. If it is just a system change, never mind.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875