quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Do you know the meaning of "zero sum games"?

quote:



No.  You stated what you believe.  I identified it. 

quote:



Your fallacious redefinition of what "Marxism" is from a historical perspective - in order to make the claim that "Marxism hasn't been proven false, because it has never really, truly been tried" - is another example of your convoluted reasoning and painful attempt at avoidance of historical fact.

quote:



I believe (and this is simply a guess, because you are never quite clear enough to make it anything else) that you are attempting to say that somehow, since there has never been an "ideal democracy", that this validates your belief that there has never been an "ideal" Marxist society either. and that this allows you to stand on your claim that Marxism hasn't been pretty much disproven.

I'm not sure that follows.

quote:



Another big hole, and the second of the two legs of my theory of human society that I've mentioned several times, but which you have ignored.

quote:



Your accepted belief that Marxist theory hasn't worked because it was tried in agrarian societies is an explanation that has been proposed many years ago, by many other Marxist apologist (and, make no mistake, that is exactly what you are).

So, tell me ... why have only agrarian societies attempted Marxist theories?  Oh, wait, let me see if I can anticipate your response:

1.  The big bad, evil US of A has used it military and economic power to suppress it in non-agrarian societies and
2.  The big, bad capitalist in the world have actively worked against it.

Well .. the problem I have with this, is within Marx's own theories.  Does not his "scientific" theory posit that a class stuggle is inevitable, between the capital owning class and the workers?  And that capitalism must result in the revolution of the proleteriat?  And that from this, will arise the dictatorship of the proletariat, and once the means of production are in their hands, that the state will wither away, and people will then live in a "true" and peaceful democracy?

Has this happened?  No.

But ... but .... Marx said it must!

Oh, wait ... those crafty capitalist ... they have deceived the workers ... they have made accomodations and suborned many workers who then "work against their class" ....

Doesn't it just seem, from a purely Gordian's knot perspective that you are piling up excuse after excuse and rationalization after rationalization?

Because, if Marxism is "true", none of this should matter, should it?

But, if it does matter, this means that Marxism is - at the least - incomplete.

So, who should complete it?  Lenin?  Stalin?  Mao?  Trotsky? Castro?  You?

So, there you have it.  Either Marxism is correct as written, and all your excuses about why it hasn't happened are specious and false or Marxism is incomplete and has flaws, and must be adjusted to fit reality.

If you accept it has flaws ... what are those flaws?  I've asked you and others that question repeatedly, with no response.  Just further affirmations that "Marx is helpful" or "You don't understand Marx" or "I'm taking the good parts of Marx" without an explanation of what aren't "the good parts".

Because, if you are unwilling, or unable to identify and define where Marxist theory has problems, the only conclusion I can reach is that - to you and others who advance Marxist theory as having some scientific or societal worth - are in reality "true believers".  You hold Marxism as a belief system, as an ideology divorced from the facts, almost as a religion with Marx as your prophet.

Which means that a dispassionate, logical, scientific and historical debate with you is impossible.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The idea that Marx was wrong is, as juliaoceania stated, logically flawed and a throw-away gesture at what he wrote about.   In the same sense that calling Freud wrong would be.  What these two men provided to the study of the subject matter they were writing about cannot be adequately measured in terms of right and wrong.

Again, you say that Marx isn't wrong!

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I would recommend a book called Guns Germs and Steel. It takes an interesting look at the history of planet Earth to explain why some have so much and others have so little.

I do not think that the materialism is the end all be all, but I do not believe in ideational arguments to explain why things are the way they are either. I think that both impact and influence, but often the material facts of existence will outweigh what we are thinking...

Speaking in absolutes is a very bad idea... but at the same time one can see trends....Like I said, if you get a chance read Guns Germs and Steel.. it is an excellent book.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Marx says nothing about equality of wealth, he talks about social justice and freedom from the oppression of capital. You just have to read a few of his famous quotes to see he is too intelligent to come up with simplistic nonsense, which tend to be words put in his mouth by capitalists.

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”

“Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.”

“Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex”

“We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass.”

“Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.”

“The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.”

“The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.”

“Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society”

“I am not a Marxist.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

meatcleaver:
Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he will spend the rest of his life in a row boat with a six pack.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Marx says nothing about equality of wealth, he talks about social justice and freedom from the oppression of capital. You just have to read a few of his famous quotes to see he is too intelligent to come up with simplistic nonsense, which tend to be words put in his mouth by capitalists.

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”

“Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.”

“Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex”

“We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass.”

“Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.”

“The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.”

“The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.”

“Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society”

“I am not a Marxist.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Karl Marx wrote a number of books and presented a number of theories based around an idea that all political strivings are economically determined.  His theories stated that one class of people would amass capital and keep it away from the other classes, and that social upheaval was inevitable because of this.

Communism is a political system wherein the capital in a country is wrested away from the ones who hold it, and redistributed among all the citizens of the country.

The four examples I gave about Communist countries were:

Russia: 

China: 

North Vietnam: 

Kampuchea: 

These are all examples of the first couple of phases of Communism, not Marxism, but the step where the wealth goes back out into the "proletariat," which would be where Communism and Marxism meet up, never happened.

To summarize, none of these 4 countries were Communist, even if they called themselves Communist. 

So my question to you would be "what is it about the theories of Karl Marx that you find so offensive?"  He stated a political / economic theory.  Are you upset with Einstein because he developed theories which allowed other people to develop nuclear weapons?

Sinergy

hmmm, well Synergy, I'll admit I have studied Marx, along with a lot of other philosophy and political things in my life.   I won't admit to being terribly current, nor interested in Marxism or Communism anymore as it has been so throughly discredited in the real world for several years now (except in certain institutions of higher learning, apparently).

Maybe I'll have to go and bone up on it again.

What struck me about your defense of it, was the close, reverse analogy that I've heard from other Marxist leaning people.  I'll assume you fit this mold, but am open to information that you do not.

This analogy is one with Christianity.  So many people (especially Marxists) have this thing about Christianity, about how it causes and has caused such terrible atrocities in the world.  Many Christian apologists then take the line of reasoning that all the tyranny and blood shed "in the name of Christ" is the result of the simple human failure to act of the true intent of Christianity.

It doesn't seem to lessen the animosity and venom towards Christianity though, and I've rarely seen a pro-Marxist, anti-Christian accept this line of reasoning.

You seem to be making a similar defense of Marxism: that it's a good idea, just that people have never actually been able to express the ideals in reality, and therefore the basis of Marxism is something that should still be honored and respected, and looked into as having important answers to the problems of the world.

This is very interesting to me, because it's the first time I've ever seen that sort of argument get made in defense of Marxism.  I'd be interested if my analysis of your point is accurate.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Sinergy,

What you say, or mean, from post to post is anyone's guess. 

Perhaps if you spent less time focusing on your sarcastic attitude, it might make what you are saying otherwise clearer.

Just me, could be wrong, etc, etc, etc.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, if he wasn't satisfied with his own work, and was making adjustments and changes up until his death, it speaks volumes to me about people who resist accepting the fact that Marxist thought isn't the "last word" and without error.

Marx would've had a ball, having a discussion like I wish we could have here.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, if he wasn't satisfied with his own work, and was making adjustments and changes up until his death, it speaks volumes to me about people who resist accepting the fact that Marxist thought isn't the "last word" and without error.

Marx would've had a ball, having a discussion like I wish we could have here.

FirmKY

An intellectual stops thinking when he dies and not before. It would be absurd to expect a man who has spent his life thinking, to think he had thought of everything. As the saying goes, the more you know the more you realise you don't know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmKY:
I do not know how to pluck out paragraphs from a post so I can respond.  I would appreciate any help offered.  This is in regard to your statement that Marxist theory has been discredeted everyplace except the institutions of higher learning.
Is your meaning here that the colleges and universities have it right and the rest of the world has it wrong?  Or if it is the other way round where colleges and universities are stupid and ignorant of reality and thus irrelevant?

thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: BuxomGoddess321

For the past 20 years, I have been deeply involved in two very different activities.  Social work and Accounting.  I have been a group home counselor, a foster mother and a business owner/Accountant.  I have watched children grow up, seeing their bio families live off of taxpayers money, getting high all day, hanging out at the beach, watching Oprah and Jerry Springer, because they "suffer" from the illness of "addiction" or have drank themselves half to death, or have some other self inflicted problem.  Some of these women have given birth to 11 addicted babies, and have no remorse of it. This is typical.  Ask any foster parent or social worker. They get free attorneys, free housing, free food, free therapy, free educations, free job training, free transportation, free medical care, free everything.  I keep tabs on these families, and none have changed their ways despite all the thousands of dollars pumped into them.  I have kept these kids in my home after they turned 18 to try and get them through college at my expense.  They are not interested.  They see the way I "work (my) ass off" and frankly tell me that the way their bio parents live looks a lot more cush.  

All the corporations I have worked for are owned by hard working actively involved people, with fewer then 3 partners and not publicly held.  They employ people.  They pay taxes.  They also support the people here illegally who are flooding the emergency rooms that do not pay for their own health care.  They provide health care to their employees.  I have doctors as clients, and thier malpractice insurance is $85,000 a year.  They deserve to get paid for all those years they were in school learning to take care of you.
Med school is only 2 years long.  They went to college to get an education so they could make money.  Since doctors can incorporate it would appear to me that except where a hospital or clinic requires it they could function without malpractice insurance...if there is a judgement against them they just file bankruptcy on the corporation and start over again...yeah I have worked for corporations who did this on a fairly regular bassis (4 times in 10 years).


Some doctors I know are going into other businesses they are so sick of it.  I've been looking for a bookkeeper for over a year, but 75% of the people I schedule for an interview don't even bother to show up. 
If 75% don't show up how does that imply that welfare people are lazy.  Do you only advertise at the welfare department.

Hand outs make people lazy and addicted.  Every family I know who has been in the system, their kids stay in the system as adults.  They think it is okay to take money from hard working people.
Sounds like Donald Trumph or Bill Gates



There needs to be an incentive to get off your ass and work.  Their self esteem is low.  They do poorly in relationships and school.  They are depressed.  They get on drugs.  No matter what kind of good role models you show them, they have already learned they can suck off the system and be lazy and its easier then hard work.

I was very liberal, a bleeding heart when I started doing this.  A Corporation, even a mom and pop one, pays the highest tax rates in the nation.  A self employed person pays almost 16% just in Social Security taxes. An owner of a Corpoation does the same thru double taxation as a business, then again as an individual.
A self employed person does not pay any more in social security tax than someone who works for wages.  The difference is that half of it is taken out of their pay before they get it...the entire amount of social security tax submitted to the government is part of their compensation for their labor not a gift from their employer. 
 
 Double taxation indeed...a corporation is taxed because it earned money.  The individual who receives either dividends from the corporation or a wage pays taxes on those.

Only charities are more scrutinized than Corporations when it comes to bookeeping.  Social Security is what pays these "disabled" people, and it is running out.
You seem to be lumping those on welfare with those on social security.  It is my understanding that social security is an insurance policy that we all pay into and when we meet certain criteria we can collect on that insurance policy.

The money IS redistributed, and its wrong.  Half of what I earn is taken away.  Like my foster kids said, why should I work my ass off?  I should just get high all day and watch TV.  I have a client with a Tattoo and Piercing shop in an area with a lot of people on public assistance.  He is packed on the first of the month when everyone gets their checks for their so called "neediness".  Your tax dollars hard at work.  The incentive is to be a loser.  We need to let people keep more of what they earn so they can give jobs to those willing to work.
I do not know of anyone who has been given a job but I know many who work for a living.  An employer hires a person to do a job so the employer can make money.  You are not doing me a favor to "give" me a job...the laboror is the one who is doing you a favor by doing what you cannot do yourself.



Most of my clients are hiring, and they cannot find people.  Everybody wants something for nothing.
You are right "everyone wants something for nothing" and that includes your clients who wont pay for what they want...let me guess they want a skilled auto mechanic for $10 an hour...a good mechanic gets $65 an hour and an exellent mechanic gets over $200 per hour.
we outlawed slavery over a hundred years ago and corporate amerika wants to bring it back.



I do not know where all these people came from who feel so entitled to live off my hard earned money.  I struggle financially.  Someone with a job or a Corporation is not "wealthy";  they are, in my 20 years of doing business, honest and hard working. 
I am assuming that you are leaving the likes of Ken Lay & assoc. off of that list of honest hard working not wealthy people who are corporate leaders.


It is the people the so called "wealth" is being redistributed to that are the problem.
How about we deport all the american citizens who are on welfare...of course we would have to outsource our military if we did that.  Perhaps we could hire the Iranians to fight the Iraquies.

Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.  Not a damn genie in a bottle.  Its not good for us, its not good for them, either.
Feeding the hungry and caring for the sick housing the homeless is not good for them they will just get used to it and want a free meal and a place to flop tomorrow.

They would be better people, better parents, forced to face their issues if they had to get up and earn their keep.  Its not about Materialism.  Its about taking responsibility and pride in yourself.  There is nothing wrong with paying for health care.  Doctors deserve to be paid, and paid well.
Why?  Do they get more hungry than the poor Do they get colder than the poor when they have no shelter? 

If people had ANY idea who all these so called desperate, needy people really are they wouldn't be so quick to run to their aid and enable them to create yet another generation of vampires.
If you had any idea who all the so called desperate,needy people really are then you might not be so quick to denigrate them because of the actions of some who should not be on welfare. But if you took all the money that was spent on welfare for the poor you would not begin to come close to the welfare that goes to  the richest 1% of our population.

Love to hear about theories, its interesting reading.  I deal in reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmKY:
I do not know how to pluck out paragraphs from a post so I can respond.  I would appreciate any help offered.  This is in regard to your statement that Marxist theory has been discredeted everyplace except the institutions of higher learning.
Is your meaning here that the colleges and universities have it right and the rest of the world has it wrong?  Or if it is the other way round where colleges and universities are stupid and ignorant of reality and thus irrelevant?

thompson

thompson, if you wish to have a calm and rationale debate, that's one thing, and I'll engage.

If you simply wish to throw rhetoric around and attempt to bait me, I have no desire to waste my time.

FirmKY

[/quote

FirmKY:
I have only ask you for clarification of one of your statements.
I discuss I do not debate and I do not bait.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmKY:

I do not know how to pluck out paragraphs from a post so I can respond.  I would appreciate any help offered.  This is in regard to your statement that Marxist theory has been discredited every place except the institutions of higher learning.

Is your meaning here that the colleges and universities have it right and the rest of the world has it wrong?  Or if it is the other way round where colleges and universities are stupid and ignorant of reality and thus irrelevant?

thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmKY

thompson, if you wish to have a calm and rationale debate, that's one thing, and I'll engage.

If you simply wish to throw rhetoric around and attempt to bait me, I have no desire to waste my time.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FirmKY:

I have only ask you for clarification of one of your statements.

I discuss I do not debate and I do not bait.

thompson

your statement that Marxist theory has been discredited every place except the institutions of higher learning.

Or if it is the other way round where colleges and universities are stupid and ignorant of reality and thus irrelevant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firmhandky

This is quoted text.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firmhandky

This is the nested quoted text.

This is the primary quoted text, commenting on the nested line above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Karl Marx wrote a number of books and presented a number of theories based around an idea that all political strivings are economically determined.  His theories stated that one class of people would amass capital and keep it away from the other classes, and that social upheaval was inevitable because of this.

Communism is a political system wherein the capital in a country is wrested away from the ones who hold it, and redistributed among all the citizens of the country.

The four examples I gave about Communist countries were:

Russia: 

China: 

North Vietnam: 

Kampuchea: 

These are all examples of the first couple of phases of Communism, not Marxism, but the step where the wealth goes back out into the "proletariat," which would be where Communism and Marxism meet up, never happened.

To summarize, none of these 4 countries were Communist, even if they called themselves Communist. 

So my question to you would be "what is it about the theories of Karl Marx that you find so offensive?"  He stated a political / economic theory.  Are you upset with Einstein because he developed theories which allowed other people to develop nuclear weapons?

Sinergy

hmmm, well Synergy, I'll admit I have studied Marx, along with a lot of other philosophy and political things in my life.   I won't admit to being terribly current, nor interested in Marxism or Communism anymore as it has been so throughly discredited in the real world for several years now (except in certain institutions of higher learning, apparently).

this is the quote that I had asked you to clarify.
thompson
 
 
 

Maybe I'll have to go and bone up on it again.

What struck me about your defense of it, was the close, reverse analogy that I've heard from other Marxist leaning people.  I'll assume you fit this mold, but am open to information that you do not.

This analogy is one with Christianity.  So many people (especially Marxists) have this thing about Christianity, about how it causes and has caused such terrible atrocities in the world.  Many Christian apologists then take the line of reasoning that all the tyranny and blood shed "in the name of Christ" is the result of the simple human failure to act of the true intent of Christianity.

It doesn't seem to lessen the animosity and venom towards Christianity though, and I've rarely seen a pro-Marxist, anti-Christian accept this line of reasoning.

You seem to be making a similar defense of Marxism: that it's a good idea, just that people have never actually been able to express the ideals in reality, and therefore the basis of Marxism is something that should still be honored and respected, and looked into as having important answers to the problems of the world.

This is very interesting to me, because it's the first time I've ever seen that sort of argument get made in defense of Marxism.  I'd be interested if my analysis of your point is accurate.

FirmKY