Response to Iwbiek

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Response to Iwbiek

iwbiek wrote:
stop with the fucking "marxist" shit. you're just like brian: you don't know jack shit about marxism yet run your mouth about it. i basically forced you to admit as much several years ago, then linked you to volume 1 of capital via the marxist internet archive to at least try to get you to educate yourself on what you keep denigrating. instead, you started trying to pick marx apart in the first couple sentences. when i explained to you why you completely misunderstood those sentences because you were ignorant of the context (not surprising, considering those couple sentences were the first bit of marx you'd ever actually read), i recall you turned tail and never responded. you disagree with leftist politics in general? fine. but it only shows your ignorance when you talk shit about a school of thought you have zero knowledge of.


I figured from your nasty tone, you didn't want to hear from me again. OK try again.

marxists.org wrote:


The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article.



I totally disagree with this statement. There is little and sometime no correlation between the value or price of a commodity and the value or cost of the labor that goes into producing a commodity. Especailly with the commodities that matter most to the poor(food, clothing and shelter). If there was this correlation, low wages would mean low prices, so the working poor wouldn't struggle.

The correct statement is 'Labor like every other commodity is subject to the law of supply and demand.' I don't get how resevere labor or necessary labor have anything to do with determining value.

Take for example the commodity of land. No labor went into producing it, no amount of labor will produce more. Same it pretty much true for other important commodities such as oil and water.

Look at the affordable housing crisis. There is pleanty of cheap labor around to build housing. We can and do import desperately poor men from Mexico to do our constuction jobs and pay them barely a subsitence wage. So why can't sufficient affordable housing be built with all this available cheap labor? Because there is no cheap land availble in the areas that need affordable housing or there is no water available for these homes once built. Same thing is true for the other essential commodities of food and clothing.

I've read Marx, I get the gist of what he is saying. Wages will always be driven down to a subsitence level so that the workers are struggling just to survive. Marx errors in blaming this on capitalists as if this is their evil intent. Sure they make massive profits off the situation of an oversupply of labor(due to overpopulation) and and undersupply of natural resourses(due to living on a small planet). But the wealth made off the cheap labor is not the cause of low wages, it is the effect. This is like blaming Swiss bankers and arm dealers for causing war. War profiteers are not the cause of war they are an effect of war. This is what irrational people always do, confuse cause and effect.

Malthus analyzed the problem of low wages, unemployment and poverty before Marx's time. He correctly identified the source of the problem as population pressure. The starvation wages that employees are paid are a type of Malthusian catastrophe that limit population growth. Minimum wage laws or making the government everyone's employer and provider does not change the stituation of labor oversupply and natural resource undersupply.

Marx blamed overpopulation, like everything else on Capitalism. Unless Marxism causes people to stop fucking, you're going to have population preesures. The only thing Marxism achieves is spreading the misery around so that everyone feels the pain of overpopulation by making everyone equal(except the party leaders of course). This is exactly what the global warming marxists want to do blame it on capitalism instead of overpopulation, then spread the misery around.

Since I read Marx, why don't you read Malthus and give us your analysis. Why did Marx dispise Malthus so much?
 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
funny ypu picked just that


funny you picked just that moment to bail several years ago. my "nastiness" had never deterred you from responding prior to that exchange.

nevertheless, i cheerfully withdraw my insult with my apologies. it seems to me you have at least read something in the intervening years. actually, most honest marxists nowadays no longer accept marx's surplus labor population theory without qualification, as we no longer live in a world of unregulated capitalism, but for 19th century manchester, etc., the problem was obviously the direct result of arbitrary wage-setting, coupled with the catholic church's (most of the workers were catholics) complete opposition to family planning of any kind. whether you consider it a "cause" or a "symptom" is ultimately semantics. if cheap workers aren't invited to manchester by robber barons, manchester won't get overpopulated. simple as that. i would like to know if you (or malthus) think overpopulation just "happens" of a necessity, or if the phenomenon can be traced in various places to various historical causes (for example, unemployed people in 19th century manchester with nothing to do but have sex while being purposefully kept in the dark about contraceptive methods).

as for malthus, i haven't the time nor the motivation to read him right now. i'm behind enough on reading for my phd. and why should i read him? unlike you and marx, i never mention malthus, never comment on his theories, and never throw around "malthusian" as a pejorative. nor am i interested in "converting" you or anyone else here to marxism.

btw, i don't recall marx writing much about land at all, but my guess is he would classify it as fixed capital rather than a commodity.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The only thing

EXC wrote:
The only thing Marxism achieves is spreading the misery around so that everyone feels the pain of overpopulation by making everyone equal(except the party leaders of course).



and where exactly does marx write about everyone being equal or having a party and party leaders? oh right, nowhere. whatever you've read, it hasn't been much. maybe i wasn't too hasty after all. who was it who actually came up with the notion of a vanguard party? hmmmm...


you see, as i keep tirelessly pointing out, the european social state, be it germany or finland or even my new home, are just as much (if not more) a part of marx's legacy as the soviet union and its offspring. the main reason why we believe the soviet union was the logical outcome of marxism is because they told us they were. they said they were the true barometer of "orthodox" marxism, and we in the west believed them. neither marx nor engels ever endorsed them (they were long dead), and those who had actually known marx and engels, like karl kautsky, thoroughly denounced them as posers and dilettantes. now, if you disagree with the european social state, fine: but don't act like the "communist" countries were the only ones who ever implemented marxism.


which of marx's works have you read, by the way? be honest. i'll extend you the same courtesy with malthus: zilch. which is why i never run my mouth about him.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: funny you

iwbiek wrote:

funny you picked just that moment to bail several years ago. my "nastiness" had never deterred you from responding prior to that exchange.

nevertheless, i cheerfully withdraw my insult with my apologies. it seems to me you have at least read something in the intervening years. actually, most honest marxists nowadays no longer accept marx's surplus labor population theory without qualification, as we no longer live in a world of unregulated capitalism, but for 19th century manchester, etc., the problem was obviously the direct result of arbitrary wage-setting, coupled with the catholic church's (most of the workers were catholics) complete opposition to family planning of any kind. whether you consider it a "cause" or a "symptom" is ultimately semantics. if cheap workers aren't invited to manchester by robber barons, manchester won't get overpopulated. simple as that. i would like to know if you (or malthus) think overpopulation just "happens" of a necessity, or if the phenomenon can be traced in various places to various historical causes (for example, unemployed people in 19th century manchester with nothing to do but have sex while being purposefully kept in the dark about contraceptive methods).

as for malthus, i haven't the time nor the motivation to read him right now. i'm behind enough on reading for my phd. and why should i read him? unlike you and marx, i never mention malthus, never comment on his theories, and never throw around "malthusian" as a pejorative. nor am i interested in "converting" you or anyone else here to marxism.

btw, i don't recall marx writing much about land at all, but my guess is he would classify it as fixed capital rather than a commodity.

WWW.MARXISTS.ORG/ARCHIVE/MARX/WORKS/1844/MANUSCRIPTS/RENT.HTM

I think this essay most effectively summarizes his thoughts on private real estate.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:
WWW.MARXISTS.ORG/ARCHIVE/MARX/WORKS/1844/MANUSCRIPTS/RENT.HTM

I think this essay most effectively summarizes his thoughts on private real estate.

 




bad link. but i'd like to see it. especially since it seems it was never published.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline

Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm, lets try again, maybe it was my tablet

Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

 

www.amazon.com/Economic-Philosophic-Manuscripts-1844-Karl-ebook/dp/B00CYN433G

It was published after his death. I found the book particularly interesting because it features several essays where Marx addresses Smith quotes directly. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13161
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The page cannot be

The page cannot be displayed. (80710a06)

Maybe it's just me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Interestingly, Smith

Interestingly, Smith basically calls Landlords welfare queens(Marx agrees). Ironic because he such a hero of conservatives. The right wing has just as many queens as left.

Smith seems to think this is OK. The free market will direct him to make most efficient use of the land. If there is an corn shortage, he'll grow corn to meet the demand. If there is a housing shortage he'll build houses on the land and rent it out. The market gets what it wants and the Landlord maximizes his profit. Win-win. I think Smith is correct when there is a close match between supply and demand.

Marx sees the Landlord's interests at odds with society at large. He seems to hint that the real problem is population growth, but then blames it all on the capitalist landlords. The population grows but the amount of land remains fixed. Land prices go up. The landlord wins big everyone else loses big time. I think Marx is correct when there is a great mismatch between supply and demand.

But does Marx ever explain how making the state(or communist party) the sole landlord alievates this problem? Why would a communist state grow more food or build more housing than private landlords?

Smith is right in that every market eventually corrects every mismatch in supply and demand. Unfortunatly, in this case of land shortage/labor oversupply it is in the form of a Malthusian castastrophe.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Interestingly,

EXC wrote:

Interestingly, Smith basically calls Landlords welfare queens(Marx agrees). Ironic because he such a hero of conservatives. The right wing has just as many queens as left.......

But does Marx ever explain how making the state(or communist party) the sole landlord alievates this problem? Why would a communist state grow more food or build more housing than private landlords?

I think most people make a mistake reading Smith and Marx of applying the political thought that was inspired by their work to them. Smith wasn't a laissez-faire capitalist, outside of France, the term was rarely used at the time and Smith never used it. There certainly was no theoretical structure until a good 40-50 years after Smith's death, thanks mostly to James Mill and his more well known son J.S. Mill.

Smith wasn't so much attempting to promote a particular branch of economic thought, as much as he was attempting to explain how the economic system of his time was working. At the time, capital expenditure on any kind of massive scale outside of direct government control was a new thing. His book wasn't political activism, it was a textbook.

Similarly, Marx was also writing about things as they were during his life. Smith had been dead for 50 years before Marx published anything and at the time, Smith was the one who wrote THE book on economics. Anyone interested in economics read that text book and so it is only natural that the students would critique it as people with 50 years more of observable history to see if things really were working as Smith suggested. I don't think Marx saw himself as an antagonist to Smith, so much as critiquing a predecessor from the vantage point of having more information. (I would almost say peer, but at the time Marx wrote this piece, I doubt he considered himself a peer, he was in his 20's and still forming his ideas, most likely he saw himself as a critical student.)

Marx did tend to get deeper into political theorizing as he was during the period in capitalist economics where the foundations for understanding were well laid by his predecessors like Smith and Ricardo. However, I am convinced that Marx saw himself as more of an economist than a political activist. Much of his commentary takes on the flavor of predicting the logical evolution of capitalism as it was rather than a political stand. IOW, what we refer to as "marxism" wasn't an ideology that opposed capitalism, he often framed it as the inevitable consequence of having a capitalist system. 

Sitting where we are today, we have very different debates. Corporations existed during Marx's time, but they were nothing like our corporations today. It really wasn't until the end of his life that the gilded age was at full steam in the US and the first mega-corporations were being built. While stock exchanges existed, they weren't nearly as large or influential as they are now. Most companies weren't public, compared to today when most corporations are public and owning a 5% stake is significant. Ideas such as welfare, social safety nets, central banking, even insurance were in their infancy and not widely implemented anywhere. It is easy for us to forget that the 150+ years of fleshing out theories, innovation, ideas and technology simply didn't exist when Smith and Marx wrote. So obviously, they are both going to be wrong about a large number of things.  

Someone who was a dedicated student of Smith or Marx might be able to make an educated guess on what they would think if they managed to live for over 200 years, but it is really the equivalent of speculating whether Alexander the Great or Napoleon would win a war if you had a time machine and set them up with armies that have identical technology. Certainly, the Marx that died in 1883 was not the same as the Marx that wrote his earliest works in the 1840's. Who knows how much more he would have changed had he survived?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Marx did

Beyond Saving wrote:
Marx did tend to get deeper into political theorizing as he was during the period in capitalist economics where the foundations for understanding were well laid by his predecessors like Smith and Ricardo. However, I am convinced that Marx saw himself as more of an economist than a political activist.



i would actually disagree with that. marx very much saw himself not only as a political activist, but as a full-fledged revolutionary (or "revolutionist," as was the preferred term in the 19th century), and engels even more so. they were both very much active in 1844, which as you probably know was the banner year for revolutions all over europe. i would say that he turned out to be an economist, despite his best ambitions.


marx frequently showed unabashed admiration for both smith and ricardo--ricardo in particular. EXC says he despised malthus. i don't recall much of that. he usually reserved most of his ire for his living, contemporary opponents, like bakunin and proudhon.


what people constantly forget (or choose to ignore) is that marx only considered capitalism "evil" because it had outlived its time, in england in particular. marx was always adamant that socialism cannot be built without the foundations laid by capitalism. it was lenin who decided that stage could be skipped.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But does Marx ever

EXC wrote:
But does Marx ever explain how making the state(or communist party) the sole landlord alievates this problem? Why would a communist state grow more food or build more housing than private landlords?



why would marx explain something he never posited to begin with? to even speak of a "communist state," to marx, would be a contradiction in terms. again, you're just taking leninism's word for it when it claims to be the only "orthodox" marxism.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13161
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:marx was always

iwbiek wrote:
marx was always adamant that socialism cannot be built without the foundations laid by capitalism

He was a smart guy. Was he aware that elements of capitalism were necessary for socialism to function?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:iwbiek

Vastet wrote:
iwbiek wrote:
marx was always adamant that socialism cannot be built without the foundations laid by capitalism

He was a smart guy. Was he aware that elements of capitalism were necessary for socialism to function?




i'm not sure i understand your question, but if you mean did he believe some amount of free trade, etc., would still be necessary for socialism to function, i'd have to say i'm not sure. marx was accurate as a laser in describing the system he lived under but notoriously vague about the socialist and communist future. obviously even lenin had to come to grips with that fact when he enacted the new economic policy, which allowed quite a bit of free market leeway to help repair the damage done by the russian civil war.


my decade in europe has proved to my satisfaction that socialism and capitalism need not be polar opposites. so-called "obama-care" is still fucking pitiful compared to what we have over here. my employer must pay my health insurance, and when i was self-employed i paid well under 100 USD a month. that's full coverage: dental, prescription drugs, the lot. co-payments are pretty much symbolic and deductibles don't even exist over here. and slovakia doesn't even have the best system in europe by any stretch.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:EXC wrote:But

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:
But does Marx ever explain how making the state(or communist party) the sole landlord alievates this problem? Why would a communist state grow more food or build more housing than private landlords?

why would marx explain something he never posited to begin with? to even speak of a "communist state," to marx, would be a contradiction in terms. again, you're just taking leninism's word for it when it claims to be the only "orthodox" marxism.

So I'm assuming Marx would say land would eventually would become 'open source'. All the equals of the community would decide how it was to be used. How does that create an abundance and meet everyone's need. You still have too many mouths to feed and too little land to grow food, build houses, etc...

There is only one obvioius solution to the problem. They are trying it in China.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13161
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:'m not sure i

iwbiek wrote:
'm not sure i understand your question, but if you mean did he believe some amount of free trade, etc., would still be necessary for socialism to function, i'd have to say i'm not sure. marx was accurate as a laser in describing the system he lived under but notoriously vague about the socialist and communist future. obviously even lenin had to come to grips with that fact when he enacted the new economic policy~snip~

Ah so Marx was more a critic of what was than a proponent of a new system.

iwbiek wrote:
my decade in europe has proved to my satisfaction that socialism and capitalism need not be polar opposites.~snip~

I've often wondered why the US is so advanced in so many ways but has let health become so bad that even third world countries have superior systems. Every single major power except Russia, and them only because the USSR collapsed, has a better health system.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So I'm assuming

EXC wrote:
So I'm assuming Marx would say land would eventually would become 'open source'.



that's what i'm saying: all any of us can do is assume. it seems to me you desperately want to attribute a firm position on this to marx, so that you can argue with him about it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Ah so Marx

Vastet wrote:

Ah so Marx was more a critic of what was than a proponent of a new system.




he was a proponent of a new system. he did theorize about both socialism and communism, but he was famous for getting sidetracked. he could never pick a battle, and engels used to beg him to finish capital (he never did, past the first volume) and clarify his program more, instead of getting bogged down in polemics, but marx never could turn down a fight. someone would criticize him in a pamphlet and he would respond with a 250-page book full of statistics and vitriol. also (and this is something both communists and cold warriors never wanted to acknowledge) he was constantly updating his thinking based on new information. another reason why capital was never finished is because he wouldn't stop revising it on almost a daily basis. one thing is for sure: he would have been horrified had he known that parties founded in his name would take his unfinished work full of outdated information and turn it into a sort of immutable sacred text.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 Video on Marx.  Rather

 Video on Marx.  Rather Telling.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9NcLn6RkXY  

 

It is almost an hour and a half, but worth the watch. 


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
  Marx was in favor of

 

 

Marx was in favor of people who are not productive using government to steal from those who have produced, either by hard work, using their brain, or being in the right place at the right time.  One of the prime methods of that are direct forms of taxation; income and property taxes, which are the ones that affect the average person the most in most western countries.  Oh, they use the fact that the people imposing it are elected, but so was the  Nazi members of the Reichstag voting in the now infamous "Final Solution".  It can be called many things, but it fits the dictionary definition of theft, more specifically, Larceny.  

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/theft 

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:  Marx was

Burnedout wrote:

 

 

Marx was in favor of people who are not productive using government to steal from those who have produced, either by hard work, using their brain, or being in the right place at the right time.  One of the prime methods of that are direct forms of taxation; income and property taxes, which are the ones that affect the average person the most in most western countries.  Oh, they use the fact that the people imposing it are elected, but so was the  Nazi members of the Reichstag voting in the now infamous "Final Solution".  It can be called many things, but it fits the dictionary definition of theft, more specifically, Larceny.  

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/theft 

 

 

No he wasn't.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
Marx did tend to get deeper into political theorizing as he was during the period in capitalist economics where the foundations for understanding were well laid by his predecessors like Smith and Ricardo. However, I am convinced that Marx saw himself as more of an economist than a political activist.

i would actually disagree with that. marx very much saw himself not only as a political activist, but as a full-fledged revolutionary (or "revolutionist," as was the preferred term in the 19th century), and engels even more so. they were both very much active in 1844, which as you probably know was the banner year for revolutions all over europe. i would say that he turned out to be an economist, despite his best ambitions.
marx frequently showed unabashed admiration for both smith and ricardo--ricardo in particular. EXC says he despised malthus. i don't recall much of that. he usually reserved most of his ire for his living, contemporary opponents, like bakunin and proudhon.
what people constantly forget (or choose to ignore) is that marx only considered capitalism "evil" because it had outlived its time, in england in particular. marx was always adamant that socialism cannot be built without the foundations laid by capitalism. it was lenin who decided that stage could be skipped.

Fair enough, but I think my main point stands. Regardless of how Marx saw himself, his work as an economist outshined his political activism. And that aspect is something only fools would dismiss out of hand. Marxist or not, anyone with intellectual honesty and intelligence has to appreciate Marx's contributions to economic theory.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Fair

Beyond Saving wrote:
Fair enough, but I think my main point stands. Regardless of how Marx saw himself, his work as an economist outshined his political activism. And that aspect is something only fools would dismiss out of hand. Marxist or not, anyone with intellectual honesty and intelligence has to appreciate Marx's contributions to economic theory.



i agree. marx was never really in the right place at the right time and commented on most of the political upheavals of his time (the 1844 revolutions, the paris commune) from the sidelines. honestly, i don't know how much the term "economist" was even used in marx's lifetime. he was a philosopher to begin with--a hegelian specifically--until he became a staunch materialist, then turned to economics to explain the world because that's what his philosophy of historical materialism demanded. his insistence on the proletariat being the revolutionary class, for example, is a purely philosophical position.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13161
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:  Marx was

Burnedout wrote:

 

 

Marx was in favor of people who are not productive using government to steal from those who have produced, either by hard work, using their brain, or being in the right place at the right time.  One of the prime methods of that are direct forms of taxation; income and property taxes, which are the ones that affect the average person the most in most western countries.  Oh, they use the fact that the people imposing it are elected, but so was the  Nazi members of the Reichstag voting in the now infamous "Final Solution".  It can be called many things, but it fits the dictionary definition of theft, more specifically, Larceny.  

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/theft 

 

 

If taxes were theft, you'd get nothing out of paying them. That isn't the case, so taxes are not theft.

Never ceases to amaze me how incapable anarchists are of thinking things through. I suppose it's a necessary precondition to belief in anarchy as a sustainable system. But it sure is funny to watch people fail at the most simplistic arithmetic and language in order to make their impossible delusions appear to have any substance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 Wait a minute....Al Capone

 Wait a minute....Al Capone used some of his extortion money to fund soup kitchens in Chicago in the great depression, that still does not changet the fact that he was still extorting and stealing from his victims.  How is that any different than what Capone did other than the fact the thugs are elected?  Yet, you still dodged the issue.  I never said I was completely opposed to ALL taxes.  I don't have a huge problem with sales tax, excise tax, severance tax, user fees, impact fees, and any that are truly voluntary.  Income and property taxes are in effect extortion.  Tell me how FUNCTIONALLY they are not extortion and theft.  If they are not theft, then I should have the ability and freedom to say 'NO' to paying them without penalty or repercussions. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13161
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Wait a

Burnedout wrote:
Wait a minute....Al Capone used some of his extortion money to fund soup kitchens in Chicago in the great depression, that still does not changet the fact that he was still extorting and stealing from his victims.

Flawed analogy. Capone didn't provide services to all his victims. The government does provide services to all taxpayers. Try again.

Burnedout wrote:
Income and property taxes are in effect extortion.

Ridiculous.

Burnedout wrote:
Tell me how FUNCTIONALLY they are not extortion and theft.

The government of a nation owns all land in a nation, regardless of what laws say otherwise. It can and will appropriate that land as needed. Consider it rent.
If you want the real purpose, you'll have to educate yourself.

Burnedout wrote:
If they are not theft, then I should have the ability and freedom to say 'NO' to paying them without penalty or repercussions.

Clearly your understanding of theft is spotty at best. The fact you don't have the freedom to say no without penalty is proof taxes aren't theft. Since when did thieves gain the ability to get off scot free by making their victims pay a fine?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Flawed analogy.

 

Quote:
Flawed analogy. Capone didn't provide services to all his victims. The government does provide services to all taxpayers. Try again.

Flawed analogy?...I think not.  You are right in that Capone did not provide services to all his victims. Also, if the government provides services to certain people who effectively to certain people and not others, mainly because they make too much money, that is not "ALL the taxpayers"...that is to some that pay none while fucking the others.  That is exactly the same thing as Capone did.  Besides, if you refuse to pay, and resist long enough, there will be armed men who will come to your house or place of work and lay hands on you, maybe even shoot you, and haul your ass away, JUST LIKE CAPONE and his thugs did.  Whether or not services are provided is irrelevant.  Capone provided funding for soup kitchens in the great depression, yet he was still a thief.  The government does the same thing functionally as Capone.  NO DIFFERENT.  

 

Quote:
Ridiculous.

Prove it!

 

Quote:
The government of a nation owns all land in a nation, regardless of what laws say otherwise. It can and will appropriate that land as needed. Consider it rent. 
If you want the real purpose, you'll have to educate yourself.

Maybe in your country of Canada, but not in the USA.  The constitution of both the USA and states recognizes complete private property and as such you cannot lose it without due process or payment for a debt in which the land is put up for collatoral and that is by mutual agreement of the individual parties involved, not some elected body.  

 

Quote:
Clearly your understanding of theft is spotty at best. The fact you don't have the freedom to say no without penalty is proof taxes aren't theft. Since when did thieves gain the ability to get off scot free by making their victims pay a fine?

With your logic on display here, then what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, they got what was coming to them because the Nazi's were elected, and they were found in violation of the law, so because by the fact they were Jewish and recognized themself as Jewish, they had no way to say 'NO', so in your mind what happened to them was OK.  After all, the Reichstag voted on it before Hitler signed the "Final Solution" into law.  

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13161
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Flawed

Burnedout wrote:
Flawed analogy?...I think not.

Of course. You don't have the intellect to see it, which is why I explained it. Not for you, you're too dumb to understand. But lurkers are smarter.

Burnedout wrote:
Also, if the government provides services to certain people who effectively to certain people and not others, mainly because they make too much money, that is not "ALL the taxpayers"...that is to some that pay none while fucking the others.

This is absolutely nonsensical. I can't respond to it because there's nothing to respond to. Your communication skills are so bad you can't even make a complex argument. lmfao.

Burnedout wrote:
Besides, if you refuse to pay, and resist long enough, there will be armed men who will come to your house or place of work and lay hands on you, maybe even shoot you, and haul your ass away,

Because YOU are the thief, and that's what happens to thieves. lol.

Burnedout wrote:
Prove it!

No U.

Burnedout wrote:
Maybe in your country of Canada, but not in the USA.  

In EVERY country that ever existed, including the US.

Burnedout wrote:
The constitution of both the USA and states recognizes complete private property and as such you cannot lose it without due process or payment for a debt in which the land is put up for collatoral and that is by mutual agreement of the individual parties involved, not some elected body.  

All it takes is one motion passed by the three branches of your government and that protection vanishes as if it never existed. But feel free to keep deluding yourself.

Burnedout wrote:
With your logic on display here, then what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, they got what was coming to them because the Nazi's were elected, and they were found in violation of the law, so because by the fact they were Jewish and recognized themself as Jewish, they had no way to say 'NO', so in your mind what happened to them was OK.  After all, the Reichstag voted on it before Hitler signed the "Final Solution" into law.

Technically that's close enough to call mostly accurate. It has nothing to do with ethics of right and wrong, however. So saying it's ok is an absurd conclusion. Killing people can be both wrong and legal, since you were unaware.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
From today, therefore, taxes

All of which has virtually nothing to do with Marx. As far as I know, Marx said very little about taxes outside of a passing reference in the Communist Manifesto. Certainly in Capital taxes weren't addressed in any depth. I don't think he said much about taxes anywhere else either (iwbiek correct me if I'm wrong). 

 

 

The only other time I recall Marx saying anything about taxes was advocating that people refuse to pay their taxes as a method of protesting when the military attempted to prevent the parliment from assembling in the 1840's.  


Marx wrote:
 From today, therefore, taxes are abolished! It is high treason to pay taxes. Refusal to pay taxes is the primary duty of the citizen!

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Flawed analogy?...I think not.
Of course. You don't have the intellect to see it, which is why I explained it. Not for you, you're too dumb to understand. But lurkers are smarter.
Burnedout wrote:
Also, if the government provides services to certain people who effectively to certain people and not others, mainly because they make too much money, that is not "ALL the taxpayers"...that is to some that pay none while fucking the others.
This is absolutely nonsensical. I can't respond to it because there's nothing to respond to. Your communication skills are so bad you can't even make a complex argument. lmfao.
Burnedout wrote:
Besides, if you refuse to pay, and resist long enough, there will be armed men who will come to your house or place of work and lay hands on you, maybe even shoot you, and haul your ass away,
Because YOU are the thief, and that's what happens to thieves. lol.
Burnedout wrote:
Prove it!
No U.
Burnedout wrote:
Maybe in your country of Canada, but not in the USA.  
In EVERY country that ever existed, including the US.
Burnedout wrote:
The constitution of both the USA and states recognizes complete private property and as such you cannot lose it without due process or payment for a debt in which the land is put up for collatoral and that is by mutual agreement of the individual parties involved, not some elected body.  
All it takes is one motion passed by the three branches of your government and that protection vanishes as if it never existed. But feel free to keep deluding yourself.
Burnedout wrote:
With your logic on display here, then what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, they got what was coming to them because the Nazi's were elected, and they were found in violation of the law, so because by the fact they were Jewish and recognized themself as Jewish, they had no way to say 'NO', so in your mind what happened to them was OK.  After all, the Reichstag voted on it before Hitler signed the "Final Solution" into law.
Technically that's close enough to call mostly accurate. It has nothing to do with ethics of right and wrong, however. So saying it's ok is an absurd conclusion. Killing people can be both wrong and legal, since you were unaware.

 

Nothing but personal attacks, diversions from the truth, and excuse making.  If you have to make personal attacks, it means you lose.  Lurkers can clearly see that.  You just want to defend totalitarian theft and extortion and when I point it out, you make a personal attack.  Must suck to be that defensive. 


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:All of

Beyond Saving wrote:

All of which has virtually nothing to do with Marx. As far as I know, Marx said very little about taxes outside of a passing reference in the Communist Manifesto. Certainly in Capital taxes weren't addressed in any depth. I don't think he said much about taxes anywhere else either (iwbiek correct me if I'm wrong). 

 

 

The only other time I recall Marx saying anything about taxes was advocating that people refuse to pay their taxes as a method of protesting when the military attempted to prevent the parliment from assembling in the 1840's.  


Marx wrote:
 From today, therefore, taxes are abolished! It is high treason to pay taxes. Refusal to pay taxes is the primary duty of the citizen!

 

Then why did Marx include it as one of the planks in the Communist Manifesto?   


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:EXC wrote:So

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:
So I'm assuming Marx would say land would eventually would become 'open source'.

that's what i'm saying: all any of us can do is assume. it seems to me you desperately want to attribute a firm position on this to marx, so that you can argue with him about it.

 

Can you explain why Marx objected so much to Malthus' theory of population?

http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/popissue.html

http://www.slideshare.net/Imani23/marxist-theory-on-population-growth

I can't get understand how Marx thinks that capitalist create a large pool of 'reserve labor'? How do capitalists make people want to fall in love or just  fuck without birth control?

For being such a brilliant guy, Marx doesn't seem to have any basic common sense about the birds and the bees. Malthus is just saying population will increase until nature can't sustain growth any longer, how can someone object to that?

If anything, communism would make population worse by making people feel they had a social safety net so they are free to have more children.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Since when did

Vastet wrote:
Since when did thieves gain the ability to get off scot free by making their victims pay a fine?

Ever heard of Mafia extrotion? Same thing in countries ruled by warlords or religious states. They all claim to be in charge and you need to pay a fee or tax.

Ever heard of pyramid scams? They have to pay out something to work.

Vastet wrote:

Capone didn't provide services to all his victims.

I'm pretty sure anyone that showed up at the soup kitchen was served. He didn't do income verification. There are barrios in Latin America now run by gangs in the same way.

Do Billionares in Canada wait in line for 2 months for medical tests? But they still pay taxes for this.

 

You need to get out and travel more, instead of just listening to the propagda of the socialist  politial parties in Canada. All goverment to some extent is extortion and a pyramid scam, because your government is not as bad as many others only the result of Canada not having a much population preesure.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:iwbiek wrote:EXC

EXC wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
EXC wrote:
So I'm assuming Marx would say land would eventually would become 'open source'.

that's what i'm saying: all any of us can do is assume. it seems to me you desperately want to attribute a firm position on this to marx, so that you can argue with him about it.

 

Can you explain why Marx objected so much to Malthus' theory of population?

http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/popissue.html

http://www.slideshare.net/Imani23/marxist-theory-on-population-growth

I can't get understand how Marx thinks that capitalist create a large pool of 'reserve labor'? How do capitalists make people want to fall in love or just  fuck without birth control?

For being such a brilliant guy, Marx doesn't seem to have any basic common sense about the birds and the bees. Malthus is just saying population will increase until nature can't sustain growth any longer, how can someone object to that?

If anything, communism would make population worse by making people feel they had a social safety net so they are free to have more children.




i have already told you i will not comment on malthus's theories, nor even marx's response to those theories, without having acquainted myself with them, and i have neither the time nor the inclination to acquaint myself with them. you of all people should know that if you want uninformed opinions based on tertiary sources, you can find plenty of people on this site to oblige you. it seems you created this thread to prove to me that you've read a bit of marx, and i've log since conceded you've read a bit of marx. if you want to discuss malthus, go find someone who's read a bit of malthus.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Then why did

Burnedout wrote:

Then why did Marx include it as one of the planks in the Communist Manifesto?   

He mentions progressive taxation in the list of how to overthrow the current system. In context, he explains that despotic actions are necessary and that some of the actions are "economically insufficient and untenable"- I don't know if he included the progressive income tax in his thoughts as something untenable, but given that he never talked about it elsewhere, we can't assume that his mention of it as a tactic is a ringing endorsement of it as an end goal. Ironically, the one time that Marx mentions income taxes, his view of them seems much closer to American right wing thought than left wing as far as their function. However, I think it is unfair to really extrapolate anything definite with such a limited mention of the topic by a guy who wrote tens of thousands of pages and is known for his verbosity, not his brevity. Probably the only intellectually honest conclusion is that Marx didn't write enough about taxes to be confident what his views were on the topic. Unless there is some treatise or essay on it that I have never read, which is certainly possible since I haven't read everything. But a google search didn't turn up anything Marx wrote on taxes. 

Communist Manifesto (Emphasis mine) wrote:

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

Then why did Marx include it as one of the planks in the Communist Manifesto?   

He mentions progressive taxation in the list of how to overthrow the current system. In context, he explains that despotic actions are necessary and that some of the actions are "economically insufficient and untenable"- I don't know if he included the progressive income tax in his thoughts as something untenable, but given that he never talked about it elsewhere, we can't assume that his mention of it as a tactic is a ringing endorsement of it as an end goal. Ironically, the one time that Marx mentions income taxes, his view of them seems much closer to American right wing thought than left wing as far as their function. However, I think it is unfair to really extrapolate anything definite with such a limited mention of the topic by a guy who wrote tens of thousands of pages and is known for his verbosity, not his brevity. Probably the only intellectually honest conclusion is that Marx didn't write enough about taxes to be confident what his views were on the topic. Unless there is some treatise or essay on it that I have never read, which is certainly possible since I haven't read everything. But a google search didn't turn up anything Marx wrote on taxes. 

Communist Manifesto (Emphasis mine) wrote:

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

 




well, that explains why i didn't remember marx saying anything about taxation at all...because he very nearly didn't. also, i've stressed, i don't know how many times, that the communist manifesto is not a definitive exposition of marxist thought. it became popular in the 20th century because it's short, it has "communist" in the title (a term used constantly by lenin but very rarely by marx and almost never by the second international founded under engels's guidance), and it uses inflammatory language ("the spectre of communism," etc.). it's a conscious piece of political propaganda, not a theoretical treatise. honestly, of all of marx's and engels's works, it's the one i've read the least closely, whereas i've read volume one of capital twice. compared to marx's grundrisse or eighteenth brumaire, or engels's socialism: utopian and scientific, it's just obviously not to be taken as seriously.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I can't get

EXC wrote:

I can't get understand how Marx thinks that capitalist create a large pool of 'reserve labor'? 

The reserve army of labour has nothing to do with actual population or even workforce size. The reserve army of labour was the term Marx used to describe the unemployed and underemployed. Prior to capitalism, unemployment didn't really exist in a structural sense. Those who didn't have professions were more often than not in subsistence agriculture. The theory Marx had is that capitalism requires a pool of people who are not working to hold labour costs down. Unlike many on the American left, Marx viewed labour as a commodity. When there was little available the costs went up, therefore, capitalists benefit from having a large surplus and thus lower labour costs and more profit. As the number of unemployed shrank, labour costs would rise and thus less surplus value for the bourgeoise. 

He separated the reserve army of labour into 4 parts- the "floating reserve" which were people who had good jobs, lost them and would be employed again relatively quickly. The latent reserve which were people who still worked subsistence agriculture because they hadn't been absorbed into wage labour yet, but potentially could be. The stagnant reserve which are people who are chronically unemployed, work low level jobs (low paying or dangerous) and temporary jobs. And the paupers, which were essentially those who were unable or unwilling to work, living on the streets etc.

 

Quote:
 

How do capitalists make people want to fall in love or just fuck without birth control?

For being such a brilliant guy, Marx doesn't seem to have any basic common sense about the birds and the bees. Malthus is just saying population will increase until nature can't sustain growth any longer, how can someone object to that?

Marx never suggested that they did. The reserve army of labour expanded and contracted based on the need of the industrial system. He argued that when the army became too small to keep wages down, that innovation, invention and forcing one person to do more labour would cause the unemployed pool to increase and thus depress wages back to a profitable level. He wasn't talking about the population as a whole, only the percentage of the population employed in wage posistions vs the unemployed. He did argue that increased prosperity would lead to a larger army as fewer people would be needed to sustain the economy enough for the bourgeoise.  

Besides, anyone intelligent would reject Malthus' premise, it has been proven demonstrably wrong. The population growth rate hasn't outstripped food production in prosperous countries and the population growth rate shrinks the wealthier a country becomes. Something that would be predicted within Marx's framework and was not at all predicted by Malthus. It is ironic that 200+ years of evidence later, people like you still can't see that Malthus wasn't only wrong, he was 180 degrees off, even though our largest food problem in the modern world is obesity not starvation, and an aging population not a younger one. So why would Marx have agreed with Malthus? That would have made him wrong. 

 

Quote:

If anything, communism would make population worse by making people feel they had a social safety net so they are free to have more children.

Prove it. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: well, that

iwbiek wrote:

well, that explains why i didn't remember marx saying anything about taxation at all...because he very nearly didn't. also, i've stressed, i don't know how many times, that the communist manifesto is not a definitive exposition of marxist thought. it became popular in the 20th century because it's short, it has "communist" in the title (a term used constantly by lenin but very rarely by marx and almost never by the second international founded under engels's guidance), and it uses inflammatory language ("the spectre of communism," etc.). it's a conscious piece of political propaganda, not a theoretical treatise. honestly, of all of marx's and engels's works, it's the one i've read the least closely, whereas i've read volume one of capital twice. compared to marx's grundrisse or eighteenth brumaire, or engels's socialism: utopian and scientific, it's just obviously not to be taken as seriously.

Yeah, if he did, I've never read it and a cursory google search as well as a search on Jstor turns up no primary sources of Marx on taxes. There are plenty of self-described Marxists discussing various taxes. It is sad, yet predictable that the Manifesto was and remains one of the most influential writings of Marx. People like easy, and Marx's intellectual writings are anything but easy. Same reason why ignorance reigns supreme on most controversial political issues. A one line quote is easier to tout and to attack than a detailed and comprehensive treatise. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i have to admit, i've been

i have to admit, i've been so focused on my master's and then phd work the last few years, my command of marxism has grown pretty rusty. you actually have a better grasp of it than i do at this point. you damn sure did a better job explaining the surplus labor population than i could have. tbh, i don't even remember the four categories you mentioned.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Besides,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Besides, anyone intelligent would reject Malthus' premise, it has been proven demonstrably wrong. The population growth rate hasn't outstripped food production in prosperous countries and the population growth rate shrinks the wealthier a country becomes.

Again like Marx, you all are confusing cause and effect. Then birth rate in China first dropped then it became wealther.

The second part of Malthus model  is that of moral restraint. People wouild respond to population preesures by having fewer babies, nations would cut off immigration or do what China has done. He lived in a time before birth control so there was not as much opprutunity to practice moral restraint. So Malthus actually predicted this could happen. Prosperous countries are and example of the moral restraint holding off the castrophies.

Malthus not Mao was the inspiration for the one child policy. They go from widespread famine to loaning money to the USA so we can pass out food stamps to half of all US children. It's proof that Malthus was right.

I think in the USA what holds down the birth rate is lack of affordable housing and student debt. This is the reason young people don't start families as they used to. But we still get our population preesures from immigration both legal and illegal.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Beyond Saving

EXC wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Besides, anyone intelligent would reject Malthus' premise, it has been proven demonstrably wrong. The population growth rate hasn't outstripped food production in prosperous countries and the population growth rate shrinks the wealthier a country becomes.

Again like Marx, you all are confusing cause and effect. Then birth rate in China first dropped then it became wealther.

I'm not the one making a cause and effect claim. 

 

Quote:

The second part of Malthus model  is that of moral restraint. People wouild respond to population preesures by having fewer babies, nations would cut off immigration or do what China has done. He lived in a time before birth control so there was not as much opprutunity to practice moral restraint.

He lived in a time before many things- fertilizer, tractors, highrise apartments and the hundreds of innovations that have created a world where we can support a growing population plus many billions more without food shortages. Even in places of starvation, the challenge has rarely been the world's ability to actually produce food, it has been the ability/willingness to distribute food to those who are starving. Since Malthus lived before all those things, he has a good argument, given what he knew. You don't have that excuse. 

 

Quote:

So Malthus actually predicted this could happen. Prosperous countries are and example of the moral restraint holding off the castrophies.

I'm not so familiar with Malthus, but I will read anything, where did he predict this?

 

Quote:

They go from widespread famine to loaning money to the USA so we can pass out food stamps to half of all US children. It's proof that Malthus was right.

Correlation is not causation. Other countries facing starvation problems have reduced them without significant population controls. Prove that the one child policy was a significant factor and not the mass construction of factories, modernization of agricultural practices, construction of modern infrastructure and preferential trade agreements. 

 

Quote:

I think in the USA what holds down the birth rate is lack of affordable housing and student debt.

Nice theory, prove it. (I actually used student loans to get laid in college, and never let a little thing like not having a house stop me, but hey, maybe I'm the exception.)

 

Quote:

This is the reason young people don't start families as they used to.

Ok, if your logic matches reality, than we should expect the wealthy to have higher birthrates than the poor. Go find the data that proves it. 

 

Quote:

But we still get our population preesures from immigration both legal and illegal.

Lol. You obviously have never visted a country that actually has population pressure. The us is billions of people away from full capacity. Every single Mexican could come live up here and we would still be fat, there would still be plenty of empty living space. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC seems to me a much more


EXC seems to me a much more fanatical malthusian than i ever was a marxist. my marxism has been tempered over time by education and real world experience. i'm now much more a marxist of the second international variety, a la luxemburg, liebknecht, and kautsky, than i am of the third international variety. i keep my leninist banner because, a., i just like it, and b., i'm a natural provocateur. i remain a marxist because historical materialism is still my default philosophical and critical position and also because i still believe marx's surplus value theory to be the best explanation of how capitalism perpetuates itself. like eric hobsbawm, i tend to view history through a marxist lens. i remain a trotskyist because i agree with trotsky's diagnosis that the leninist model failed (though he could never bring himself to outright say "failed") because the global revolution, which should have started in western europe, never happened, and that a comprehensive political program with communism as its goal is not sustainable in any one country, or even a bloc of countries, especially one subservient to a country as backward as russia.

but even in my most fervent leninist days, i never believed that marx or lenin or trotsky had defined once and for all the world's problems and how to solve them. for example, i always said, on this very website, that a proletarian revolution in the US is impossible because the american proletariat has practically disappeared, and, just as malthus couldn't have possibly foreseen technological and medical advances, marx couldn't have possibly foreseen a country becomng an almost entirely service economy with the virtual disappearance of the proletariat. even migrant workers in the US are rapidly being absorbed into the petty bourgeoisie. EXC, however, seems to accord that honor to malthus. just as marx reduced all of history to the interplay of economic forces--something i no longer agree with him on, even if i do consider that interplay to be one of the most primary forces behind human history--malthus seems to reduce it all to population pressures. brian reduces it all to evolution. i simply don't believe it can be reduced to any one thing.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13161
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Nothing but

Burnedout wrote:
Nothing but personal attacks, diversions from the truth, and excuse making.

Lies and hypocrisy.

Burnedout wrote:
If you have to make personal attacks, it means you lose.

So you admit you lost.

Burnedout wrote:
Lurkers can clearly see that.

They certainly can see how badly you got owned. Too bad you can't.

Burnedout wrote:
You just want to defend totalitarian theft and extortion and when I point it out, you make a personal attack.  Must suck to be that defensive. 

Ridiculous, like everything you've yet to say.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13161
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Ever heard of

EXC wrote:
Ever heard of Mafia extrotion?

Mafia extortion doesn't work that way. Mafias extort the average person. They PAY the people who keep them out of jail. Not the reverse.

EXC wrote:
Same thing in countries ruled by warlords or religious states. They all claim to be in charge and you need to pay a fee or tax.

They are in charge. And even the most cheap & brutal dictator still spends some money towards the state out of taxes collected.

EXC wrote:
Ever heard of pyramid scams? They have to pay out something to work.

No they don't, that's why they are scams. They are also incomparable, as the victims of the scams don't pay money to keep the scammers out of jail. They pay money to make money, it just doesn't usually work out.

EXC wrote:
I'm pretty sure anyone that showed up at the soup kitchen was served.

Irrelevant. You don't have to go anywhere to receive benefit from taxes. Just being alive automatically gives you benefits. Protection from fellow citizens and foreign agencies, access to emergency services of all types, access to roads and sidewalks and a thousand other things.

EXC wrote:
Do Billionares in Canada wait in line for 2 months for medical tests? But they still pay taxes for this.

They wait the same as anyone else, unless they avail themselves of private institutions. In which case they probably wait less.

EXC wrote:
You need to get out and travel more

No I don't.

EXC wrote:
instead of just listening to the propagda of the socialist  politial parties in Canada.

Rofl there are no socialist parties in Canada. Not with any hope of election or sufficient funding to mount propaganda campaigns anyway. As I've said before, I came up with the superior system on my own, after critically examining proponents of and criticisms of socialism.

EXC wrote:
All goverment to some extent is extortion and a pyramid scam, because your government is not as bad as many others only the result of Canada not having a much population preesure.

Bullshit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I'm not

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm not the one making a cause and effect claim. 

You're claiming the Malthus was wrong because as nations become wealther, their birth rate drops and they avoid food shortages. You claim that Malthus claimed this would not happen. Am I right? What exactly is your proof that Malthus was completely wrong?

Have you never encounted anyone that had fewer children, had no children or delayed having children because they didn't feel they were economically secure?

But I've also seen irresponsible people that don't care about their ability to support their children have a bunch. This is obviously what you get with socialist/communist societies(China excepted). Responsible people have few kids and pay the bills for the irresponsible that have many. A catastrophe waiting to happen.

Beyond Saving wrote:

He lived in a time before many things- fertilizer, tractors, highrise apartments and the hundreds of innovations that have created a world where we can support a growing population plus many billions more without food shortages. Even in places of starvation, the challenge has rarely been the world's ability to actually produce food, it has been the ability/willingness to distribute food to those who are starving. Since Malthus lived before all those things, he has a good argument, given what he knew. You don't have that excuse. 

The technology to grow food in Malthus time was better than in centuries before just as it is now better than then. So we can crowd more people onto the planet with better technology, but we still have hunger, war, disease, homelessness due to overpopulation. I don't think Malthus is brilliant, he is just stating to me what out to be common sense to any objective thinking person. The same thing is true we can only grow our infrastructure to support large populations at a linear rate with populations increase much faster. That is why is sit in traffic jams.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm not so familiar with Malthus, but I will read anything, where did he predict this?

 

http://cgge.aag.org/PopulationandNaturalResources1e/CF_PopNatRes_Jan10/CF_PopNatRes_Jan108.html

http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/pap107h.html

Back in his day, the only 'moral restraint' was men marrying later in life(women didn't have and choice back then). The ban on sex outside of marriage was a type of moral restraint in that society.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Correlation is not causation. Other countries facing starvation problems have reduced them without significant population controls. Prove that the one child policy was a significant factor and not the mass construction of factories, modernization of agricultural practices, construction of modern infrastructure and preferential trade agreements. 

 

http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/Side%20bar%20Pages/Buttons/Index%20Buttons/clip_image002.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif

Evidence for causation is if a potential cause preceeds an effect. The brithrate declined after the great famines in the 60s. The one child policy started in 81.

How does a nation spend money on inftastructure and modernization if they need to feed and house the masses immediatly?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nice theory, prove it. (I actually used student loans to get laid in college, and never let a little thing like not having a house stop me, but hey, maybe I'm the exception.)

You didn't use a latex moral constraint? I'm saying people decide not to have children when the bill for the loan comes due, the fact that you had a loan made you feel economically secure at least temporarily. That is what socialism does is give people a false sense of security. Your example is actually proof in my favor, the loan made you buy stuff to make yourself more attractive and gave you more assurance to pursue women. The women had sex with you because the loan made you look like a good provider. When the bill for the loan comes due, the opposite happens.

You know birth rates dropped during the great depression and they rose dramatically when people felt economically secure after WWII. Do I need to show the charts?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, if your logic matches reality, than we should expect the wealthy to have higher birthrates than the poor. Go find the data that proves it. 

Again, what I'm saying is that lowering the birthrate causes an increase in wealth later. The fear of poverty causes people to have fewer babies. Both in individuals and societies. Obviously kids cost a lot of money, you'll be wealther later in life if you don't have any. China decided to lower its birthrate in the 70s and 80s and became very prosperous in the 90s and 00s.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lol. You obviously have never visted a country that actually has population pressure. The us is billions of people away from full capacity. Every single Mexican could come live up here and we would still be fat, there would still be plenty of empty living space. 

Obesity is not a sign of being overfed but of being undernourished. Poor people want to eat a lot because the cheap food they can afford doesn't nourish them much, so their bodies tell them to keep eating more.

Some of reasons there are a lot of fat people:

No land for parks for kids to play. Junk food is cheaper(uses less land and water) to grow than organic fruits and vegtables. People have no time to exersize because they need to work so much and commute so far. All can be blamed on population preesures. The welfare state pays people to not work. The US has staved off famine by borrowing money to pay for the welfare state. But the catastrophe is on its way.

Where in the USA is there cheap land with water? Why don't we just give the poor this land to farm for themselves and get rid of the welfare state?

The stresses in Mathus time and in the 3rd world famine and war. I would say today the stresses in the USA are more in the form of no cheap housing, pollution, traffic, debt., high taxation, stagnant wages. All have their root in populaiton preesure.

What I don't get is why Marxist and the left are so pro-immigration. Why would they want to give capitalist a larger reserve labor pool if this is the great enemy of the working man? You let immigrants in, they compete not only for jobs but also housing, food, land, parking spaces, etc... Only the wealthy capitalist benefit, which is why rich Republicans love it so much.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:They PAY the

Vastet wrote:
They PAY the people who keep them out of jail. Not the reverse.

Don't the rich pay off the politicians and lawyers to keep them off their back? Don't the 1% get the politicians to not pass any laws againt wealth hoarding?

Vastet wrote:

No they don't, that's why they are scams.

You are just showing how naive you are when you disagree with me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game

https://books.google.com/books?id=6A5pBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT145&lpg=PT145&dq=pyramid+scheme+early+payout&source=bl&ots=guCLy3tZkZ&sig=B2uH...

Vastet wrote:

You don't have to go anywhere to receive benefit from taxes.

Really! In the US you have to go to the welfare and social security office. You at least have to visit a website for unemployment benefits.  In Canada, they just go door to door passing out money and vouchers to any and all?

Another thing, I bet if you lived in Al Capone's neighborhood, kids could play in the streets and parks without constant adult supervison. The same thing is true in 3rd world barrios. But kids can't do this in the US or Canada. We just pay all this money for our security and what do we get for it?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3832
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: EXC seems to

iwbiek wrote:

EXC seems to me a much more fanatical malthusian than i ever was a marxist.

Not at all.  I just think he was somone with common sense and insight. What he did that Marx and a lot of other so called brilliant economist won't do is tie sociology and human biology with economics.

He was a clergy member and he thought this was all just part of God's plan. So obviously he was wrong on that one. He saw population catastrophies as moral failures. I would say they are rational failures. He called abstainence a moral restraint, I would call mandatory birth and immigration control a rational constraint. I don't agree that it is all the poor overpopulating, it is also the rich hoarding natural resourses. This is more in line with Marxism, the rich take advantage of scarce natural resouses by monopolizing them.

Also he needs to be updated because population preesures isn't just famine. It's nearly all the ills of the modern world(low wages, traffic, homeless, etc..).

You often see brilliant and insightful in one area just lack total common sense in others. This seems to be what Marx and a lot of other lintellectual leftist do. Just ignore common sense to push a political agenda that benefits only themselves short term.

You know Malthus was a great source for Darwin:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

I think a rational understanding of the causes of poverty and wealth disparity should include some Marx some Malthus and others. Neither was totally right or totally wrong.

 

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Nothing but personal attacks, diversions from the truth, and excuse making.
Lies and hypocrisy.
Burnedout wrote:
If you have to make personal attacks, it means you lose.
So you admit you lost.
Burnedout wrote:
Lurkers can clearly see that.
They certainly can see how badly you got owned. Too bad you can't.
Burnedout wrote:
You just want to defend totalitarian theft and extortion and when I point it out, you make a personal attack.  Must suck to be that defensive. 
Ridiculous, like everything you've yet to say.

 

You are dodging and attempting to get out of having to defend a position.  Please explain how the functional mechanics of collecting income tax and property tax are functionally different than than what Al Capone did to collect protection money from his vicitms, NOT how the money is used or who it is used for, but the way it is collected.  You can try to turn it around and get into a pissing match, but I am not letting you off the hook.  I will keep coming back to this.  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Beyond Saving

EXC wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm not the one making a cause and effect claim. 

You're claiming the Malthus was wrong because as nations become wealther, their birth rate drops and they avoid food shortages. You claim that Malthus claimed this would not happen. Am I right? What exactly is your proof that Malthus was completely wrong?

Because most of the first world not only feed their own populations, but also a large portion of the rest of the world. He claimed that population would grow to outstrip resources, it hasn't. So unless I am mistaken about his claim, he was wrong. 

 

Quote:

Have you never encounted anyone that had fewer children, had no children or delayed having children because they didn't feel they were economically secure?

Irrelevant. I know many more people who had children they weren't planning on. Even in a day and age where it is theoretically possible to plan the timing of every baby, many are born completely unplanned. In this case, anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient because plenty of examples can be found on both sides... you yourself are the one who routinely rants about the welfare queens with bunches of kids.

 

Quote:

But I've also seen irresponsible people that don't care about their ability to support their children have a bunch. This is obviously what you get with socialist/communist societies(China excepted). Responsible people have few kids and pay the bills for the irresponsible that have many. A catastrophe waiting to happen.

Exactly, and that "catastrophe" hasn't appeared, is in no immediate danger of appearing and is why people who freak out about overpopulation are wrong. There is no doubt that over the last several generations, 1st world countries have pursued social policies designed to provide economic support to the poor, and overtime those policies have gotten increasingly generous. Using your (and I presume Malthus') logic, that should have led to continued increases. Instead, growth rates have slowed to the point where some countries are below replacement levels if you don't include immigration (and some even if you include immigration). 

 

Quote:

The technology to grow food in Malthus time was better than in centuries before just as it is now better than then. So we can crowd more people onto the planet with better technology, but we still have hunger, war, disease, homelessness due to overpopulation. I don't think Malthus is brilliant, he is just stating to me what out to be common sense to any objective thinking person. The same thing is true we can only grow our infrastructure to support large populations at a linear rate with populations increase much faster. That is why is sit in traffic jams.

Yet our infrastructure hasn't grown at a linear rate, nor is there any reason to expect it to grow linearly in the future. Hence, the mistake of Malthus.

 

Quote:

http://cgge.aag.org/PopulationandNaturalResources1e/CF_PopNatRes_Jan10/CF_PopNatRes_Jan108.html

http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/pap107h.html

Back in his day, the only 'moral restraint' was men marrying later in life(women didn't have and choice back then). The ban on sex outside of marriage was a type of moral restraint in that society.

Yet obviously people don't always follow those restraints. Back then, it was also much more common for a married couple to have a dozen or more children. None of the laws that Malthus suggested were necessary to prevent the catastrophe were passed, yet the catastrophe hasn't happened. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Correlation is not causation. Other countries facing starvation problems have reduced them without significant population controls. Prove that the one child policy was a significant factor and not the mass construction of factories, modernization of agricultural practices, construction of modern infrastructure and preferential trade agreements. 

 

http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/Side%20bar%20Pages/Buttons/Index%20Buttons/clip_image002.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif

Evidence for causation is if a potential cause preceeds an effect. The brithrate declined after the great famines in the 60s. The one child policy started in 81.

Like I said, correlation does not equal causation. You have ONE country that implemented a one child policy and it has had the SAME experience as every other country that experienced an industrial revolution. How is it rational to chalk their experience up to that one unique policy? At least in China, they have a large enough population that it is rational to discuss population pressure issues. In a country like the US with a small population and great productivity, it is delusional. Although the main problem in China wasn't too much population overall, it was too many people moving to the cities to work in factories in hopes of making money. Much of China remains sparsely inhabited and as they continue to improve their agriculture and their infrastructure, within a few generations it will be a net exporter of food whether they maintain the one child policy or not. 

 

Quote:

How does a nation spend money on inftastructure and modernization if they need to feed and house the masses immediatly?

When you have an immediate need, why wouldn't you spend money on it?

 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nice theory, prove it. (I actually used student loans to get laid in college, and never let a little thing like not having a house stop me, but hey, maybe I'm the exception.)

You didn't use a latex moral constraint?

No, not that it is any of your business, but if you must know, I despise using condoms, have only used them a couple of times in my life.

 

Quote:

I'm saying people decide not to have children when the bill for the loan comes due, the fact that you had a loan made you feel economically secure at least temporarily. That is what socialism does is give people a false sense of security. Your example is actually proof in my favor, the loan made you buy stuff to make yourself more attractive and gave you more assurance to pursue women. The women had sex with you because the loan made you look like a good provider. When the bill for the loan comes due, the opposite happens.

Lol, we had sex because we were young, horny, stupid and fueling our decisions with chemicals. To think that economics were even in the formula is absurd. You put a bunch of coed teenagers or 20 somethings together and fucking is going to ensue. I'm pretty sure there are a few reality tv shows based on that concept. 

 

Quote:

You know birth rates dropped during the great depression and they rose dramatically when people felt economically secure after WWII. Do I need to show the charts?

And immediately before WWII there was a huge spike of "war babies", women having kids when their future economic situation was completely unknown. You are assuming that people make their decisions on a purely economic level, they don't. Sure, a temporary bad economy might cause people to slow down and wait, but if a family has 2.5 kids, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme if they have them at 20 something or 30 something. They have the same number of offspring. That isn't comparable to a situation where they are permanently broke and have no reason to believe it will get better. And since we are talking a generational problem, looking at 10 years is ridiculous- especially since both sides of the Great Depression were surrounded by periods of great economic growth. Overall, our wealth has grown exponentially and so has our population. Yet we sit today in absolutely zero danger of widespread famine, whereas 100 years ago, we did. 

 

Quote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, if your logic matches reality, than we should expect the wealthy to have higher birthrates than the poor. Go find the data that proves it. 

Again, what I'm saying is that lowering the birthrate causes an increase in wealth later. The fear of poverty causes people to have fewer babies. Both in individuals and societies. Obviously kids cost a lot of money, you'll be wealther later in life if you don't have any. China decided to lower its birthrate in the 70s and 80s and became very prosperous in the 90s and 00s.

And you haven't shown anything to support the cause and effect. Using China as an example doesn't help, since we have dozens of other countries that also see a decreasing birth rate today, are growing in wealth and don't have national policies to limit birth rates. 

 

Quote:

Obesity is not a sign of being overfed but of being undernourished. Poor people want to eat a lot because the cheap food they can afford doesn't nourish them much, so their bodies tell them to keep eating more.

Some of reasons there are a lot of fat people:

No land for parks for kids to play. Junk food is cheaper(uses less land and water) to grow than organic fruits and vegtables. People have no time to exersize because they need to work so much and commute so far. All can be blamed on population preesures. The welfare state pays people to not work. The US has staved off famine by borrowing money to pay for the welfare state. But the catastrophe is on its way.

It is so ridiculously absurd to even discuss the US as an example of population pressures. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind and we have more vacant land than most. We could easily support 10 times our current population.

 

Quote:

Where in the USA is there cheap land with water? Why don't we just give the poor this land to farm for themselves and get rid of the welfare state?

Even top shelf farm land is only $7-$8,000 an acre, and that is us being in a huge bubble (3 years ago it was $2,000-$4,000 an acre). We don't have subsistence farming because it is inefficient. Mass farming is far cheaper and far more productive. If we gave all the poor their own few acres, we would have the population pressures you fear. Food is ridiculously cheap in the US. It takes a lower percentage of a person's income than in any country at any time in history. 

 

Quote:

The stresses in Mathus time and in the 3rd world famine and war. I would say today the stresses in the USA are more in the form of no cheap housing, pollution, traffic, debt., high taxation, stagnant wages. All have their root in populaiton preesure.

Only because you have decided beforehand that population pressure is the root. You didn't determine it was the root from any kind of analysis. I can get you a house for under $20,000. Less than an average new car. I know this isn't the only place in the US like that. There are hundreds of vacant houses sitting around just my county. Sure, maybe it is sensible to discuss population pressures in certain localities, but overall, we have plenty of capacity in this country. If we lived in India, Singapore, Hong Kong, China or Bahrain it would make complete sense do discuss the issues of population pressures- for them it is a severe reality (despite China's one child policy you love to tout). For the US and most of Europe, it simply isn't an issue of consequence. 

 

Quote:
 

What I don't get is why Marxist and the left are so pro-immigration. Why would they want to give capitalist a larger reserve labor pool if this is the great enemy of the working man? You let immigrants in, they compete not only for jobs but also housing, food, land, parking spaces, etc... Only the wealthy capitalist benefit, which is why rich Republicans love it so much.

I don't think Marx ever discussed immigration at any great length or detail. Although, I do occasionally have fun poking at right wing anti-immigration nuts that they are Marxists, because the one thing I've read of Marx on immigration sounds a lot like the American right wing. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm

Clearly, the most fervent historical support of open borders comes mostly from economists of the free market persuasion like J.S. Mill and Ludwig von Mises. Would Marx think the same thing of the Mexican immigration to the US? I don't know. The situations seem similar enough to me, but I'll let his words stand for themselves.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:
Although, I do occasionally have fun poking at right wing anti-immigration nuts that they are Marxists, because the one thing I've read of Marx on immigration sounds a lot like the American right wing. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm

Clearly, the most fervent historical support of open borders comes mostly from economists of the free market persuasion like J.S. Mill and Ludwig von Mises. Would Marx think the same thing of the Mexican immigration to the US? I don't know. The situations seem similar enough to me, but I'll let his words stand for themselves.




for someone who seems to think communist countries are the only logical result of applied marxism, EXC seems to ignore the fact that no countries in recent history have restricted both immigration and emigration more than communist countries.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson