Hi IW,

Very good analysis. You represented it very well. However, I believe that Das Kapital was NOT written by Marx. Either Engel wrote the whole set and credited Marx with his work as a ghost writer, or another ghost writer was involved.

I need to do more research regarding this, but it doesn't seem that Marx actually wrote the core thesis of his work. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

But very good, Marx was Hegelian. In fact, Hegal really is the father of modern progressive thinking. Spinoza is somewhat also involved, but Hegel is the crux of Existentialism, Marxist Communism, psychology, etc. 

Hegel is in torment as we speak and we a very evil man.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).  

      Well, I'm not sure if it was Marx or Engels who wrote that capitalism will destroy itself, because of Human greed (aristocrats) and their mansions full of luxury items and their fancy ways .    As my Grandma used to say "putting on their airs" (show offs). It's funny to me that people say that "that's a Utopian way of seeing things" (socialism), Excuse me ! but the society that we live in (USA) was a utopian idea to begin with, WTF.

    Which dialect ? Mandarin or Cantonese and there is another one that I can't think of right now but its something like "Mia-Ping " ?, anyway , can you tell me, WTF is wrong with Beck's left eye ? it looks like he was punched there    Ps. I have a Chinese - American dictionary, but I can't locate it right now, I've moved last July and got a lot of stuff still in boxes, but I need to find it for the Calligraphy in it, I do calligraphy, to  (not that I can't now) focus even better.   

i don't recall that quote, but it could have been either of them.  that sounds like the style of their "revolutionary" writings, which they openly admitted appealed to the emotions.  speaking purely in terms of causality, neither marx nor engels would have asserted that anything as metaphysical as "greed" had anything to do with it.  a marxist is not a compassionate crusader (or, at least, that's not what makes him or her a marxist): a marxist is merely someone who swims with the current of history rather than against it.

It is ironic (to us), and deeply frustrating, to dedicated Marxists, that so far, the major attempts at implementing some version of his theory have themselves collapsed (USSR) or adopted Authoritarian Capitalism (China). While Capitalism keeps marching on, with the occasional stumble.

Of course they will, like all True dogmatists, say that they weren't True Marxists.

Then when Capitalism has its periodic explosions - from the Great Depression to the GFC - dedicated Free-Marketers/Capitalists will say the same sort of thing. "It was too much Govt interference in the Market" ie not letting it "work".

Any dogmatic approach, ie not continually monitoring and correcting, with checks and balances, is eventually likely to explode or descend into an anarchic free-for-all or a dictatorship, given there will always be some people who are governed by human greed for Power and/or Wealth.

They have contempt of anything that threatens their methods of making unilateral decisions, or judgments. Their whole methodology is to 'preach' and 'lecture'. It's not about 'dialogue'.

It's about asserting things without any impartial reasoning.

Period.

They claim the 'reasons' should be obvious...

Well, no.

Apples and apple carts.

A lot of jobs have a low tipping point, in order to qualify to reaching a simple objective. Like a mailman, for instance.

Technically, you could condition a chimp to do it.

With politics, it's not so easy, as the 'chimp' experiment proved...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29162

None of us are Marxists, at least I am not. Germans still drive on the Autobaun that Hitler built. Does that mean modern Germany loves Hitler? China's government certainly isn't what we value in the west, but we have no problem buying the products they sell to us. And they do that quite effectively.

SOME of what Marx said, made sense, but his total package was a mistake and wrong. It didn't take into account human nature.

He suffered from the same "utopia" compartmentalization you suffer from. Life is a range, and humans are a range and there is NO one label that you can slap onto a government that will always represent every individual under that government.

WHICH IS WHY the founders of America ended up writing the Constitution which DID take into account that we are individuals.

You suffer from the same black and white thinking Marx suffered from, "If we just slap this simple solution onto a complex problem, everything will be ok" NOTHING in reality is ever black and white and economies and governments are NEVER as simple as the labels we slap on them.

THE ONLY thing I value that Marx said was, "the best of your ability according to your means". The rest of what he promoted which ended up being twisted by Stalin, was a mistake and WRONG! AGAIN, Marx failed to take into account POWER GRABS, which is what ended up happening.

China's government IS oppressive, but they do get some things right. They are kicking our ass economically and their population IS highly more educated on average. That does not mean I want to live there, it just means if we want to compete we could learn from them.

America does not have to become Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, or China by looking at something effective they might be doing. THAT is how you compete.

Businesses in America do the same thing. They look at a competitor's product, come up with something similar, but that does not make them the same company because they make the same types of products.

IF America, especially in WW2 did not care about what Japan or Germany were doing as far as inventing weapons, and didn't learn from them, we would have lost that war.

It is why we were able to beat Russia to nukes. If Russia had beat us to that the world would look completely different today.

Your shallow thinking is so painfully obvious and is a product of your own black and white fictional god. I ment doG.

 I do hate the fact that people like you still spew bullshit like this in a pluralistic country. If you had your way our government would put a gun to my head and force me to swear an oath to your god.

I guess the founders fucked up with the First Amendment that says I don't have to believe what you believe. It also DOES NOT demand an oath to Jesus via "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" Go read the United States Constitution.

Wanna hear what Jefferson said about religion and your precious Jesus?

Letter to John Adams April 11 1823

Here's another from Jefferson,

Letter to Frances Adrian van Der Kemp, July 30th 1816

Letter to Peter Carr, August 10th 1787

Letter to Thomas Law, June 13th, 1814

AND HERE IS A LAW SIGNED BY CONGRESS WITHOUT DISSENT,

It's common name is The Treaty of Tripoli, called the Barbary Treaty

They were for freedom of religion, not a Christian theocracy.

Do your homework before you spew such stupid shit.

--

If others here can stomach the site of you without vomiting, kudos to them. I'd rather staple my nuts to the wall than ever met you face to face.

None of the Christians I work with, nor my Mother who does believe, would ever say some of the assholish bigoted crap you have said on this website.

I find you sick and vile and nothing but a brat.

they're mostly roman or byzantine catholic in slovakia, with the mass in modern slovak.  very few slavonic churches, and those mostly in the east, near the ukraine.

Sounds more like all bible believing Christians should be Communists. The Holy Spirit and Saint Peter sound like communist party bosses:

The Believers Share Their Possessions

 ³² All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. ³³ With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all ³⁴ that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales ³⁵ and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Ananias and Sapphira

 ¹ Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. ² With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

 ³ Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ⁴ Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

 ⁵ When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. ⁶ Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

 ⁷ About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

   “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

 ⁹ Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

 ¹⁰ At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹ Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Well no, the wages weren't bad, actually. Not for them, anyway, to these people the earning potential was very promising. The problem was that they became indentured via their travel costs (which were somewhat inflated) and thus never saw the wage they were promised.

The working conditions were pretty appalling, 7 day working weeks and the opportunity to curl up on a bench in the sun with an empty belly between shifts, not very humane.

But, I'd wonder why any capitalist would bring that up, given it is extremely profitable, and when the 'profit motive' is to be hailed as saviour of humanity from the great selfish unforgiving beastie that is the world of nature according to capitalism, surely, it's positively saintly practice, right?

 Saipan is/was hardly laissez-faire. Laissez-faire capitalism requires that the workers be allowed to purchase property and invest in new ventures if they have the money to do so. Saipan (and all of CNMI) have laws that make it difficult for foreigners to be owners and also for immigrants to become full citizens. The majority of the workers couldn't become citizens so had no chance to invest in a business, even if they did have enough cash. Their system is really closer to being feudal than laissez-faire capitalist.

Laissez-faire capitalism requires two things, a policy of non-interference from the government AND individual ownership rights. Saipan had the former to some extent, but did not have the latter. Without individual ownership rights you miss out on the innovation and competition that drives a free market economy. The whole theory of laissez-faire rests on the worker having incentive to come up with new and better ideas because they can be rewarded financially for them. If you can't own property, you don't get the reward, you have no reason to innovate. 

fruits of an individual's labor are shared all the time, otherwise we'd have no manufacturing.  i think what you really mean is returns from an idiviual's capital should not be shared.  one may purchase a certain amount of labor with capital, and that labor may produce, but capital does not equal labor (indeed, labor surpasses capital to produce surplus value, otherwise the capitalist wouldn't bother to begin with), nor can the capitalist call that product the fruits of his labor.

one doesn't even have to go to marx for these concepts.  david ricardo set them down half a century earlier and, unlike marx, his work still remains a go-to in modern free market economics.

I one makes a shirt with his own labor, he can keep the shirt for his own pleasure, trade it for something of equal value or the government can take in the name of the common good. Seems like only the latter is it a forced 'sharing'.

In some cases where there is research and management it is the fruit of their labor. In many cases the payoff is the fruit of his risk.

If the capitalist didn't add any value, the laborers could just sell directly to the consumer. The capitalist is just a middleman that must compete for laborers and customers. If his profits are excessive, another capitalist can come into the market and take away his workers and his customers.

Blaming the capitalist for low wages and high prices is like blaming the gas station owner because you can't afford to fill up. He's just a middleman, the problem is too much demand, too little supply. If you're going to have government intervention in the market, it seems like it ought to be attacking these problems directly.

The capitalists in Saipan didn't create a poverty/overpopulation problem in the Philippines. It was there for a long time.

It is precisely that "oversight" that led to the taxpayers bailing out corporations that should have gone bankrupt. It is that "oversight" that has led to GE paying $0 in taxes on $5 billion in profit while their competitors pay 35%. Sucking Bama's cock is profitable. Making money in our country through political connections has become more profitable than producing what consumers demand, and it is precisely the fault of government regulations that single out particular companies and industries.

Brought to you by those who crow about the need of more regulation... I agree, there should be a wall of separation between government and business. Without government assistance in the form of regulation and tax code there would be no monopolies. And we can certainly throw corporate welfare out the window. Government bailing out companies is about as socialist as you can get. We should get rid of the socialized losses and keep the privatized profits. 

Wrong. Inflated prices and inflated demand have been directly caused by the federal reserve. They have been printing money with the GOAL of causing inflation. I wrote a post on this some months ago warning that inflation was going to get worse because of QE2. Our government still insists that inflation isn't a problem and only recently admitted that it was going on at all. That idiot (criminal?) Ben Bernanke said that the inflation was minimal and temporary and solely the result of the problems in the Middle East. He is either a complete incompetent or a liar. Either one is scary in the man who has more power over our economy than any other person. 

We haven't even realized the full extent of the inflation that is occurring yet. Many companies have been absorbing the higher costs of raw materials, but eventually those costs will be passed down to the consumer. By the end of this year, everything you buy is going to be more expensive. It is a direct result of QE2 and our governments irresponsible spending. It is predictable and avoidable, yet our government continues to listen to "economists" who are repeatedly wrong about their predictions. (Remember how the stimulus was supposed to create so many jobs? Have you seen the unemployment rate?)

Unless people wake up and force our government to change, things are going to get real ugly as high prices without rising income will cause things to get tight for people, who will then go to the government for aid, which will lead to spending more money we don't have, leading to more inflation. We are going to have to go through some of the same austerity measures that they are attempting all over Europe. We would be better off doing it sooner rather than later, because no one in the world has enough money to bail us out.

The fed has also kept interest rates well below market levels which has the effect of making it cheap to borrow money. When it is cheap to borrow money, consumers will purchase more than they can afford. It kept our economy booming for awhile but now, even the lure of cheap money can't get people to spend more. Don't blame companies. The government has  far more control over the value of the dollar than they do.

Then take away the power at the top.

Will you please get off of labels.

Humans should not have a monopoly on resources, but it is absurd to ignore private property rights. You cloths are your private property as well. Your family pictures are your private property. Every human has some extent of claiming objects as personal property. It is absurd to say we should never own anything.

Monopolies of power are the problem, whatever label that monopoly holds. In America the monopoly is held currently by one class. The monopoly is held by the Saudi Royal family via monopoly of resources.

It is true that no one owns the planet and we DO need to start thinking that way as a species. But you'd have to kill me to try to take my home ownership away from me and hand it over to my government.

It is NOT either or, and labels are a bullshit distraction away from human nature.

WE ARE BOTH greedy and empathetic as a species, NOT EITHER OR, but both. So any form of government has to allow BOTH range of actions to exist by making oversight the norm as a check on BOTH greed and social issues.

I would not want a government run economy, but at the same time I do not like the no rules attitude corporate America has.

I think you give the label "communist" too much credit and I am damned sure you wouldn't like living in states like China or North Korea and their oppression of dissent.

AND China is just as much a exploiter of the planet as America.

Human emotions and actions are a range, not an absolute. Labels are a distraction away from the full range of these natural displays we have evolved to have. You can not slap a label onto a complex species as a utopia answer.

"If we just do it this way" is a utopia on a planet of 7 billion. Problem solving is not label based, but taking seeking pragmatic steps of overlap while maximizing individuality. In short, there is no utopia word to global issues. There are only REAL problems that humans have that transcend labels, such as jobs, housing, disease, crime, and resources.

Isms are bullshit, and have done nothing but serve to divide humanity.

I think in some ways because of social networking and global media, more people are getting wise to the needless divisions governments create to support their superficial gang mentalities.

There is no absolute "right answer" to humanity's problems other than a "better goal" of the dignity of the individual.

Life is not a mystery or a label. Life is all about gaining resources and to use labels as utopia short cuts to problem solving is what is holding us back as a species.

Westernized open markets AND even China are CAPITALISTIC, so the issue is not property rights or ownership of resources, the problem is monopolies of power and environmental short sightedness.

Money equals power and no matter what form of government you set up, if the money has no check on it the abuse is unchecked. China is as abusive to the planet as America is.

I do think big oil needs to be broken up and needs more regulation. I do think there needs to be a mandate in America, just like seat belts are now mandatory, to stop selling Hummers and gas hogs, and mandate hybrids and electric cars. But no, I do not want to rid the world of all big business. Just rid the world of monopolies based on money. Just like China's communist oppressive government wouldn't have power if it didn't have money.

MONOPOLIES OF POWER are the issue, not labels.

Labels are a timesaver. Stereotypes save even more time.

I DO own my property. The fact that humans expect others to pay their share is merely a social contract. Yes I would expect them to do that. You cant live in a tax free world. That is called ANARCHY. You achieve a tax free world and all you will have is a totalitarian state ruled by the wealth. And if that happened, those with the wealth wouldn't even wait for you to pay them anything, they would simply take it whenever they wanted. No different than the dark ages where the kings took whatever they wanted.

At least this way you cant simply have your property taken without reason. I have to pay my property tax to pay for things like the fire department and police and roads and water. Do you think I shouldn't pay for that? If you don't think I should pay property tax, then you can pay mine for me. How generous of you.

No taxes no rules is a utopia that will never exist, especially in a civil society. 

You have bought into a script and life is never as simple as "do this" and everything will be ok. 

ANY SYSTEM OR POLITICAL PARTY OR RELIGION OR CLASS, when left with no oversight or check on it will lead to abuse. Having taxes by itself is not abuse.

Come up with another argument other than "taxes always bad". Goverment waste is a better argument, but one politicians waste is another's boon. I think it is a waste to taxpayers in NJ who are still paying for a stadium that is now a parking lot. I think two wars which haven't produced much in progress for those countries was a waste. I think the deregulation of Wall Street has caused massive damage to our economy.

I don't mind paying my taxes, if we didn't have them, we wouldnt have seat belt laws because we wouldn't have anyway to pay the salaries of the law makers who mandated them. I think we are better off because of those laws. I think we are better off because we pay police and firemen.

Stop blaming the middle class and poor for the bad behavior of the rich. Paying taxes sucks, no one likes to do it. SO WHAT? They are still needed otherwise what will happen is that you end up with Somalia where only those with wealth have power BECAUSE OF NO CHECKS AND BALANCES ON POWER BECAUSE OF MONEY.

There is more than one class in our country and I am tired of the old FAUX NEWS talking points that only those who have should have any say.

That merely amounts to "might makes right".

I wasn't arguing that taxes are always bad (although, most of them are). I was simply pointing out that you don't own your house. If you decided to quit your job and didn't have enough money to pay property taxes, you would be evicted. It is no different than when any other landlord evicts you. Ownership implies that no one can take it away from you. The government can, and does. So I have a particular problem with property taxes- even a larger one than I have for income taxes. Especially since property taxes are based on the current value of the property rather than the value of it when it was purchased.

I have seen people forced out of their homes because rich people decided to build mansions around them and increased the value to the point that they couldn't afford their homes. Their property taxes go up from a manageable $1000 a year to $3000 or $4000 - most of which does NOT go towards police, firemen, roads or water. The majority of it goes to the schools. And in most counties a wide range of BS programs. The result is usually that the taxes get so high the people who live there sell their house (usually at well below market value) and move to a poorer area. But sometimes, you get the grandma who refuses to move, can't pay the bill and gets evicted by the sheriff. I don't think it is right to force people from homes they supposedly own by increasing taxes to a point that they can't afford them.  There is a better way to pay for the necessities.

Then of course there are cases where the government simply takes your property away, because they decide there is a better purpose for it. (See Kelo v. New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) where houses were taken from people to build a Pfizer plant- which was never built, the houses were destroyed) Sure, they toss you a few dollars, whatever the government determines is "just compensation", but the fact remains, you do not own your house. At the end of the day, it is owned by the government and you are a renter. 

If you get rid of personal property tax and shift it under another colomn then if those people dont pay that tax they get something taken from them or they go to jail. So any way you slice it the government will tax something and if you dont pay or you cheat on it, you go to jail.

"No taxation without representation" does not mean "no taxes".

AND if you really want to get esoteric we don't own anything in reality, we merely use things while we are alive since nothing lasts forever.

I am fine with property tax. I am not fine with some of the laws outside tax that big business can now use to force your off your property for their own use.

And you are acting as if the IRS will kick you off your land if you are a penny short or a day late. No, if you know you are going to be short, you can try to get them to reduce it, or make a long term payment plan. IRS agents are not boogiemen and exist under BOTH republican and democrat presidents. They are merely humans enforcing the laws WE as a society set up.

I would say if you want to get rid of all personal property tax, where would you shift the income from that. Reducing taxes isn't the only thing you can do. Less income, less police. Less road care, less firemen.

You cant simply get rid of all taxes.