Karl Marx on economics

Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1478
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Karl Marx on economics

Seemingly random question, not looking for super detail.

 

Why did marx believe communism would be an economically superior system to capitalism. What marxists say is irrelevant, what did marx himself say?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Then of course there

Quote:
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.

Beyond, it is rare when I find myself agreeing with you on this particular subject. This DOES scare the shit out of me. My advice to you is to stop voting republican. Who do you think pays off government to make laws to get away with this.

If I really owned my property in the utopia you dream of, it would be it's own country. If you had absolute control over your property then  you could murder people on your property because the property is under your absolute control.

We are a nation of laws and those laws make us civil and taxes are the burden we pay to keep things civil. You can only get rid of certain columns, but if you do, you have to raise that same money in another column, and if those people don't pay in the other column, the government can come after you own freedom, in any case, property tax or not.

But I absolutely agree that a business should have no right to bully the middle class or poor off their property so they can take it for their own use. Eminent domain laws have been twisted and abused. They were intended for police stations, highways, fire departments and public schools. They were never intended for Wal Mart to come in and say, "Take that property from those people so I can build a store here".

It is nothing but "might makes right".

I am not happy with our current state anymore than you are. I do not see our problems as black and white as most. I do not want to rid the nation of wealth, but I do see wealthy abusing power, just like the example you quoted above.

ABUSE OF POWER is my problem. Taxes by themselves are not.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Then of

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
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.

Beyond, it is rare when I find myself agreeing with you on this particular subject. This DOES scare the shit out of me. My advice to you is to stop voting republican. Who do you think pays off government to make laws to get away with this.

If I really owned my property in the utopia you dream of, it would be it's own country. If you had absolute control over your property then  you could murder people on your property because the property is under your absolute control.

We are a nation of laws and those laws make us civil and taxes are the burden we pay to keep things civil. You can only get rid of certain columns, but if you do, you have to raise that same money in another column, and if those people don't pay in the other column, the government can come after you own freedom, in any case, property tax or not.

But I absolutely agree that a business should have no right to bully the middle class or poor off their property so they can take it for their own use. Eminent domain laws have been twisted and abused. They were intended for police stations, highways, fire departments and public schools. They were never intended for Wal Mart to come in and say, "Take that property from those people so I can build a store here".

It is nothing but "might makes right".

I am not happy with our current state anymore than you are. I do not see our problems as black and white as most. I do not want to rid the nation of wealth, but I do see wealthy abusing power, just like the example you quoted above.

ABUSE OF POWER is my problem. Taxes by themselves are not.

 

I haven't voted for a single republican in years. I vote almost exclusively libertarian and on occasion for a different 3rd party.

 

Although, in the New London scenario the city council that made the decision was ran by democrats. Kind of funny considering that democrats are supposed to be "anti business". They pretend to be, but are not. Look at GE, GM, Goldman Sachs and all the other companies that have the current administration in their pocket. The one good thing about republicans being in power is that at least the news media is all over them when they are handing out favors. But both parties are equally guilty when it comes to these types of laws, the companies granted favors change but the problem remains. I would prefer if people would vote communist or green party than for either major party. At least the communists are honest. 

 

As far as property taxes are concerned I am going to start a new thread on that because I have a lot to say about it and some pretty strong beliefs in that regard.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:So, another

Kapkao wrote:

So, another words... a great deal of wishful thinking and classic self-deception. Desire almost never defines truth, but authors and 'social architects' like Marx apparently thought it would be enough.

I am not sure what you are saying by this.

There is no utopia in the form of a label that you can slap on a complex pluralistic society. MARX WAS WRONG. But so are the top two percent who think it is ok to take money away from the other two classes when they fuck up and then ask for more tax cuts at the same time.

That would be like a doctor simply sewing u a bullet wound only on the skin surface with stitches and not treating the internal injuries.

Labels are not cures, one way or the other. An open market is desirable. But it also comes with responsibility and you cant simply dump your mistakes on everyone else. I have seen nothing but bubbles and bailouts for the past 30 years and jobs going overseas and wages remaining stagnant while the cost of living and pay gap continue to explode.

On a long term scale this is not sustainable. The middle class and poor are not causing this, they are simply doing what any normal person would do when feeling a pinch, they ask for protection.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
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.

Beyond, it is rare when I find myself agreeing with you on this particular subject. This DOES scare the shit out of me. My advice to you is to stop voting republican. Who do you think pays off government to make laws to get away with this.

If I really owned my property in the utopia you dream of, it would be it's own country. If you had absolute control over your property then  you could murder people on your property because the property is under your absolute control.

We are a nation of laws and those laws make us civil and taxes are the burden we pay to keep things civil. You can only get rid of certain columns, but if you do, you have to raise that same money in another column, and if those people don't pay in the other column, the government can come after you own freedom, in any case, property tax or not.

But I absolutely agree that a business should have no right to bully the middle class or poor off their property so they can take it for their own use. Eminent domain laws have been twisted and abused. They were intended for police stations, highways, fire departments and public schools. They were never intended for Wal Mart to come in and say, "Take that property from those people so I can build a store here".

It is nothing but "might makes right".

I am not happy with our current state anymore than you are. I do not see our problems as black and white as most. I do not want to rid the nation of wealth, but I do see wealthy abusing power, just like the example you quoted above.

ABUSE OF POWER is my problem. Taxes by themselves are not.

 

I haven't voted for a single republican in years. I vote almost exclusively libertarian and on occasion for a different 3rd party.

 

Although, in the New London scenario the city council that made the decision was ran by democrats. Kind of funny considering that democrats are supposed to be "anti business". They pretend to be, but are not. Look at GE, GM, Goldman Sachs and all the other companies that have the current administration in their pocket. The one good thing about republicans being in power is that at least the news media is all over them when they are handing out favors. But both parties are equally guilty when it comes to these types of laws, the companies granted favors change but the problem remains. I would prefer if people would vote communist or green party than for either major party. At least the communists are honest. 

 

As far as property taxes are concerned I am going to start a new thread on that because I have a lot to say about it and some pretty strong beliefs in that regard.

Libertarians are merely another way of pretending not to be republican.

On some social issues such as gays or pot, they might get my vote ONLY ON THOSE ISSUES, but economically I really dont see any party not being bought off in some way. Social issues are a nice way distract people from the pozy scheme our government has become.

I wish Dems wouldn't be the fucking wimps they are turning out to be.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:Well

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

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?

What you fail to mention is that workers sent much of their money back home. So this is an example of where capitalism worked because otherwise the families back home would have starved, right? So I would say it's inhumane to not support mandatory family planning.

I didn't fail to mention those who were paid beause I was talking about those who weren't, that they were a common element of this unregulated capitalist paradise, in itself, is a strong indictment of the prospects for human society under Lassez Faire. A consequent slave class has been demonstrated. Dodging the fact changes nothing.

EXC wrote:

Wages for unskilled labor in a capitalist system will be set a level that enables the survival of the worker and his children, no higher.  But that is better than the alternative.

The point is not whether it should be higher but whether it is going to be lower. In a world where abstracted and superficial morals supersede fundamental human decency, where paying back what you owe is a higher ethical priority than your survival or dignity, enslavement is not merely a possibility, it is defensible, just and ethically superior.

The fatal flaw undoing the system of capitalism by it's own means is the protracted deference to intangible moral good. It's not possible for humanity to ultimately maintain agreement for purely conceptual mores like financial obligation or economic freedom as highest principle. THis is not due to any corruption of said principles, but because the principle itself is ultimately construct of the mind, a figment, it can be utterly dismissed and have no consequent bearing on real tangible experience. Hence inevitably it will be pushed aside for something less cerebral, something concrete in reality like emotional obligation and actual physical freedom. I think, going back to the origins of the thread, Marx perceived the future of capitalism much the same way.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Eloise wrote:EXC

Eloise wrote:

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

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?

What you fail to mention is that workers sent much of their money back home. So this is an example of where capitalism worked because otherwise the families back home would have starved, right? So I would say it's inhumane to not support mandatory family planning.

I didn't fail to mention those who were paid beause I was talking about those who weren't, that they were a common element of this unregulated capitalist paradise, in itself, is a strong indictment of the prospects for human society under Lassez Faire. A consequent slave class has been demonstrated. Dodging the fact changes nothing.

EXC wrote:

Wages for unskilled labor in a capitalist system will be set a level that enables the survival of the worker and his children, no higher.  But that is better than the alternative.

The point is not whether it should be higher but whether it is going to be lower. In a world where abstracted and superficial morals supersede fundamental human decency, where paying back what you owe is a higher ethical priority than your survival or dignity, enslavement is not merely a possibility, it is defensible, just and ethically superior.

The fatal flaw undoing the system of capitalism by it's own means is the protracted deference to intangible moral good. It's not possible for humanity to ultimately maintain agreement for purely conceptual mores like financial obligation or economic freedom as highest principle. THis is not due to any corruption of said principles, but because the principle itself is ultimately construct of the mind, a figment, it can be utterly dismissed and have no consequent bearing on real tangible experience. Hence inevitably it will be pushed aside for something less cerebral, something concrete in reality like emotional obligation and actual physical freedom. I think, going back to the origins of the thread, Marx perceived the future of capitalism much the same way.

 

 

This seems over conflated.

I think the best ethic humanity can have is "one size does not fit all".

AND AGAIN, stop using "capitalism" as if it is a form of government, IT IS NOT.

We have open markets and more strictly controlled closed markets. China is a capitalistic country controlled by one political party. Saudi Arabia is a capitalistic country controlled by one sect of religion. They both make money otherwise they wouldn't have power.

Marx again, only based on ONE SENTENCE, not his total package, was on key with the idea that we are all individuals with different desires and different capabilities, "best of your ability according to your means".

THAT IS the only thing he said I know of that I can agree to. The rest of his ideas were horrible utopias and nothing but the same "one size fits all" the word utopia basically means. Marx was exploited by the power grab of the time preying on the poor economy of the time.

ANYTHING, be it a religion, political party, business, or class, when left without checks on it will become abusive. The only way to maximize benefit is to have oversight and anti-trust laws to prevent ANY form of monopoly of power.

Stalin sold the false utopia of "power to the worker" which he exploited to maintain his own power which required wealth. Stalin did not live in a tent. Iran's I'm a dumbass Jerk PM does not live in a tent. None of them would have power if they didn't have the money to maintain the power.

ABUSE OF POWER is the issue, not individual desires.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Eloise

Brian37 wrote:

Eloise wrote:

...

The point is not whether it should be higher but whether it is going to be lower. In a world where abstracted and superficial morals supersede fundamental human decency, where paying back what you owe is a higher ethical priority than your survival or dignity, enslavement is not merely a possibility, it is defensible, just and ethically superior.

The fatal flaw undoing the system of capitalism by it's own means is the protracted deference to intangible moral good. It's not possible for humanity to ultimately maintain agreement for purely conceptual mores like financial obligation or economic freedom as highest principle. THis is not due to any corruption of said principles, but because the principle itself is ultimately construct of the mind, a figment, it can be utterly dismissed and have no consequent bearing on real tangible experience. Hence inevitably it will be pushed aside for something less cerebral, something concrete in reality like emotional obligation and actual physical freedom. I think, going back to the origins of the thread, Marx perceived the future of capitalism much the same way.

 

This seems over conflated.

How?

Brian37 wrote:

ANYTHING, be it a religion, political party, business, or class, when left without checks on it will become abusive. The only way to maximize benefit is to have oversight and anti-trust laws to prevent ANY form of monopoly of power.

The basic premise of economic rationalism, the main philosophial proponent of modern belief in capitalism, is that the market IS, in itself, a democratic overseer. Consistent with this notion Lassez Faire doesn't need checks to be equitable; according to economic rationalism, the Lassez Faire market provides checks for an inherently inequitable world.

Now the beliefs of individual capitalists fall into line widely accross a spectrum of ideas related to this one, but the central tenet of economic rationalism is the idea that has the most traction in modern thought so it's pretty fair to say that today's capitalism, in the larger sense, is about lining up with economic rationalism. It is about moving democracy to the market in the promise that only the market can properly, neutrally, supply us with equity.

 

Brian37 wrote:

ABUSE OF POWER is the issue, not individual desires.

 

I believe you might be misundertanding me, Brian. The flaw I proposed was not an attempt to cast capitalism as a 'goodie' or 'baddie'. I was stating what I thought capitalism wouuld inevitably be, besides any moral judgement.

I think capitalism will inevitably be judged too cerebral to matter. It's principles are not concrete enough for a real flesh society of humans to always agree to and hence I see it going the way of other things that consist entirely of the same intangible stuff, like superstition. People, when faced with a choice to uphold a principle with obvious and concrete application or uphold a principle with only abstracted applications like which side of zero a number falls on or the survivability of an ambiguously defined entity (like corporation/ invisible hand), people will choose the concrete principle and reject capitalism. It is inevitable.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Stop calling capitalism a

Stop calling capitalism a form of government, it is not.

In common dictionary terms humans may define it as such.

BUT AT IT'S CORE it does not describe a form of government. It merely means "to make money", it does not address how you make money, or the government that makes money.

China's communist party makes money. Iran's government makes money. The Saudi government makes money. None of those powers would have power if they didn't capitalize off the sale of something.

What is different is the degree of control over an open market vs a more strictly controlled closed market. BUT ALL GOVERNMENTS, however badly or successfully, make money.

Monopolies of power are my issue. And to say America doesn't have this problem is a joke. The only difference between China's Communist party's monopoly of power is that a political party has that monopoly. In America one class has a growing monopoly. The uber rich, not the mom and pop shops, but the uber rich have bought off both parties to create a no-rules pay gap exploding economy.

It will lead us to have a more lopsided economy like India has. If we continue allowing these monopolies to increase we will have the same lopsided ratio India has between its top and bottom.

Wages are stagnant here and the cost of living has gotten way out of control BECAUSE of too much money influencing our politics.

If our economy wasn't rigged by the top and it was based on mere "supply and demand" I would be happy with that.

What we are becoming is what we were like before WW2. That was the age of "no rules", our middle class was built because of regulation and anti-trust laws. It is why we have mandated seat belt laws. It is why our bosses cant force us to work 16 hour days at 30 cents an hour 6 days a week.

We are slowly becoming indentured slaves because of the top 2 percent.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Stop calling

Brian37 wrote:

Stop calling capitalism a form of government, it is not.

Stop dictating behavior, sparky.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Stop calling

Brian37 wrote:

Stop calling capitalism a form of government, it is not.

What are you on about Brian? Capitalism is a societal system which can be applied to economics and to politics. I haven't called it a 'form of government', in any case, but the ideologies that support it, like economic rationalism are most definitely ideologies of government as well. Thus referring to it in the context of its influence on government is not wrong by a long shot.

Brian37 wrote:

BUT AT IT'S CORE it does not describe a form of government. It merely means "to make money",

It does not mean that at all, capitalism may come from 'to capitalise', which means 'to take advantage of' or 'profit from' but capitalise is not actually related to "Capitalism" because it is not a 'word' per se, it is a proper noun, a name. Caitalism is the name of a specific set of beliefs which are wide ranging in their application, as a package this set is a theoretical system which informs and dictates social, political and economic structures.

Brian wrote:

it does not address how you make money, or the government that makes money.

Yes it does address how you make money, that is exactly what it does at its core. Specifically Capitalism deigns you make money by owning a means of production of goods. It doesn't really address how the government makes money, no, but this is because it doesn't fundamentally address any other economic structure but itself. Ideally Capitalism is thought to be self-correcting and hence self governing hence doesn't need to address a system of government at all, however ideals being as they are most theories of Capitalism address how government should/should not operate in the market.

Brian37 wrote:

If our economy wasn't rigged by the top and it was based on mere "supply and demand" I would be happy with that.

I doubt you would. The reality for supply and demand is that demand is very easily subverted by clever tactics and supply is easily corrupted by rich interests. The reality is we can not rely on these, as implied by the model, for judicious distribution of the common good. Monopolies are an example of corruption at the supply end, sure. But this model has issues at the demand end too, having rational self interest does not mean we have perfect knowledge of what is in our rational self interest, and the extreme competition of todays markets has proved that no less than that is truly required for demand to be an efficiently equitable mechanism of distribution.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Stop calling capitalism a form of government, it is not.

Stop dictating behavior, sparky.

Now you're getting it. Since life is not a script then we need to see each other as individuals, not potential club members.

But you are wrong about this issue, again you are missing my point.

Even if we are not talking about humans, you can use the word "capitalize" in nature. A colony of ants searches for resources. When it finds those resources, it is capitalizing "gaining an advantage". In human terms "capitalize" is speaking in terms of money, but it is still in laymen's terms means "to take advantage of".

EVERY government "takes advantage" of something and humans need money to have power.

So my issue isn't that "capitalizing" off of something exists. My issue is abuse of power.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog