Common arguments against Marx

[RGacky3]

1. The tendancy to monopolies and ologarchies. Applicable to certain industries (its very hard to monopolize restaurants for exampe, whereas the diamond industry has basically done it, and its much easier to make a telecom olocarchy or monopoly).

Neo Liberal:Creative destructurion, i.e. new technologies, new ideas and so on breaks up monopolies, destroys the equilibrium and thus opens up new markets, or destroys the old markets and breaks up, creative destruction happens all the time in capitalism.

Keynsian: Also you can have government anti-trust laws, to counter act this.

Yes creative destruction does happen all the time under capitalism, and its true that it does break up ologarchies and monopolies. However the tendancy is still there, and creative destruction is not calculatable in market theory because its a one off event. You cannot rely on it. Also with the raise of power of the financial capitalist, even with creative destruction, nowerdays the new venture capitalist generally becomes either part of the old established ologarchies or monopolies, or they become subservient to financial capital. (Venture capitalists in totally new industries are a different issue).

Also anti-trust laws can only go so far, you can't break up ologarchies, you can break up a monopoly but the tendancy is still there and the government can only do to much before the capitalist class take control over the goernment.

2. Labor is paid the least possible and is only paid the amount to recreate the process, just enough to feed and so on.

Supply and demand, if you go to university you can demand a higher wage because their is more demand but less supply, look around many different workers make different wages, different workers have different wages, and it all amounts to how much their labor is needed.

This is a missreading of Marx imo, you have a compeditive labor market, thats why Marx was one of the first people who treated labor as a commodity. Supply and demand always has an effect on labor price, which is evident in his other theories of wage repression based on the demand and the rate of profit to fall. What he was saying was that the survival wage was the MINIMUM you can pay a worker, and in different societies that means different things, for example a suriving wage in India is different from one in sweeden.

Infact I wouls argue that Marx's answer here did'nt take into consideration certain things, such as the idea that government welfare could allow workeres to be paid even less (Walmart workers on food stamps), because the state was taking up the difference.

You also have different other costs, for example supply and demand does'nt explain everything, university costs are taken into account for example.

3. The labor theory of value (not marx's but marx uses it).

The creation of wealth also requires intellectual know how, capital, allocation of capital, manegement, knowing the markets and so on.

Absolutely, and mental power, know now and so on are all part of the labor theory of value, thats why the capitalist sometimes has a dual role as a manager and a capitalist.

However, capital does not create wealth, anymore than guns kill people, anymore than spatulas make pancakes, and more than wood makes furnature. Capitalists, in their role as a capitalist, do not create anywealth, and Capitalist compensation is almost always determined now by their actual value added, but instead based on their control over the production, i.e. they take the surplus and just give it to themself.

More to come later.

[Broletariat]

For number 1, Marx DID note a tendency toward DEcentralisation in Vol3 of Das Kapital.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Read
"Why Marx was Right" by Terry Eagleton.

Pretty much destroys these arguments.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Bixcd4NPL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[ZeroNowhere]

Read
"Why Marx was Right" by Terry Eagleton.

Pretty much destroys these arguments.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Bixcd4NPL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Just keep in mind that Terry Eagleton's knowledge of Marx scarcely exceeds the number of elephants that one could put on a pinhead.

[Conscript]

Just keep in mind that Terry Eagleton's knowledge of Marx scarcely exceeds the number of elephants that one could put on a pinhead.

Is it still worth reading?

[graffic]

However, capital does not create wealth, anymore than guns kill people, anymore than spatulas make pancakes, and more than wood makes furnature. Capitalists, in their role as a capitalist, do not create anywealth, and Capitalist compensation is almost always determined now by their actual value added, but instead based on their control over the production, i.e. they take the surplus and just give it to themself.

More to come later.

Capitalists do create wealth.

And Capitalism has raised living standards for millions around the world since it started and not necessarily taken surplus for themselves to an extent. If it wasn't for "capitalists" you'd still be in feudalism bowing to kings and working in fields as a peasent. Marx says this himself. Capitalism was a remarkable revolutionary achievement and it needs to grow and create wealth in order for socialism to come about effectively.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Is it still worth reading?

It is a good read, I finished it up in a few days. I found the information common knowledge among leftists, however it is the way the arguments for Marx are presented that makes the information more applicable.

[piet11111]

Capitalists do create wealth.

And Capitalism has raised living standards for millions around the world since it started and not necessarily taken surplus for themselves to an extent. If it wasn't for "capitalists" you'd still be in feudalism bowing to kings and working in fields as a peasent. Marx says this himself. Capitalism was a remarkable revolutionary achievement and it needs to grow and create wealth in order for socialism to come about effectively.

Capitalism can only be progressive upto a certain moment but since the market has gone global it has nowhere to grow to and without growth it needs to exploit existing markets more efficiently meaning that profits need to be squeezed out of wages.
But with wages going down so does consumption meaning over capacity in productivity resulting in lay-offs resulting in another lowering in consumption.

Capitalism has developed the productive forces to its limit and now it needs to be abolished to break the cycle of crisis and war.
Because the great depression was only solved by the destruction of the productive forces of Europe and Asia and we do not want to repeat that for a few more decades of capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Capitalists do create wealth.

And Capitalism has raised living standards for millions around the world since it started and not necessarily taken surplus for themselves to an extent. If it wasn't for "capitalists" you'd still be in feudalism bowing to kings and working in fields as a peasent. Marx says this himself. Capitalism was a remarkable revolutionary achievement and it needs to grow and create wealth in order for socialism to come about effectively.

The proletariat created all of the wealth under capitalism. So we shouldn't be thanking anyone. Capitalism wasn't structured to make everyone live under good living standards. It was structured for the Bourgeoisie to exert control over the masses and seize class power.

So these "capitalists" didn't do it intentionally, therefore we shouldn't give these fuckers any credit, (However during the Bourgeois revolutions it would have been progressive to support the Bourgeoisie).

Capitalism has created living standards never before seen in history. Never in history have human beings lived in such great conditions. An idiot would think otherwise.

But that doesn't mean a capitalist stage in production is necessary before socialism. China, for example, was prospering under the normal capitalist mode of production soon after the death of Mao. But that isn't because "China needed capitalism before socialism", it was because China was an isolated, and degenerating state constantly under siege and sabatoge. Once they opened up trade relations with the world and "opened up", they were no longer suffocated.

As long as the revolution spreads to the already industrialized capitalist powers than capitalism as a stage in human development isn't necessary in the third world.

[graffic]

Capitalism can only be progressive upto a certain moment but since the market has gone global it has nowhere to grow to and without growth it needs to exploit existing markets more efficiently meaning that profits need to be squeezed out of wages.

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Capitalists have always exploited markets



But with wages going down so does consumption meaning over capacity in productivity resulting in lay-offs resulting in another lowering in consumption.

And its not the first time capitalism has been in crisis


Capitalism has developed the productive forces to its limit and now it needs to be abolished to break the cycle of crisis and war.

There will always be crisis and war. Marx knows this, however human will arguably be better under communism. And Marxists have been saying the same thing about capitalism for one hundred years yet capitalism continues.

[graffic]

As long as the revolution spreads to the already industrialized capitalist powers than capitalism as a stage in human development isn't necessary in the third world.

Marx would suggest otherwise

[Ocean Seal]

Capitalists do create wealth.

No



And Capitalism has raised living standards for millions around the world since it started

Yes.


and not necessarily taken surplus for themselves to an extent.

What?


If it wasn't for "capitalists" you'd still be in feudalism bowing to kings and working in fields as a peasent.

Yes, but that capitalists didn't do this consciously, it is simply how the economy progresses.


Marx says this himself. Capitalism was a remarkable revolutionary achievement and it needs to grow and create wealth in order for socialism to come about effectively.
Yes, and its had its time to grow, and now we need socialism.

[graffic]

The question is, what type of socialism? Marx doesn't say because the future does not exist and you can only speculate. And most socialists can't agree on it. Unfortunately most people are happy with capitalism right now. Capitalism has a lot longer to run before socialism happens

[graffic]

The proletariat created all of the wealth under capitalism. So we shouldn't be thanking anyone.

Al the wealth? Thats not true



Capitalism wasn't structured to make everyone live under good living standards. It was structured for the Bourgeoisie to exert control over the masses and seize class power.

Capitalism was not "structured" like Marx and other thinkers structured the inversion of capitalism - Marxism. Its not relevant what capitalists interests were. Bourgeoisie exerted a degree of control however they also provided jobs and built schools and hospitals and took profit for themselves like any human would in the same situation.


So these "capitalists" didn't do it intentionally, therefore we shouldn't give these fuckers any credit, (However during the Bourgeois revolutions it would have been progressive to support the Bourgeoisie).


you need them to usher in socialism. They deserve some credit for their achievements

[Thirsty Crow]

Marx would suggest otherwise
I suggest on the other hand that you check out Marx's letters to Vera Zasulich where he supports the notion that the Russian peasant commune, the obschina, might function as the basis for socialist relations of production, under the condition which Rafiq correctly notes.



There will always be crisis and war. Marx knows this, however human will arguably be better under communism. And Marxists have been saying the same thing about capitalism for one hundred years yet capitalism continues.
Of course, outright repression and military ventures tend to prolong the lifespan of this social-economic formation.
And it is very unlikely that once global communism is acheived there will be capitalist crises, which are a specific occurence and even an economic mechanism within the capitalist mode of production. Again, it's reasonable to assume that global organization of production and distribution in communism will face problems of its own, though the exact character of these might be very mild in its destructive influences on human communities and individuals in comparison to the social effect of the capitalist crisis.

[ZeroNowhere]

you need them to usher in socialism. They deserve some credit for their achievements
They do, but I hear that they're having trouble taking care of it recently.

[graffic]

Its well known that Marx only believed socialism could be successful if it started in rich, developed capitalist countries. This is commonly used as a defense of Marx against criticism that russia was an example of how Marx was wrong and naive and that communism will fail.

[#FF0000]

Its well known that Marx only believed socialism could be successful if it started in rich, developed capitalist countries. This is commonly used as a defense of Marx against criticism that russia was an example of how Marx was wrong and naive and that communism will fail.

It's a defense for people who don't know history or understand the position Russia was in at the time.

And I'm pretty sure Marx started to change his opinion on that towards the end of his life, as well as his opinion on the peasantry.

Also, to Gacky:


Keynsian: Also you can have government anti-trust laws, to counter act this.

Not only is what you said kinda right but I want to point out that the ruling class has armies of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants who are there only to look for loopholes and slack, and to help change or break or bend laws as necessary. So, yeah there's that.

[ZeroNowhere]

The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obschina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.



It is clear that communal ownership in Russia is long past its period of florescence and, to all appearances, is moving towards its disintegration. Nevertheless, the possibility undeniably exists of raising this form of society to a higher one, if it should last until the circumstances are ripe for that, and if it shows itself capable of developing in such manner that the peasants no longer cultivate the land separately, but collectively; [In Poland, particularly in the Grodno gubernia, where the nobility for the most part was ruined by the insurrection of 1863, the peasants now frequently buy or rent estates from the nobles and cultivate them unpartitioned and on their collective account. And these peasants have not had communal ownership for centuries and are not Great Russians, but Poles, Lithuanians and Byelorussians.] of raising it to this higher form without it being necessary for the Russian peasants to go through the intermediate stage of bourgeois small holdings. This, however, can only happen if, before the complete break-up of communal ownership, a proletarian revolution is successfully carried out in Western Europe, creating for the Russian peasant the preconditions requisite for such a transition, particularly the material things he needs, if only to carry through the revolution, necessarily connected therewith, of his whole agricultural system. It is, therefore, sheer bounce for Mr. Tkachov to say that the Russian peasants, although “owners”, are “nearer to socialism” than the propertyless workers of Western Europe. Quite the opposite. If anything can still save Russian communal ownership and give it a chance of growing into a new, really viable form, it is a proletarian revolution in Western Europe.


For reference.

[piet11111]

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Capitalists have always exploited markets

Yes but the extent of exploitation differs.
Profit from western nations is high enough due to high productivity to allow a higher wage level then in China but with profit falling they need to lower wages AKA intensification of the exploitation of existing markets.


And its not the first time capitalism has been in crisis

True and every crisis is more intense then the previous ones.




There will always be crisis and war. Marx knows this, however human will arguably be better under communism. And Marxists have been saying the same thing about capitalism for one hundred years yet capitalism continues.

And how long did it take capitalism to become a global system ?
If your honest you would have to say that it was only in the last few decades that capitalism spread globally with the fall of the USSR and the Chinese going capitalist.
They certainly took long enough after the first few bourgeois revolutions managed to take hold.
And yet the capitalists demand communism to be a success overnight :laugh:

[Rafiq]

And Marxists have been saying the same thing about capitalism for one hundred years yet capitalism continues.

Only because of WWII. Capitalism almost was destroyed but the War delayed it. The fruits of the war are gone, now, though.

[Rafiq]

Marx would suggest otherwise

Stop talking about Marx. You obviously don't know jack shit about him.

Did you know that Marx said that a revolution started by the peasantry in Russia is possible, and that it is also possible that they could skip capitalism and go straight to socialism?

No, you didn't.

[Rafiq]

The question is, what type of socialism? Marx doesn't say because the future does not exist and you can only speculate. And most socialists can't agree on it. Unfortunately most people are happy with capitalism right now. Capitalism has a lot longer to run before socialism happens

Actually that's not fucking true. Take a look at history and look at all of the things that got capitalism out of it's mess.

We don't have something that could get us out of this mess.

[Rafiq]

Al the wealth? Thats not true

Okay, name some wealth generated under capitalism that was not because of the proletariat. You can't.




Capitalism was not "structured" like Marx and other thinkers structured the inversion of capitalism - Marxism. Its not relevant what capitalists interests were. Bourgeoisie exerted a degree of control however they also provided jobs and built schools and hospitals and took profit for themselves like any human would in the same situation.

Ha! You're not only a counterrevolutionary, you're a fool!

Marxism isn't "the inverse of capitalism". Marxism isn't a system. Marxism is an analysis of capitalism. And, capitalism was structured, but unintentionally. Capitalism was structured unknowingly, and slowly. The Bourgeoisie didn't give a fuck about helping people (I don't criticize them for it either, that's dumb), they only wanted profit. As a result, schools were built (The masses demanded free education) and hospitals were built on the basis of profit (And still are in the United States).

Stop talking out of your ass.


you need them to usher in socialism. They deserve some credit for their achievements

maybe on a long-scale, but as a Radical Socialist my interests are one and the same as that of the proletariat and therefore this "Praising of the Bourgeoisie" is not something I - or the communist movement would take in so kindly. They are now our class enemy and that is all that matters.

[Rafiq]

I suggest on the other hand that you check out Marx's letters to Vera Zasulich where he supports the notion that the Russian peasant commune, the obschina, might function as the basis for socialist relations of production, under the condition which Rafiq correctly notes. .

Ah, I see someone already pointed it out. I knew I read that somewhere, but I couldn't remember where.

[Rafiq]

Its well known that Marx only believed socialism could be successful if it started in rich, developed capitalist countries. This is commonly used as a defense of Marx against criticism that russia was an example of how Marx was wrong and naive and that communism will fail.

your point? Marx said that the Revolution had to spread to the already industrialized countries as well, but come the situation in which conditions for revolution in russia are ready (As they became later on) than the peasantry could skip the capitalist mode of production, and, this was furtherly acknowledged by Lenin.

The problem with Russia was that it didn't spread, not because they didn't go through the capitalist mode of production.

[Rafiq]

And I'm pretty sure Marx started to change his opinion on that towards the end of his life, as well as his opinion on the peasantry.


Well yes and no.

Throughout his whole 'Radical' life Marx believed that a revolution had to occur in the already industrialized, rich capitalist countries in order for socialism to exist anywhere.

Had the revolution spread to Germany in 1919 and was successful, we may have been living in socialism today.

[RGacky3]

Capitalists do create wealth.

And Capitalism has raised living standards for millions around the world since it started and not necessarily taken surplus for themselves to an extent. If it wasn't for "capitalists" you'd still be in feudalism bowing to kings and working in fields as a peasent. Marx says this himself. Capitalism was a remarkable revolutionary achievement and it needs to grow and create wealth in order for socialism to come about effectively.

Capitalism was revolutionary, but not because of Capitalists, but because of technology and the inherent drive capitalism has towards massiave growth.

ALso Capitalists do not create wealth (in their role as capitalists), if they do show it to me.

I love how Bud Strugge and Robert thanked you, dispite knowing absolutely nothing about Marxism.


Capitalism has a lot longer to run before socialism happens

Capitalism stopped working in the 1930s, since then its been on government life support.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism stopped working in the 1930s, since then its been on government life support.

Funny, that's about the time Communism stopped working, too. :)

[Bud Struggle]

I love how Bud Strugge and Robert thanked you, dispite knowing absolutely nothing about Marxism.


Been there. Saw what it "tried" to be. I'll give it an "A" for effort. :)

[Rafiq]

Funny, that's about the time Communism stopped working, too. :)

No, that would be 1919.

[RGacky3]

Funny, that's about the time Communism stopped working, too. http://www.revleft.com/vb/common-arguments-against-t163504/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

No it did'nt.


Been there. Saw what it "tried" to look like. http://www.revleft.com/vb/common-arguments-against-t163504/revleft/smilies/sad.gif

Seeing as you don't know anything about Marxism, you would'nt know what it was to begin with, Marxism is a critique of Capitalism and an economic tradition stupid, it can't be "tried."

[ZeroNowhere]

Maybe if you tell them this for the hundredth time, they'll finally listen.

[Bud Struggle]

No it did'nt.



Seeing as you don't know anything about Marxism, you would'nt know what it was to begin with, Marxism is a critique of Capitalism and an economic tradition stupid, it can't be "tried."

Your right it can't be tried. It was a nice idea, though.

[RGacky3]

Your right it can't be tried. It was a nice idea, though.

YOu have no idea what Marxism is, Marxism is a critique of capitalism. Socialism and communism is something else. Karl Marx was a socialist that made an analysis of capitalism and Marxism is that analysis. Please stop posting places where you don't know anything about the topic.

[RGacky3]

No, that would be 1919.

You thanked this post Bud, now tell me what he means by that and why. (otherwise stay in chit chat).

[R_P_A_S]

good thread!

[Bud Struggle]

You thanked this post Bud, now tell me what he means by that and why. (otherwise stay in chit chat).

Communism has been tried 50 times and has never happened.

[ZeroNowhere]

Communism has been tried 50 times and has never happened.
It is good that you have tabulated this data.

[Rafiq]

YOu have no idea what Marxism is, Marxism is a critique of capitalism. Socialism and communism is something else. Karl Marx was a socialist that made an analysis of capitalism and Marxism is that analysis. Please stop posting places where you don't know anything about the topic.

Marxism isnt just a critic of capitalism. It is an understanding of human history and their social relations

[Rafiq]

Communism has been tried 50 times and has never happened.

That's not what I meant. And as to why it didn't happen is a matter of debate.

It is not as if each attempt was different, as a start.

[ZeroNowhere]

It appears that Bud Struggle is misrepresenting other people's posts. Perhaps this should not be a surprise, however, given that he admittedly does not read (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2279142&postcount=14).

[Robert]

Maybe if you tell them this for the hundredth time, they'll finally listen. Yes, tell us again that the driving force of history is man's material condition, how changes come not from ideas or great men but from material circumstances. That history is a record of class struggle.

Tell me again how social relations are defined or grow out of man's relationship to the means of production. That since capitalists control them, man must sell his labor in order to survive, hence the demeaning term, "wage slave".

Tell me about all those pigeonholes you have for human beings, from lumpen to the bourgeoisie.

Tell me again how you are going to inculcate class consciousness among the proletariat so that they will recognize the implications of driving trucks and making widgets.

Tell me how prevailing ideas or those of the ruling class.

How the lawmakers, the courts and the police only protect property interests, not people.

Tell me about the intermediate stage between socialism and communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and how this time it won't be co-opted by, well, people like you (nothing personal, zeronowhere, they're as likely to shoot you first and me second after the revolution.)

Tell me about this superstructure thingy again.

Tell me whether it is essential (or not) that there be authority to govern a stateless classless society "like a ship on a stormy sea." After you stop quarreling with or killing off dissenting anarchists.

Tell me again whether Marx was merely coquetting or not with dialectics in Kapital and whether communism's relentless rate of failure owes itself to the distorting mysticism of dialectical materialism, or ... to ... what's the other excuse?

Best of all, tell me why communists -- sorry, Marxists -- flame each other to death in the philosphy and theory and history fora over such nuances while liberals and conservatives look on in amazement at your penchant for self-destruction instead of respectful dialogue.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by "the superstructure." Oh, that's right, you can't, can you? (Just channeling a little Rosa there for fun. "All work and no play," as they say. Pretty good, eh?)

But seriously, I always wondered whether Rosa Lichtenstein, I think was her name, noticed that the cappies respected her more than the commies did. We would NEVER have banned her. There's a lesson there but I don't know what it is. I find things like that fascinating. Much more so than the evolution of society through class struggle, which I don't reject at all.

[Rafiq]

Robert, don't flatter yourself, we don't give a shit about you

[Robert]

Rafiq, you as a charter member of the circular firing squad should know as well as anyone that this "we" business is an illusion. You get your belligerent ass handed to you pretty regular by the other commies on this board.

And vice versa, I'm sure. But none of you will ever get anywhere like that.

[Klaatu]

Capitalists do create wealth.

And Capitalism has raised living standards for millions around the world since it started and not necessarily taken surplus for themselves to an extent. If it wasn't for "capitalists" you'd still be in feudalism bowing to kings and working in fields as a peasent. Marx says this himself. Capitalism was a remarkable revolutionary achievement and it needs to grow and create wealth in order for socialism to come about effectively.

My counter argument is that capitalism, as we know it, could not survive if it were not for government help. From the time of the Pilgrims up through 19th century, the government gave massive land grants to private individuals/companies. Land grants are a free giveaway to those that profited on the sweat off others' backs. Slavery enabled capitalists enormously. In the 19th century, the government gave the railroads huge land grants and subsidies. The military uses vast public resources, because capitalist suppliers get filthy rich off the sale of weapons to the military-industrial complex. From the national highway system to the space program, capitalists were enabled by trillions of taxpayer $$$. The Cold War was one of the biggest money grabs in history by capitalists. Sure you're going to get filthy rich when the taxpayers give you most of what you need to get started in the business of (Theft) Capitalism!

And then many on the political right complain about how "government regulations kill jobs" all the while with their hand in the big cookie jar of taxpayer-paid subsidies (to oil companies, agribusiness, corporate jets, etc) What grinds me most is how capitalists will shamelessy send good-paying jobs out of the country, while waving the flag, and then try to blame unions for the lack of jobs, and use any lame excuse to try to bust them.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, tell us again that the driving force of history is man's material condition, how changes come not from ideas or great men but from material circumstances. That history is a record of class struggle.

Tell me again how social relations are defined or grow out of man's relationship to the means of production. That since capitalists control them, man must sell his labor in order to survive, hence the demeaning term, "wage slave".

Tell me about all those pigeonholes you have for human beings, from lumpen to the bourgeoisie.

Tell me again how you are going to inculcate class consciousness among the proletariat so that they will recognize the implications of driving trucks and making widgets.

Tell me how prevailing ideas or those of the ruling class.

How the lawmakers, the courts and the police only protect property interests, not people.

Tell me about the intermediate stage between socialism and communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and how this time it won't be co-opted by, well, people like you (nothing personal, zeronowhere, they're as likely to shoot you first and me second after the revolution.)

Tell me about this superstructure thingy again.

Tell me whether it is essential (or not) that there be authority to govern a stateless classless society "like a ship on a stormy sea." After you stop quarreling with or killing off dissenting anarchists.

Tell me again whether Marx was merely coquetting or not with dialectics in Kapital and whether communism's relentless rate of failure owes itself to the distorting mysticism of dialectical materialism, or ... to ... what's the other excuse?

Best of all, tell me why communists -- sorry, Marxists -- flame each other to death in the philosphy and theory and history fora over such nuances while liberals and conservatives look on in amazement at your penchant for self-destruction instead of respectful dialogue.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by "the superstructure." Oh, that's right, you can't, can you? (Just channeling a little Rosa there for fun. "All work and no play," as they say. Pretty good, eh?)

But seriously, I always wondered whether Rosa Lichtenstein, I think was her name, noticed that the cappies respected her more than the commies did. We would NEVER have banned her. There's a lesson there but I don't know what it is. I find things like that fascinating. Much more so than the evolution of society through class struggle, which I don't reject at all.
I give you one line, and you give me ceaseless rhetoric. Please.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq, you as a charter member of the circular firing squad should know as well as anyone that this "we" business is an illusion. You get your belligerent ass handed to you pretty regular by the other commies on this board.

And vice versa, I'm sure. But none of you will ever get anywhere like that.

I'm not the only Marxist on this site. So you fail. Again.

Jesus youre drowning in fail

[Robert]

Hey Rafiq, did you ever get that "President of the United States versus Slave" dichotomy worked out?

p.s. Don't let the other commie bastards get you down. You're as good as the rest of them! Tell 'em I said so.

[RGacky3]

4. Marxian determanism and historical materialism, economic forces are the driving aspect of history, and the line of history MUST follow a certain coarse.

History has proven some of Marx's theories wrong, for example revolutions against capitalism happened more in non developed countries. Also Marx also claims that ideas are the main driving force in history too, is'nt that contradictory to his historical materialism? Reducing everything to economics is oversimplification.

If you actually look at Marx's predictions, most of them actually happened, and the revolutions in the non-developed countries never really materialized into any sort of socialism, (infact developed spain had a revolution that developed a type of socialism, and it did'nt deteriorate, it was destroyed from the outside, Russia also developed socialism but it was quickly dismantled and replaced with state capitalism). Also Marx was approaching it for a purely economic standpoint, there are many other things that could happen.

For example the rise of Welfare Capitalism would offset revolution for a counple decades (until the internal contradictions of capitalism catch up with that as well), but that does'nt mean the underlying analysis was false.

As far as reductionism, its not at all reductionist, Marx never said that economics was the ONLY determining factor, infact he said ideas were also very important.

For example the bourgeouis revolutions were never about capitalism, the material conditions made that, they were about political liberalism, which came from ideas. However its hard to argue that at the base of society, is production and distribution, infact there are charts mapping inequality with social problems, and they have a strong corrolation.

5. Marxism in practice i.e. the communist manifesto.

The communist manifesto is full of holes and problems.

The communist manifesto was a pamphlet for a specific time, it was'nt part of his economic analysis. Marxism is an analysis of Capitalism, no more no less, There are Marxists that are anarchists, Leninists, Social-Democrats, democratic socialists, mutualists, syndicalists and even Capitalists (there are plenty of people who apply marxian analysis but still think its the best system.)

Marx was a socialist, but thats not what Marxism is.

Next up the Law of value, this will take some time though :)

[RGacky3]

6. Marx's Law of value

Value is subjective and thus represented in price, based on supply and demand, value cannot be represented in objective terms because one person can value a certain commodity more than another person and thus put a different value on it, value does not come from within a product, it is placed apon an object.

Price does not equate labor time, when you put into a product changes in supply and demand the difference between the 2 has a much larger effect. For example mining different metals may embody similar labor time, however they are worth different prices.

The subjectivity of "value" is obviously a real case, however that subjectivity negates value being determined by price. A homeless person would value a studio apartment much more than a painting by leonardo decaprio, however a wealthy art conoseiour would obviously value the painting more. Although the prices for both things are the same for both people. So subjectivity, has no place in economics, economics cannot check everything based on personaly preferences.

Also Marxian, Recardian and Smiths Value theory is essencially based on the assumption of supply and demand being at equilibrium and in a compedative market, and the Marxian version of this is mostly dealt with on the micro level. So market prices will not match the value exactly due to unequal supply and demand and monopolistic practices.

That being said, (commodity) prices do generally follow that model, no matter what the supply and demand for cars are, they will always cost more than carrots, now you might say "Sure, because the materials cost more." Exactly, and those materials all have labor enbodied in them, car production has many more layers of production than carrots, and thus many more labor hours, you also require more sophisticated technology, which requires mental labor hours as well as production of that.

So the law of value has a very specific purpose, valuing a commodity when supply and demand are equal in a compedative market, neo-liberal value systems cannot do that.

[Rafiq]

Hey Rafiq, did you ever get that "President of the United States versus Slave" dichotomy worked out?

p.s. Don't let the other commie bastards get you down. You're as good as the rest of them! Tell 'em I said so.

The Tea Party doesn't care if a black man is president as long as he enforces their racist laws

[Rafiq]

Robert today when I get home I'm going to crush you. You keep on ramblimg yiur bullshit feeling confident because I didn't respond to your posts thouroughly but when I get to a computer I'll be sure to silence your ass judt like the rest of the capitalist losers on this site.

[graffic]

Okay, name some wealth generated under capitalism that was not because of the proletariat. You can't.

Obviously it was created in an organic way with different people playing different roles. The capitalist takes more surplus for various reasons that may or may not be justifiable or fair. But obviously they weren't out and out robbing the proletariat which you seem to think because you are presumably upset and seem to have a chip on your shoulder


Did you know that Marx said that a revolution started by the peasantry in Russia is possible, and that it is also possible that they could skip capitalism and go straight to socialism

Yes that is true however the point is it didn't. It failed and went straight to Stalinism because its hard to build socialism in poor economic conditions.

[Rafiq]

Obviously it was created in an organic way with different people playing different roles. The capitalist takes more surplus for various reasons that may or may not be justifiable or fair. But obviously they weren't out and out robbing the proletariat which you seem to think because you are presumably upset and seem to have a chip on your shoulder



Yes that is true however the point is it didn't. It failed and went straight to Stalinism because its hard to build socialism in poor economic conditions.

No you fool, read. It failed because the revolution didn't spread and was contained. Marx and Engels said if it doesn't spread to the industrialized countries it will fail.

[Nicolai]

Obviously it was created in an organic way with different people playing different roles. The capitalist takes more surplus for various reasons that may or may not be justifiable or fair. But obviously they weren't out and out robbing the proletariat which you seem to think because you are presumably upset and seem to have a chip on your shoulder



Yes that is true however the point is it didn't. It failed and went straight to Stalinism because its hard to build socialism in poor economic conditions.

I don't see how it's not robbing, when the minority takes 3/4 of the cake, and leaves 1/4 to be shared by the people.

As for Soviets fall, it's not cause of Socialism not compatible, but rather a number of factors such as the one party system which lead for easier corruption by foreign (the Russian debt and the "wars" around it) and minority (bureaucratic) influence. Socialism is by far compatible, and no example today shows that it matter much start wealth or resources you have from he beginning to work (South-America is an example of this, though they fell for the solve reason that foreign capitalists (namely the U.S government with CIA and backed by private corporations) had to much influence and control over the military and resources.)

And example of a socialist country to this day would be Cuba. It's somewhat democratic. There's election and full worker democracy, but cause of the scare of foreign capitalistic influence and counter-revolutionary terrorism (which still lays around) other alternatives then socialistic and communist parties don't get into the election.

And why Cuba is poor, is cause of the trade blockade by the U.S (which Obama seems so have loosen a bit, which in turn now finally allows the Cuban people to connect to the sea fiber-line that passes Cuba). Since it's a socialistic country in a capitalistic world, they solved the issue with export/import by using so called "free-zones" where workers, though hired by the government can trade on the terms of the "free-marked".

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Robert today when I get home I'm going to crush you. You keep on ramblimg yiur bullshit feeling confident because I didn't respond to your posts thouroughly but when I get to a computer I'll be sure to silence your ass judt like the rest of the capitalist losers on this site.

are you 14? I'm going to "crush you?"

[Rafiq]

are you 14? I'm going to "crush you?"

Well when typing on a phone you can't do much.

Chill out, I could have used a better choice of words but I didn't. Bite me.

[graffic]

I don't see how it's not robbing, when the minority takes 3/4 of the cake, and leaves 1/4 to be shared by the people.
.

Robbing is taking something that isn't yours. Historically, several complex factors led to some people getting off their asses, organizing themselves and creating jobs. The way its developed is a different question. Because they were first off their ass and more organized, and convinced people to work for them, obviously they had control of the surplus. I don't know a lot about the origins of inequality. I have the book by Jean Jacques Rousseau but i haven't read all of it. Its an interesting question though. However my point was I think its bad to be overly negative about capitalism or capitalists because its usually coupled with a utopian view of communism.

[RGacky3]

Robbing is taking something that isn't yours.

Is taxing "robbing?"

[Klaatu]

Is taxing "robbing?"

Do you belong to a club or a union? They require you to pay DUES in order for the organization to function. (Hopefully this money is used wisely) And hopefully the government uses tax revenue wisely. So I don't think you are against taxes, per se, I think you are against the wasteful and unwise usage of taxpayer money. Of that, I am with you 100%. We Socialists do not like our hard-earned tax money to be wasted either! ;)

[RGacky3]

Do you belong to a club or a union? They require you to pay DUES in order for the organization to function. (Hopefully this money is used wisely) And hopefully the government uses tax revenue wisely. So I don't think you are against taxes, per se, I think you are against the wasteful and unwise usage of taxpayer money. Of that, I am with you 100%. We Socialists do not like our hard-earned tax money to be wasted either! ;)

My point was that "taking something thats not yours" is a rediculous basis for robbing, because technically "what is yours" (in the capitalist sense) is entirely a state and legal affair.