Marx was right: it's official!

[Turnoviseous]

Marx was right: it's official!

A decade ago in the heady days of 'capitalism's final triumph', when the New World Order was announced and the End of History proclaimed, the century old industry of writing learned tomes under which to bury the ideas of Marxism appeared to have become redundant.

New volumes began to line the library shelves to explain that capitalism was the height of human social evolution. In passing one notes the low level of ambition of these people who believe that a system that leaves two thirds of the world's population in dire poverty, that keeps a billion people unemployed or underemployed, is the best that we can achieve.

Yet before one could finish reading a single volume of these confused scribblings, the New World Order choked beneath the ashes of war in the Balkans; the south east Asian economies collapsed; leaving the New Paradigm hanging by the single thread of the innovations associated with new technology.

More recently bourgeois writers have begun to question just how long the economy can continue to grow, and whether maybe their triumphalism has turned out to be somewhat premature. The writings of George Soros and Paul Krugman, analysed in these pages previously, fall into this category.

Today one finds new works particularly in the field of economics not only questioning the new paradigm, they even question whether the system can continue at all. Still more astonishing is the number of articles, essays and books one now finds quoting, even praising, the ideas of Karl Marx.

These intellectual giants are astounded to discover that Marx accurately predicted the development of their beloved globalisation over 150 years ago.

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge of The Economist, for example, comment in their new book A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalisation: "As a prophet of socialism Marx may be kaput; but as a prophet of the 'universal interdependence of nations' as he called globalisation, he can still seem startlingly relevant... his description of globalisation remains as sharp today as it was 150 years ago."

Indeed on reading the Communist Manifesto today one is amazed at how contemporary Marx's words appear. Not just the growth and interdependence of the world market is predicted here,

"In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations." But also the domination of that market by a handful of monopolies and the centralisation and concentration of capital that this represents: "It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands."

The reduction of the workforce to the role of slaves to the machine, "in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery,"

More importantly we find the reason for these developments, the contradiction between the expansion of the forces of production and the narrow limits imposed by the twin straitjackets of capitalism - the private ownership of the means of production and the borders of nation states, "The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them."

Running like a red thread through all this new found passing praise of Marx is the rider "of course socialism failed." However such an off the cuff, unsubstantiated assertion will not fool the new generation of workers and youth who are discovering the ideas of Marxism in their search for a solution and a future. Whilst it remains true, and a crime of truly historic proportions, that Stalinism dragged the names of Marx and Lenin through the mud, the accomplishments of capital to date in Russia and Eastern Europe are hardly inspirational. The attempt to restore the market has brought not prosperity but prostitution, profits for the few but misery for the many. This is not to defend or justify the crimes of Stalinism. On the contrary, the disaster in Russia today should clarify that it was not the absence of the market that was the problem but the lack of democracy. It was not the nationalised economy but the suffocating, dead weight of bureaucracy and corruption which strangled the Soviet Union. The one element of the October revolution remaining, albeit in a barely recognisable, perverted form, namely a state owned economy, enabled Russia to develop from a backward country to the second power on the planet. However the monstrous bureaucracy and its totalitarian dictatorship which leeched off the life blood of the planned economy doomed it.

Without democracy, control over all aspects of society by the working class, socialism was never created in Russia. It speaks volumes that in addition to their many crimes the Soviet bureaucracy with the immense resources at their disposal came up with not one single original thought. Compare that to the accomplishments of poverty stricken Karl Marx.

The Soviet bureaucracy however were concerned only with their own survival and the survival of their privileges. They developed not one new idea, instead they attempt now to turn the clock back by restoring capitalism. What we saw in Russia was not socialism. Socialism could never be built within the confines of a single country, even one the size of Russia.

Today's new generation discovering Marxism will see this easily enough. Even now in their newfound appreciation of some of Marx's conclusions these learned bourgeois academics are unable to take the next logical step and ask why Marx came to correct conclusions. This is not a question the bourgeois are keen to answer. If on not one, or two, but many occasions a method leads to correct conclusions it would seem reasonable to assume that the theory was correct. A 'lucky guess' is not likely to be repeated often. Yet the prediction of the development of the world market does not drive them to read more of Marx or to accept that not only his conclusions but also his method was and remains correct. Such keen insights were not simply a work of intuitive genius - though there is no doubt that Marx and Engels stood head and shoulders above our modern day intellectual giants. Marx's ideas represented everything that was best in the achievements of the bourgeoisie, bringing together the best of English political economy, French sociology and German philosophy. From this new height they were able to see far indeed.

Understanding the world

Their method was their great accomplishment. Using it we can understand the world around us today, expose the myths of the new paradigm and the new world order, and offer a way out of crisis ridden capitalism. That is why the dreaded question 'Why was Marx right?' is one the bourgeois refuse to address. Instead they attempt to find some less disturbing reason. Take Micklethwait and Wooldridge again. They praise Marx for recognising that "The more successful globalisation becomes the more it seems to whip up its own backlash." This is a common theme in these books, that the market itself is undermining capitalism. To use Marx's own words, "The development of modern industry, therefore cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own gravediggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." Such conclusions are of deep concern to our authors. There is no mistaking their unwilling agreement, "There is also a suspicion that globalisation's psychic energy - the uncertainty that it creates which forces companies, governments and people to perform better - may have a natural stall point, a moment when people can take no more."

As absurd as the explanation seems there is more than a grain of truth in it. It is true that the crisis of the system, as it reaches its limits, causes the ruling class to split and divide over what to do next, unable to see a way out of the looming impasse. Yet the crisis is not caused by their confusion, but their confusion by the crisis. Capitalism has very real limits caused by the expansion of the productive forces beyond the borders imposed both by nation states and private ownership. Ideas and philosophies are created and changed by events in the physical world not by "psychic energy." Why is this of any importance? Well, to blame outside forces is to say that in principle capitalism can work fine, but the people running it, their lack of confidence etc, are causing crises. This is one big confidence trick. What robs the bourgeoisie of their confidence is the very real crisis of their system and their lack of an answer. If our writers started from an analysis of the material world, and the impact that events in it have on all classes in society as Marx's method would demand, they too would be forced to conclude that the crisis of the system is very real and intractable. Capitalism increasingly reaches its "stall point" the very real limit it imposes on society, on our ability to create wealth, to harness and use the world's resources safely and efficiently. As Marx also repeatedly explained, however, the bourgeoisie will not accept this and retire gracefully. Fortunately Marx's ideas are not meant simply to convince the bourgeoisie to change their tune. That would be utopian. Marxism instead has the goal of arming the working class and the youth for the revolutionary struggle needed to change society.

Capitalism's genome

In the three volumes of Capital, which represent capitalism's genome, there is more than enough argument to convince a thinking bourgeois of the inability of the capitalist system to solve its inherent problems.

Yet today's thinking bourgeois are not studying how society or economy works. They are thinking about how to defend their system and their privileged position. Paul Krugman of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology admits this in his book The Return of Depression Economics. Like other economists he wants to ressurect Keynesianism not to make our lives better but simply because he thinks it is the best chance for the capitalists to save their system, "I don't like the idea that countries will need to interfere in markets - that they will have to limit the free market in order to save it."

They think not of how new technology can be used to shorten working hours to allow us time to participate in decision making and implementation. Instead they research how to use new technology to squeeze an ounce more out of our muscles and brains in the name of profit.

They don't investigate the worldwide eradication of disease through the knowledge contained in the Human Genome, they calculate how to patent chromosomes and medicines to profit from our ill health.

That a new generation of bourgeois thinkers are acknowledging some of Marx's ideas is interesting and itself reflects the desperate scramble for ideas engaging bourgeois academics - all their own having failed. However we have no illusions that the superiority of these ideas can win the allegiance of more than one or two individuals from this class of ladies and gentlemen. Marxism came into being as an attempt to place socialism on a scientific footing, to rescue it from the genius but idealistic utopians of earlier generations who believed that socialism could be achieved by demonstrating this superiority.

More importantly a new generation of workers and youth around the world are discovering Marxism.

In his recent essay Peter Hudis writing for Britannia.com quotes Marx, "We are firmly convinced that the real danger lies not in practical attempts but in the theoretical elaboration of communist ideas, for practical attempts, even mass attempts, can be answered by cannon as soon as they become dangerous whereas ideas which have conquered our intellect and taken possession of our minds... are demons which human beings can only vanquish only by submitting to them."

Whilst those who have written to bury Marxism over the last 150 years have vanished into obscurity the ideas of Marxism not only retain their relevance but are now gaining a new audience. Only the very best of the intellectuals may be won over not only in theory but to the side of the revolutionary working class. In general in the hands of bourgeois academics the ideas of Marxism will be transformed and vulgarised into dead dogma. In the hands of the workers movement, inscribed on the banner of the youth, they will serve their true purpose. As Marx himself explained they are meant not only to understand the world but to change it.

by Phil Mitchinson,
London, October 2000

[Capitalist Imperial]

Yep, thats it.

This long winded, opinionated essay certainly removes even a shadow of a doubt. Marx was right.

Stupid fucking asshole.

[IHP]

CI,

do you have an argument in response or are you going to reduce this to a slinging match.

What kind of argument is "stupid fucking asshole"?

--IHP

[Stormin Norman]

CI is right. It's official, this guy is a fucking asshole!

"In passing one notes the low level of ambition of these people who believe that a system that leaves two thirds of the world's population in dire poverty, that keeps a billion people unemployed or underemployed, is the best that we can achieve."

I suggest you take a look at the political and economic systems that 2/3 of the world's population lives under before indicting capitalism. What a disgrace that a person could be so ignorant and blind.

"Indeed on reading the Communist Manifesto today one is amazed at how contemporary Marx's words appear. Not just the growth and interdependence of the world market is predicted here"

You are right his ideas are remarkable. It is remarkable how somebody can have such a gross misunderstanding of economics and over-emphasis on labor. His writing was poor and his history was completely simplistic. If by contempory you mean how most of today's governments have latched onto his misinterpretations and erroneous views of the world, you would be right. It is extremely popular to be a communist. However, that doesn't change the fact that Marx's idea of overproduction contradicts serious economic principles. Tell me, if overproduction is such a glaring problem within capitalist theory, why then is two thirds of the world's population "living in dire poverty"? Do you not see the problem with this. First you claim that capitalism is rampant and causes all the world's problems. Then you contradict Marxist theory by claiming that he was ahead of his time. If he were right, overproduction would have wiped out the needs of all the people long ago. I have to tell you; I was not impressed by "The Manifesto", disgusted yes.

"The reduction of the workforce to the role of slaves to the machine, "in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery""

It would be interesting to hear your definition of slavery. Furthermore, you give me more ammunition by reminding me of yet another one of Marx's failed ideas, that being technological unemployment. Ask any economist and they will tell you that this is a farce. Increased production rates and terchnological improvement actually increases the number of employees and the skill requirements needed to produce these goods. Higher skilled and technologically challenging jobs pay more money, thus increasing the living standards of those employed in such fields. People will always be needed to maintain the machines and design more efficient modes of production in order for a firm to remain competitive. Not all jobs are easily replaced by machines.

"More importantly we find the reason for these developments, the contradiction between the expansion of the forces of production and the narrow limits imposed by the twin straitjackets of capitalism - the private ownership of the means of production and the borders of nation states, "The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.""

Could you please expand on these ideas. I fail to see what you are talking about here. Can you tell me the how or why behind any of these assertions?

"Running like a red thread through all this new found passing praise of Marx is the rider "of course socialism failed." However such an off the cuff, unsubstantiated assertion will not fool the new generation of workers and youth who are discovering the ideas of Marxism in their search for a solution and a future. Whilst it remains true, and a crime of truly historic proportions, that Stalinism dragged the names of Marx and Lenin through the mud, the accomplishments of capital to date in Russia and Eastern Europe are hardly inspirational. The attempt to restore the market has brought not prosperity but prostitution, profits for the few but misery for the many. This is not to defend or justify the crimes of Stalinism. On the contrary, the disaster in Russia today should clarify that it was not the absence of the market that was the problem but the lack of democracy. It was not the nationalised economy but the suffocating, dead weight of bureaucracy and corruption which strangled the Soviet Union. The one element of the October revolution remaining, albeit in a barely recognisable, perverted form, namely a state owned economy, enabled Russia to develop from a backward country to the second power on the planet. However the monstrous bureaucracy and its totalitarian dictatorship which leeched off the life blood of the planned economy doomed it."

I was wondering when you would get to the tired old claim that Chinese and Soviet style communism fails to be communism. What a bunch of bull shit. Can you tell me how you can have a planned economy without direct government control? How do you suppress man's competitive nature without the use of terror and repression? How can you have a rapid move toward industrialization without the use of a violent regime? Name one country where it has worked.

"Without democracy, control over all aspects of society by the working class, socialism was never created in Russia. It speaks volumes that in addition to their many crimes the Soviet bureaucracy with the immense resources at their disposal came up with not one single original thought. Compare that to the accomplishments of poverty stricken Karl Marx."

Please tell me which of Marx's ten recommendations for the implementation of communism are compatible with democracy. None of them. That is why such regimes are necessary. When has a violent coup ever resulted in the the military relinquishing its control over the political and economic structure? Never. Don't you think this should be considered a design flaw within the theory itself.

"Such keen insights were not simply a work of intuitive genius - though there is no doubt that Marx and Engels stood head and shoulders above our modern day intellectual giants."

Now that is laughable. They should be lumped into the category of complete frauds. Their ideas have been completely discredited. Only a fool would profess such ideas nowdays, considering the results. This experiment has failed every single time. It has never produced a world wide movement. Today's intellectuals write off Marx and Engels. The only people that still hold to the lack of values extolled by the two are and will always be the uneducated people who have little understanding of the world, or the powermongers that wish to extinguish and enslave these dolts. Marxists represent the sheep who can be easily duped into giving up their fundamental freedoms. The reason that such a theory will never work is because there will always be men with morals who will object to the trampling of their right to property and inheritance. Reasonable men understand the value of the ability to own that which is theirs. Men like me and most of the American people whould never go for such rubbish. That poses quite a problem for today's leftist, doesn't it? That and the fact that the American people are armed. Now ask yourself, why do liberals support gun control?

Considering what I read in the first half of the article, the rest of it does not deserve my attention. Obviously it was written by commy pinko scum. He talks about globalization caused by capitalism, yet I wonder if he is one of those leftist that holds the U.N. to be the most virtuous of ideas. If you asked this "red diaper doper baby" whether or not the U.S. should be subservient to U.N. restrictions, he would obviously tell you it should. What a scum bag. I rank this guy right up there with German's Justice Minister that recently compared George Bush to Adolf Hitler. People like this should not be ignored, for they wish to relieve you of your freedom. They are the "oven-pushers".

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 1:24 am on Sep. 23, 2002)

[Turnoviseous]

Norman,

There is a nice articel "What is Marxism?" it answers to your questions.

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html

However, that doesn't change the fact that Marx's idea of overproduction contradicts serious economic principles. Tell me, if overproduction is such a glaring problem within capitalist theory, why then is two thirds of the world's population "living in dire poverty"?

How is that there is food for one and a half population on Earth, yet only half of population is fed?

Anyway, look on the article "What is Marxism?" for better reference...

[Anonymous]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH your cappies coments make me laugh!

keep it up Turnoviseous!!! ;)

[Marxman]

Yes, we must all keep up the good work. But not to transmute capitalists/imperialists but to convince leftists and proletarians of marxism and its road to communism.

[Stormin Norman]

Turnoviseous,

Why don't you lay it out for me. I hardly have the time to sift through your bullplop propaganda in order to seek out the argument that you would have made. I know, I know, left wingers have an incredible inability to synthesize the ideas of others. This is why your ideology continues to whither and die like a diseased tree. I realize you have an amazing handicap. That is why I will provide you another opportunity. Please try or I will be force to consider myself the winner. The outright stupidity on this site never ceases to amaze me.

[Marxman]

Again, you seem to be just reluctantly accepting the reality, Stormin Norman. Then why don't you read the book Das Kapital for yourself and see it for yourself. It definitely wouldn't hurt you. Since you claim we left wingers are dying and are backward, read Das Kapital, which is in fact a description of the genome of capitalism. That book reveals exactly in the fullest detail why your "religion" is dying, capitalists.

Trotsky predicted the fall of stalinism.
Marx predicted the fall of capitalism.

[ArgueEverything]

"I suggest you take a look at the political and economic systems that 2/3 of the world's population lives under before indicting capitalism. What a disgrace that a person could be so ignorant and blind."

Capitalism is a world system in which all countries, bar perhaps a few, are interconnected. Most of the countries which you probably think aren't capitalist are in fact under the heel of the IMF and the World Bank, and suffer considerably from it. The countries themselves may not be capitalist, in the full sense of the word, by they are controlled by capital.

"If by contempory you mean how most of today's governments have latched onto his misinterpretations and erroneous views of the world, you would be right."

No, by "contemporary" we mean that he has accurately and vividly predicted much of the phenomena which we witness today. Even filthy rich capitalists like George Soros praise Marx for his predictions and his understanding of how an economy works. The general consensus amongst much of academia, whether you like it or not, is that Marx's solutions to the problems of capitalism was wrong, but his analysis of the problems was correct.

I got this appraisal of his predictions from http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/may98/letsmay.htm

"Has the control of industry become more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands? Has the proportion of capital invested in plant, machinery and equipment grown more and more in relation to that spent on living labour? Has the process of capital accumulation proceeded, not smoothly, but in fits and starts, periods of rapid growth ending in periods of slump? Have the rich got richer? Have more and more of the old middle classes become employees? Has the peasantry declined? Has the proportion of wage and salary earners in the working population gone up? Have money-commodity relations spread more and more into all aspects of life? Has the economy become more and more international and globalised? "

Yes, I think it has, SN. And a lot of other people do too, which helps explain why The Manifesto was a runaway bestseller on its 150th anniversary in 1998.

"It is extremely popular to be a communist."

lmao.

"However, that doesn't change the fact that Marx's idea of overproduction contradicts serious economic principles. Tell me, if overproduction is such a glaring problem within capitalist theory, why then is two thirds of the world's population "living in dire poverty"?"

Err, maybe its because economics isn't simply about how much is being produced, but how it is being distributed? Do you even understand the basics of economics?

Overproduction is a major problem, every thinking person knows this. Why do you think European farmers often have to burn their surplus food to keep food prices high?

"Do you not see the problem with this. First you claim that capitalism is rampant and causes all the world's problems. Then you contradict Marxist theory by claiming that he was ahead of his time. If he were right, overproduction would have wiped out the needs of all the people long ago. "

huh? I know you love coming up with blazing non sequiturs, but this one just stumps me totally.

You don't really think that, in a capitalist world, abundance in a particular good means that everyone in the world, or even most people in the world, can purchase that good?

I suggest you read some of Amartya Sen's work, where he shows how famine can occur in a functioning market even when there is no actual shortage of food.

"It would be interesting to hear your definition of slavery. Furthermore, you give me more ammunition by reminding me of yet another one of Marx's failed ideas, that being technological unemployment. Ask any economist and they will tell you that this is a farce. Increased production rates and terchnological improvement actually increases the number of employees and the skill requirements needed to produce these goods. Higher skilled and technologically challenging jobs pay more money, thus increasing the living standards of those employed in such fields. "

And here's where bourgeois economics fails to understand reality. We are constantly told that, although technology necessarily leads to downsizing in a particular industry, more jobs will be created in other industries to make up for this. Yet the reality is that often the people who find themelves unemployed are elderly, or for other reasons cannot acquire the new skills required in the fledging industries in which they are told to find new jobs.

"People will always be needed to maintain the machines and design more efficient modes of production in order for a firm to remain competitive. Not all jobs are easily replaced by machines."

And Marx never suggested otherwise.

"Could you please expand on these ideas. I fail to see what you are talking about here. Can you tell me the how or why behind any of these assertions?"

For example, the existence of nation-states is a fetter on capitalism, just as the Roman Catholic religion was a fetter on feudalism. Yet at the same time, many capitalists, and many ordinary people, cling to the idea of the nation state. Many even claim that globalization is a communist idea, trying to install a one-world government.

Further, the cylical crises of capitalism means it will forever be unable to tear apart the nation-state. Whenever there is an economic downturn, the Le Pens, Buchanans and Fortuyns of the world emerge to incite nationalism.

"I was wondering when you would get to the tired old claim that Chinese and Soviet style communism fails to be communism. What a bunch of bull shit. Can you tell me how you can have a planned economy without direct government control?"

Firstly, communism doesn't actually mean having a planned economy. Secondly, even if it does, the one that we envision doesn't embrace the brutality of Stalin, Mao and co. You seem to think government control of the means of production and distribution automatically means dictatorship, but you have nothing to back it up with.

"How do you suppress man's competitive nature without the use of terror and repression? How can you have a rapid move toward industrialization without the use of a violent regime? Name one country where it has worked."

Prove to me, scientifically, that man has a competitive nature which cannot be repressed in the same way that man's desire to procreate through rape can be suppressed by a relevant moral code, educational system, etc.

In other words, assuming that we are competitive by nature, why should we allow this to side of us to flourish unchecked? We don't allow our carnal sexual desires to take control of us.

"Please tell me which of Marx's ten recommendations for the implementation of communism are compatible with democracy. None of them. That is why such regimes are necessary. When has a violent coup ever resulted in the the military relinquishing its control over the political and economic structure? Never. Don't you think this should be considered a design flaw within the theory itself. "

One of Marx's ten recommendations is for the introduction of free schooling for children. So, according to you, America not a democracy because it has a public school system.

Your assertion that the recommendations can only be implemented through force is based on the premise that they are implemented all at the same time, rather than gradually, which is what I think most Marxists today would advocate. Also, its a bit unfair to cite the SU and China as examples of the brutality of a Communist dictatorship, as both these countries already had a violent history which affected the psyche of their people and leaders. You make the critical mistake of viewing the so-called communist countries in an historical vacuum. Its never occured to you perhaps Mao and Stalin's brutality is at least partially atributable to the oppressive feudal societies their generation grew up under.

"Now that is laughable. They should be lumped into the category of complete frauds. Their ideas have been completely discredited. Only a fool would profess such ideas nowdays, considering the results. This experiment has failed every single time. "

It was an experiment with no variables, since all forms tried (with a few notable exceptions, where Marxists were democratically elected to power such as in Chile) were of a dictatorial, Stalinist kind.

"It has never produced a world wide movement."

Pass whatever you've been smoking, it must be good.

"Now ask yourself, why do liberals support gun control?"

Liberals arent the only ones who support gun control. In Australia the Conservative government introduced extensive gun control laws after the Port Arthur Massacre where dozens of people were gunned down in a public area. Your liberal gun control conspiracy, therefore, is laughable.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from i hate pinochet on 9:35 am on Sep. 22, 2002
CI,

do you have an argument in response or are you going to reduce this to a slinging match.

What kind of argument is "stupid fucking asshole"?

--IHP


Why would I argue this? His entire main idea is hopelessly flawed, even te mmost dedicated, stalwart leftist should concede this.

This essay makes nothing "official"!

That is my point!

You leftists are truly thick headed, sometimes you don't even understand the fundamentals of debate.

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 2:58 pm on Sep. 23, 2002
His entire main idea is hopelessly flawed


...said the social Darwinist.

[Stormin Norman]

I don't know, social-darwinism has its merits. For instance, if the economy and society were allowed to continue unfettered, worthless nonproducers and welfare leftist would be dead in the water. Instead of chit-chatting on Che-lives they may have to actually worry about supporting themselves. People of the leftist persuasion would undoubtebly fail at this venture and die off in the streets like dinosaurs. After all, isn't that why they clinge to their ideas of theft and repression. Aren't they hoping to elevate their position in the world artificially. I suppose that is why I support doing away with the welfare state. Let's pull the rug out from under the 'hangers on' and 'free riders' and see where they wind up. One thing you can count on, they would not have time to worry about increasing their political capital.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 10:07 pm on Sep. 23, 2002
I don't know, social-darwinism has its merits. For instance, if the economy and society were allowed to continue unfettered, worthless nonproducers and welfare leftist would be dead in the water. Instead of chit-chatting on Che-lives they may have to actually worry about supporting themselves. People of the leftist persuasion would undoubtebly fail at this venture and die off in the streets like dinosaurs. After all, isn't that why they clinge to their ideas of theft and repression. Aren't they hoping to elevate their position in the world artificially. I suppose that is why I support doing away with the welfare state. Let's pull the rug out from under the 'hangers on' and 'free riders' and see where they wind up. One thing you can count on, they would not have time to worry about increasing their political capital.

Why is it always thought that one who supports the welfare state is lazy?

Just cuz I don't believe in poverty I suddenly have no work ethic?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 2:10 am on Sep. 24, 2002

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 10:07 pm on Sep. 23, 2002
I don't know, social-darwinism has its merits. For instance, if the economy and society were allowed to continue unfettered, worthless nonproducers and welfare leftist would be dead in the water. Instead of chit-chatting on Che-lives they may have to actually worry about supporting themselves. People of the leftist persuasion would undoubtebly fail at this venture and die off in the streets like dinosaurs. After all, isn't that why they clinge to their ideas of theft and repression. Aren't they hoping to elevate their position in the world artificially. I suppose that is why I support doing away with the welfare state. Let's pull the rug out from under the 'hangers on' and 'free riders' and see where they wind up. One thing you can count on, they would not have time to worry about increasing their political capital.

Why is it always thought that one who supports the welfare state is lazy?

Just cuz I don't believe in poverty I suddenly have no work ethic?

A permanent welfare state yields more individuals who take advantage of it than the truly needy who just need a temporary hand. It hurts more than it helps.

There should be limited welfare, for getting people back on their feet, but not the current system that encourages women currently on the system to have 3 more kids so they can get a bigger paycheck.

[antieverything]

BULLFUCKINGSHIT...don't bring up that myth or I will be forced to smack you down with THE ALL-MIGHTY FACTS OF THE MATTER™

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from antieverything on 4:00 am on Sep. 24, 2002
BULLFUCKINGSHIT...don't bring up that myth or I will be forced to smack you down with THE ALL-MIGHTY FACTS OF THE MATTER™

well, cowboy, stop talking shat

if you feel froggy, jump

lets see these so-called facts

[antieverything]

the following is from http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-welfaremothers.htm

(notice, all, how I don't take credit for something that I didn't write!)

Myth: Welfare gives mothers an economic incentive to have more children.

Fact: Studies have not found a correlation between size of welfare benefits and families.



Summary

Welfare mothers actually have less of an economic incentive to have children than nonwelfare mothers. Studies have not been able to find a correlation between family size and the size of welfare benefits. Welfare families are virtually the same size as nonwelfare families; indeed, both have been declining over the decades. The New Jersey "family cap" experiment, which denies extra benefits to mothers who have more children, appears to have no effect on the welfare birthrate.



Argument

Many conservatives criticize welfare because it increases benefits when a mother has another child. This, they argue, is an economic incentive to have more children, an ill-considered policy which inflates the rolls of our welfare programs. As columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn't work?" (1)

Unfortunately, this argument is incorrect. Working families do receive "financial incentives" to have more children, and far larger ones than welfare provides. A working family receives a $2,450 tax deduction per child, and can claim up to $2,400 in tax credits to offset the costs of child care. By comparison, a welfare mother can only expect about $90 per month in increased AFDC payments for another child.

Not surprisingly, these "incentives" are too small to influence the behavior of potential parents, especially in a decision as life-altering and important as having a child. Ten major studies have been conducted on this issue in the last six years alone, and not one has found any connection between the level of payments offered and a woman's decision to bear children. (2)

Just one of these studies' findings is that states with higher benefits do not see higher birthrates among its welfare mothers. According to a 1992 study by Child Trends Inc., the five states with the highest birth rates among 18- and 19-year-old women -- Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nevada and New Mexico -- all have AFDC benefits below the national median. The four states with the lowest birth rates among 18- and 19-year-old women -- Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Vermont -- all have AFDC benefits above the national median.

The average AFDC family is virtually the same size as the average American family. Of all welfare families, 73.9 percent have two children or less. (3) Of all American families with children, this figure is 79.1 percent. (4) (Families without children are not qualified for welfare, even though they may need it, so there are conceptual problems with adding childless families to either side of this comparison.)

And, contrary to popular belief, the size of welfare families has been declining over the decades:

Decline in Average AFDC Family Size, 1969-1992: (5)

Year Family size
---------------------
1969 4.0 persons
1973 3.6
1975 3.2
1986 3.0
1992 2.9
Conservatives might point out that individual welfare benefits have also been declining over the years, hence the falling size of welfare families. (Between 1970 and 1991, the purchasing power of benefits for the typical AFDC family fell 42 percent, primarily as a result of state and federal cuts.) (6) However, the average size of all families in the U.S. has been falling for many decades now:

Average size of U.S. families (7)

Year Family size
---------------------
1960 3.7 persons
1970 3.6
1980 3.3
1990 3.2
This overall decline reflects the end of the Baby Boom in the mid-60s.

The New Jersey "Family Cap" Experiment

In August 1993, New Jersey became the first state in the union to experiment with the "family cap," a policy of denying additional benefits to welfare mothers who have more children. Conservatives predicted the new policy would curb the rise of single motherhood and illegitimate births, even though other conservatives feared it would drive up the abortion rate.

Results of the New Jersey experiment are mixed and inconclusive, partly because the benefits are not really capped. The first analysis of the family cap was announced by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank), which claimed that in the sixteen months after the family cap took effect, the average monthly birth rate for New Jersey welfare mothers declined by 10 percent or more. (8)

However, the study turned out to be a typical bit of partisan think tank analysis. A more serious, 5-year study is being conducted by Michael Camasso at Rutgers University. The Rutgers study is comparing two groups: mothers who would receive more benefits if they had additional children while on welfare, and those who would be denied increased payments under the family cap. In a letter published by the Washington Post, Camasso wrote: "From August 1993 through July 1994 there is not a statistically significant difference between the birth rates in the experimental and control groups."

Although the Heritage study was correct in noticing a drop in birthrates among New Jersey's welfare mothers, this drop was also true of New Jersey mothers as a whole. And at any rate, the welfare benefits weren't really capped. Although welfare mothers who have more children are denied an extra $40 or $50 a month in AFDC, there is still additional food stamps, Medicaid, and sometimes housing assistance available.

Gregory Acs of the Urban Institute urges caution in interpreting the results so far. "It is indefensible to extrapolate from these results to recommendations for major changes in the nation's welfare system. Claims that eliminating welfare will virtually eliminate 'illegitimacy' are simultaneously unsupportable and irrefutable by conventional social science." (9)

[antieverything]

...hoppity-hop, *****.

[vox]

Good post, antieverything. It's also enlightening to look at the different retention rates in the US and in Europe, which provides greater welfare benefits. Not surprisingly, people in Europe stay on the roles for far shorter periods.

CI wrote:

"There should be limited welfare, for getting people back on their feet, but not the current system that encourages women currently on the system to have 3 more kids so they can get a bigger paycheck."

Just how misinformed are you, CI? Didn't you know that Clinton ended AFDC and replaced it with TANF?

Hee! The right-winger is arguing against something that doesn't even exist!!! LOL!

Like I say, the right-wingers can't even keep their own bullshit straight.

vox

[antieverything]

America has terrible upward mobility...almost all other western countries have higher poverty escape rates...and more advanced welfare systems. A coincidence?

[Turnoviseous]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 10:53 am on Sep. 23, 2002
Turnoviseous,

Why don't you lay it out for me. I hardly have the time to sift through your bullplop propaganda in order to seek out the argument that you would have made. I know, I know, left wingers have an incredible inability to synthesize the ideas of others. This is why your ideology continues to whither and die like a diseased tree. I realize you have an amazing handicap. That is why I will provide you another opportunity. Please try or I will be force to consider myself the winner. The outright stupidity on this site never ceases to amaze me.


I will when I find time for people like you. But I certaily will, I won´ t forget on you. But you must know that I am not a kid as you are maybe. I however don´t give a shit who ´wins´ here on forum.

[antieverything]

Well. We certainly shut him up!

[antieverything]

Admit it, you were wrong and you are sorry. Come on, appologize! If your ass still hurts, that's ok too, CI.

[Stormin Norman]

Here is a nice little exerpt that describes my position and leaves any argument from the left in shambles. Throw your statistics around, but know that they have no bearing on that which is right. To address this question, one must address the concept of freedom and security. The rights to property and self determination are fundamental to the operation of a free society. The kind of theft that you support through wlefare is just symptomatic of the variety of human suffering you wish to subject the world. It's just a small stop on the road to hell. You propose a cashless moneyless society, when it is obvious that this sort of nightmare scenario can only be accomplished by enslaving the entire population. The article that follows addresses the injustice of the babystep toward fascism know as welfarism.

The Victims of Welfare

On Producers and Receivers

by

Dan Roentsch

-This is a small part of what can be called a masterpiece, which denounces social welfare for the fraud and corruption that it is. If you would like the full text go to The Radical Capitalist (http://www.prometh.com/Radcap/welfvic.asp)

"To identify the real victim of the welfare state, one must ask how the welfare state came to possess its wealth, how that wealth came into existence, the relationship of producers to the wealth they create, what moral claim the producer has to his wealth, and what is denied the producer -- materially and morally -- by its expropriation.

All wealth is the product of some individual's labor and creativity. The life of the producer is finite, and the portion of his life that he dedicates to the creation of wealth cannot be reclaimed by him in the event that his wealth is squandered or stolen. You squander your product, you squander a portion of your life; your product is stolen, a portion of your life is stolen.

But perhaps this is mere individualist boasting. Perhaps, as the collectivists contend, your life is not your own, but rather the property of the community. To decide between the theories of individualism and collectivism, I observe that I do not feel pain, pleasure, misery, or ecstasy as the community. I am through every moment within one skin and possessed of one mind. -- Every moment, including the moments during which I produce wealth. The fact that self-possession is necessary to production contributes to the essential contradiction of collectivist political economy. I do not awaken at 5 p.m. to find cash upon the table for goods and services produced while my limbs were surrendered to the community consciousness. The collectivist knows that my initiative, my standards, my progress, my achievement is inseparable from me: is inseparable from my conception of myself and for the future I seek to obtain for myself. If I do not own my life, then I have no interest in the consequent pain or pleasure only I will experience, no interest in a future, no interest, in short, in living or producing. As I say, the collectivist knows that this idea of self-possession is necessary -- if only as an illusion -- in order that I may be induced to produce the wealth that he and his comrades believe themselves heir to. But once the wealth is there he feels free to burst the illusion. He begins then to rhapsodize on social cells in harmony; on how no man can claim his life or product for himself. In theory the collectivist says: The individual does not exist for his own sake. In practice, he closes his eyes while producers produce, and at the end of the day beholds wealth disconnected, like a dollar in the road.

There are only two means of acquiring the producer's product. These means are persuasion and force (including the indirect restraint induced by deceit). Persuasion implies a trade for a material or non-material value. It does not matter, from a political perspective, whether a producer trades wisely or foolishly. Proper governments are not constituted to protect individuals from squandering their product, but rather to protect them from its theft. When someone puts a gun to the head of the producer and demands his product in exchange for the privilege of remaining free or uninjured, he is saying: "I have a right to your life; I have the right to dispose of your labor and creativity as I see fit. Your values and your future are secondary considerations at best." Government cannot prevent individuals manifesting this incontinent contempt for humanity, it can only provide that aggression, the social signature of this contempt, will not have the sanction of law.

The welfare state, by contrast, acts as the legal agent of the aggressors. Our government claims your labor and creativity -- the finite moments of your finite life as a budget resource. It takes the fuel of your future by force, and uses that fuel to build shacks in the asphalt."

[antieverything]

Oh, my argument! It's in shambles! SHAMBLES!!!

...no really, thought, you realize that what that essay is describing as the natural and just economic system is actually a description of a pre-capitalist society, don't you?

[Stormin Norman]

"Overproduction is a major problem, every thinking person knows this. Why do you think European farmers often have to burn their surplus food to keep food prices high."

Overproduction is not the problem, AE. The problem that exists when farmers and dairy producers are forced to waste a portion of their products to increase prices is a misallocation of economic resources. By not listening to demand and continuing to produce products at previous levels, they misuse the capital and labor resources that could be put to use in some other sector of the economy. No economy operates on the line of the production possibilities curve which represents 100% efficiency in the market. If something is overproduced something else must necessarily be under produced. Marx's claim was that capitalist markets were overproducing to the extent that businesses had to rely on government to extend markets. I hardly think that the economies Marx spoke of had overproduced to the extent that a shift on the production posibilities curve could not have resulted in decreased production of the goods in question. Therefore, underproduction was the problem, not overproduction.

[antieverything]

LOL, I had to read the whole thread to find what you were refering to in your last post, Norm...then I realized you were refering to Argue-Everything and not myself. That won't stop me from responding to it, however.

Your understanding is quite limited. Farmers produce as much as they can on the land they own...they don't know in advance what the prices will be at the time of harvest (maybe this is only obvious to me because I live in a rural area). If the prices are too low at the time of harvest they destroy produce to drive the prices up. In essence, farmers are often forced to CREATE a demand, not react to it. Human need--if you want to call it 'demand'--does not factor into the reasoning, only profitability. Luckily, here in the United States, we produce too much...and the government just buys shit and dumps it in the ocean (not the best use...) but during the Great Depression farmers were burning their crops while children in the cities starved.

I reiterate: Supply does not meet demand. Supply is set at the most profitable point...even if that means starvation. I believe in the power of markets, of course, but the purpose of production--especially when we are talking about food--should be to satisfy human need. Markets can work within a system of production for use and not only capitalism.
[hr]
Concerning that bullshit that you posted before concerning welfare--how is some piece of propaganda supposed to carry more clout in a debate than a collection of facts?

[antieverything]

I assume that you are too busy posting mindless insults to reply to this.

[antieverything]

hello?

[Stormin Norman]

I already posted my views on the matter. You simply reinforced the views held of Anti-everything, and responded to my answer with essentially the same question I feel that I answered. Let me elaborate further. Let me know if you need more information.

You are right in thinking that the farmers were trying to ignore demand, being concerned only with price considerations. However, I am right in my economic theory. Nothing you say really contradicts what I proposed. Price should have been an indicator to reallocate their resources to other areas. In fact this principle probably had more to do with the 'correction' in price later on. Some of these farmers were priced out of the market, thereby decreasing overall supply. When supply shifted to meet demand, the farmers who held out were then offered greater prices for their goods. Once the prices offered for the product yielded profits, more producers once again entered the market. Price is the indicator that everyone should watch to determine whether to enter or leave the market. When these considerations are ignored, waste and disaster are inevitable. In capitalism, price is the moderator of how much is produced and when. Usually this is the best method of allocating resources. However, the human response can be rather irrational and unpredicatable. Never the less, the lesson is always the same.

[antieverything]

You don't understand this at all, what I'm saying is that supply does not make any attempt to meet the demand, only to meet the most profitable point of production which often results in widespread starvation. I'm a believe in markets but not a worshiper. In this case, markets fuck up. It isn't that complex, Normeo. Besides, you didn't address the previous topics in which your arguments were destroyed so terribly ;)

[Stormin Norman]

You don't understand this at all, what I'm saying is that supply does not make any attempt to meet the demand

I consider that remark to be a candidate for the hall of fame. However, I will refrain out of respect. I think it was probably made in haste.


In this case, markets fuck up

I just argued that it was the people who ignored market signals that fucked up.


It isn't that complex, Normeo. Besides, you didn't address the previous topics in which your arguments were destroyed so terribly

Which points do you wish me to revisit?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 9:54 pm on Dec. 31, 2002)

[antieverything]

They don't miscalculate market demands. I know these farmers, I've talked to them about it. They use complex mathematics and computers to calculate the most profitable amount to produce...they only withhold crops if situations change and make it profitable to do so.

Agriculture isn't like industry, also. Shit happens, sometimes you don't get enough rain or you get too much. It isn't the sort of thing where you can simply respond to market demands by wishing to do it. But still, even if it were like industry, it is often most profitable to allow starvation.

[antieverything]

...remember this?

[Stormin Norman]

Yeah, I remember this. This is where you leftists proved you had an extraordinary ability to copy and paste articles, but none of you had any clear understanding of economics. How embarrasssing. I also believe I refutted your assessment of supply-sided economics in another thread, Antieverything.

[antieverything]

Um...Have you ever taken an economics course in your life outside of highschool? If so, you should have heard of this thing called market failure. It happens...read up on it.

[Stormin Norman]

Um...Have you ever taken an economics course in your life outside of highschool? If so, you should have heard of this thing called market failure. It happens...read up on it.

What the hell to you think I was discussing! Sometimes I am convinced we are not even speaking in the same language. It appears that you are the one who needs to review your highschool texts.

Definition of Market Failure: An flaw in the market mechanism that prevents optimal outcomes.

Here is a brief list of some of the ones most people are aware of.

1. Market economies suffer from business fluctuations (boom and bust).

2. Unequal distribution of income (I don't believe this to be a failure).

3. Monopolies allow for inefficient allocation of resources.

4. Poor handing of side effects of many activities, externalities (government is needed to regulate things like polution output).

5.The market does not provide public goods (national defense, fire, police).

6. There may be poor allocation between present and future.

7. Market mechanism can have the effect of driving up the cost for public and service industries. Government may react poorly to deal with this consequence of market operation.

8. The wrong mix of output may be produced leaving prices to bottom or top out. This misallocation of resources, labor, and capital will inevitably leave some other sector of the market suffering as a result (given by the production possibilities frontier).

In fact, I was discussing market failures, specifically the last one. I think you are the one who should look it up.

[antieverything]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The whole last part of the discussion has been me saying that markets aren't magical and are subject to market failure while you say that...well, you just say that farmers are idiots.

[Eastside Revolt]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 8:06 am on Sep. 22, 2002
Yep, thats it.

This long winded, opinionated essay certainly removes even a shadow of a doubt. Marx was right.

Stupid fucking asshole.



As if YOU never preach-off any essays, fuckin' hippocrat.