what Marxism really is.....

[obsrvr524]

I think it is noteworthy that capitalism isn't just some social construct stemming from an imagined idealism or greed.

Capitalism is a reflection of life itself. Each individual is alive only because it watches out for itself. That does not mean that it watches out ONLY for itself but rather in participating in social constructs "societies", an individual is actually trying to watch out for itself by donating to the social construct. Any self denial must be limited to actual trade of benefit else the individual dies out.

Associating capitalism with greed or fanatical idealism comes only through misunderstanding of the limits and obligations on social participation. The simple minded often just say to live exclusively for the collective (the CCP). That is simple alright but it is in denial of a basic concern of life - self maintenance.

A part of self maintenance involves acquiring more than you think is the absolute minimum as reserve (a little fat) because the environment never actually provides all things necessary to maintain life - people still suffer and die. If by being totally submissive to a higher social authority guaranteed immortal harmonious life then it would make sense to forget capitalism now because it is no longer necessary to watch out for yourself - you have a way to get even more for less (a priori capitalist idea in itself).

Two kinds of problems arise concerning trying to be an individual watching out for himself or trying to self-deny by totally submitting to a higher social structure.

When trying to be self aware and properly maintaining, it is easy to lose sight of how much is too much. How does the body gauge when it is gaining too much fat? I think it isn't an impossible task but it is a weakness in social ideologies. Unrestrained capitalism goes too far and produces too much fat for the individual who rises to the top. The elimination of capitalism goes to far toward malnutrition or simply too much risk from having no fat at all (getting ONLY what authorities have decided you "need" - as they tend to get too fat).

Obviously a balance is needed.

Socialism and real-life communism propose that a few elites are allowed to get fat by having the masses drained of everything but the chosen minimum need - all risk falls upon the individuals in the masses and minimum on the elites. Properly restrained capitalism alleviates that problem while it addresses the natural definition of being alive - maintaining one's own life.

[Pedro I Rengel]

...I think Capitalism in itself is neutral, and for the most part has led to better outcomes.

With Marx, what seems most crucial is that capitalism is an organic phenomenon. Embedded in materialism. Evolving historically out of mercantilism and a burgeoning world trade. Whereas those like Ayn Rand encompassed it in an objectivist philosophical assessment. As an idealist.

As though the failure of slash and burn, nomadic and hunter and gatherer communities etc., was that they didn't have a John Galt around to turn them into capitalists too.

It all revolves around political economy...the inherent intertwining of the substructure and the superstructure.

Then this part:

Marx predicted socialism arriving historically as a result of the industrial revolution in capitalist nations. Instead, it was attempted in Tsarist Russia and in basically agrarian, peasant cultures.

And in capitalist nations, I don't think he anticipated the welfare state, the middle class, the rise of unions for some privileged sectors of the working class. Let alone the global economy as we know it today.

The real world being considerably more complicated than anything derived from a manifesto. However "scientific" it may have been in exposing the nature of political economy down though the ages.

FINALLY

You dirty fucking commie.

[d0rkyd00d]

FINALLY

You dirty fucking commie.

Hehe hey qt.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm not gonna be one of the people constantly fucking you.

So you can stop that right now.

[obsrvr524]

Marxism proposes that by turning certain kinds of people against other kinds in revolt an ideal form of communism can be achieved. It proposes that somehow, magically, everyone will just understand what is needed by everyone else. That is a provably false hope. So to the rational mind Marxism is out.

But does that mean that capitalism is the only alternative? It is the only one people talk about and until recently I would have guessed that myself as well. But then I ran across James' SAM co-op concept.

How could the needs of every person even be known much less compensated?

Obviously there must be some close tie to each person that is also closely tied to applicable solutions for addressing that person's needs. Does that require a robot companion with an internet connection to the wisdom of the world? That's a thought. It might work. James proposed a way of doing that using people and an internet type of connection instead. The more people are needed, the more incentive there is for people to maintain each other's well being. If robots can do it all (and it seems that they soon can) there is no need for people at all - self-defeating for the human race.

James' SAM co-op appears to address the very ideal of "to each his needs". It offers a far more peaceful transition than proposed by Marx and it seems very realistic (unlike Marxist communism).

[d0rkyd00d]

I'm not gonna be one of the people constantly fucking you.

So you can stop that right now.

hehe qt.

[d0rkyd00d]

Marxism proposes that by turning certain kinds of people against other kinds in revolt an ideal form of communism can be achieved. It proposes that somehow, magically, everyone will just understand what is needed by everyone else. That is a provably false hope. So to the rational mind Marxism is out.

But does that mean that capitalism is the only alternative? It is the only one people talk about and until recently I would have guessed that myself as well. But then I ran across James' SAM co-op concept.

How could the needs of every person even be known much less compensated?

Obviously there must be some close tie to each person that is also closely tied to applicable solutions for addressing that person's needs. Does that require a robot companion with an internet connection to the wisdom of the world? That's a thought. It might work. James proposed a way of doing that using people and an internet type of connection instead. The more people are needed, the more incentive there is for people to maintain each other's well being. If robots can do it all (and it seems that they soon can) there is no need for people at all - self-defeating for the human race.

James' SAM co-op appears to address the very ideal of "to each his needs". It offers a far more peaceful transition than proposed by Marx and it seems very realistic (unlike Marxist communism).

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about this. Maybe I'll start another topic on it, or add it to the Capitalism thread.

https://omidyar.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... tive-1.pdf

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm not gonna be one of the people constantly fucking you.

So you can stop that right now.

hehe qt.

Alright send me a pic.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You dirty nazi bastard.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Some other interesting lines from that speech:

It is interesting to examine the life of these rich people. In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their wishes. Analysing this problem more closely, we see that the people themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.' By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the 'freedom of the press.'


It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times - only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise, the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.

To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say: 'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?

It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case in other countries.

They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is another matter.

The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace. On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible for idle drones to inhabit this country.

I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our problems.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adolf_Hi ... ember_1940)

I knew you would like him.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I think a more interesting subject is what drives nazid00d's resentment that he wants to decide how much money other people can or can't have.

I mean 10 years ago we would have just called him a loon and gone to sleep. But these turds are actually legislating now.

So. What is the source of this resentment?

That is the source of this. No amount of Marxist theory will do. I mean you see him here, he is confronted with actual Marxist theory and he just insults the person (brave soul phoneutria giving these nazi cunts the benefit of the doubt), and then follows up by posting another person's opinion about Marx. He cannot, will not, ever discuss the actual theory. Because it's bullshit, it's patently bullshit. it makes no goddamn sense. And it's not the reason he is a commie nazi totalitarian worm.

The reason is psychological.

Again, my proof is that he does not respond to actual arguments, but only to insults (he wants me to fuck him I guess, I'm not trolling just going by what he has wrote).

So what is the psychology of the Marxist?

Maybe this has more to do with what Marxism really is, and will get us a lot further in reaching a clear understanding of the global situation.

[Urwrongx1000]

The main problem with these nazi-socialist-fascist-"anti-fascists", is that they can't listen, or recognize when they're wrong on anything.

They lose the rational, reasoned arguments, which is why they resort to force and violence on the street. Their loses are catastrophic when it comes to actual reasoning.



Basically, they're a waste of time on this forum. If Silhouette cannot justify his Socialism (and he cannot), then none of the low-intelligent lackeys stand a hope.

[Silhouette]

The main problem with these nazi-socialist-fascist-"anti-fascists", is that they can't listen, or recognize when they're wrong on anything.

Dictionary, what is the definition of irony, please?

Basically, they're a waste of time on this forum. If Silhouette cannot justify his Socialism (and he cannot), then none of the low-intelligent lackeys stand a hope.

I'll actually reply to this, just to see where we all stand on certain issues.

1) Who here is cool with the poverty levels of Western countries like the US?
2) Who here is cool with the environmental impact of mass-consumerism?
3) Who here is cool with the church influencing the state (and/or with them getting tax breaks etc.)?
4) Who here is cool with discriminating against people based on identity characteristics like race and sexuality?

[Urwrongx1000]

1) Who here is cool with the poverty levels of Western countries like the US?
2) Who here is cool with the environmental impact of mass-consumerism?
3) Who here is cool with the church influencing the state (and/or with them getting tax breaks etc.)?
4) Who here is cool with discriminating against people based on identity characteristics like race and sexuality?

Name one Marxist country, in world history, who solved any of these problems, or that created a better society than USA currently has.

Go ahead.

[promethean75]

puerto rico

[Urwrongx1000]

puerto rico

hahahaha

[Gloominary]

1) Who here is cool with the poverty levels of Western countries like the US?

I'm not, that's why we should end lockdown.

2) Who here is cool with the environmental impact of mass-consumerism?

I think global warming is a good thing.
Plants breath CO2, which's good for them, and emit oxygen, which's good for us.
It'll be cool when Antarctica thaws.
It'll be the next frontier.
We could also use more sunshine and warmth in Canada, altho I like our rain.
It won't get drier in Vancouver, just warmer, more like San Fran.
That being said, national parks are a good thing.
If we radically reduce or eliminate immigration, it'll be easier to protect them.
Immigration reductionists and wildlife conservationists were once on the same side, we should get back together.
Do you really want carbon taxes and little-no meat?

3) Who here is cool with the church influencing the state (and/or with them getting tax breaks etc.)?

I'm indifferent.
The left has far more culturally subsidized programs than the right.
The right needs some programs of their own.
As long as they're not forcing it on anyone, good on them.

4) Who here is cool with discriminating against people based on identity characteristics like race and sexuality?

I'm cool with it to an extent.
The sexes and races are neuropsychologically different.
Where science has refused to adequately investigate this for sociopolitical and economic reasons, we as individuals and a culture ought to come up with our own opinions.
Overall, I think whites are a bit superior, altho every race has unique talents.
I don't think there's anything wrong with ethnonationalism, but I'm against oppressing other races.
I don't think more blacks in boxing, basketball and American football is oppression, I don't think more white and Asian men in STEM is oppression.

[Urwrongx1000]

Worldwide poverty is the lowest its been in human history.

The homeless in America have cellphones, eat mcdonalds, have an endless supply of drugs and heroine to destroy themselves with.


In USA, anybody who is poor, is poor mostly because they choose to be. No excuses.

[phoneutria]

I'd like to share some interesting quotes as I run across them from Peter Singer's "Marx: A Very Short Introduction."

"Many of Marx's other theories have been refuted by events: the theory that wages will always tend downwards to the subsistence level of the workers; the theory of the falling rate of profit; the theory that under capitalism, economic crises will become more and more severe; the theory that capitalism will force more and more people down into the working class; and the theory that, to force wages down, capitalism requires an 'industrial reserve army' of paupers, people who are unemployed or irregularly employed, and living near the subsistence level. (p 75)."

this is good tho
it's a point i made a few times in this thread
the predictions that marx made have largely failed to become true
and that gives you further basis to conclude
that his premises were faulty
and no basis to conclude
that his system being implemented in the real world
would ever work

so let's kick back and relax, folks
while we wait for the state to wither away
lol

[Karpel Tunnel]

I'd like to share some interesting quotes as I run across them from Peter Singer's "Marx: A Very Short Introduction."

"Many of Marx's other theories have been refuted by events: the theory that wages will always tend downwards to the subsistence level of the workers; the theory of the falling rate of profit; the theory that under capitalism, economic crises will become more and more severe; the theory that capitalism will force more and more people down into the working class; and the theory that, to force wages down, capitalism requires an 'industrial reserve army' of paupers, people who are unemployed or irregularly employed, and living near the subsistence level. (p 75)."

this is good tho
it's a point i made a few times in this thread
the predictions that marx made have largely failed to become true
and that gives you further basis to conclude
that his premises were faulty
and no basis to conclude
that his system being implemented in the real world
would ever work

so let's kick back and relax, folks
while we wait for the state to wither away
lol

I think the last point is still up in the air. The corporations moved away from Western nations for their labor and most industries are in part or centrally supported by production in places with unemployed,irregularly emoployed or people living at the subsistance level. And since they left Western nations more of these are appearing in the Western nations. 'Need' is a tricky word, but it seems like it is felt as a need. And all the time leading up to this, international corporations have created/demanded/militarily enforced asymetrical relationships with other countries to bring in resources, material or labor based, which has kept the Western economies pumping. It is not clear to me at all that capitalism is not in part a pyramid scheme or is believed to be by the big makers and shakers so much that they make it so. Capitalism may very well be the least bad option, in fact I am inclined to think it is the least bad - with provisos for changes I would want in the banking and finance sectors and that we return to the original view of corporate charters as priviledges that can be withdrawn. That should be the conservative position on those. But even if it is the least bad form, I see no proof yet that it does no require a base of desperate half out of the system laborer pool - and the US has never had its economy running, for example, without boht illegal aliens doing jobs other do not want AND without intervening (military, via the IMF and other bodies, etc.) in the running of other countries at the behest of corporations having asymetrical relations with the governments and labor in those countries.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I think the last point is still up in the air. The corporations moved away from Western nations for their labor and most industries are in part or centrally supported by production in places with unemployed,irregularly emoployed or people living at the subsistance level. And since they left Western nations more of these are appearing in the Western nations.

Imagine your situation where taking one of those jobs is an improvement.

There is no slavery, transnationals aren't going around forcing people to do this labor. In fact people do violent things in order to be the ones that get that transnational money.

The fact is that some labour has to be a certain amount of cheap to not be prohibitive, so you can have your quinoa or whatever the heck, and that for some people that money is life saving. it's a win win, even though you perhaps were bred in such astoundingly favourable circumstances (thanks to your capitalist countrymen) that what to those people is a godsend to you seems unimaginable toil.

[d0rkyd00d]

So here is how Singer concludes Chapter 8 "Economics":

"Does this mean that the central theses of Capital are simply mistaken, and that the work is just another piece of crackpot economics-- as we might have expected from a German philosopher meddling in a field in which he has not been trained? If this view seems at all plausible, Marx himself, with his emphasis on the scientific nature of his discovery, must bear the blame. It would be better to regard Capital, not as the work of a 'minor post-Ricardian' (as Paul Samuelson, a leading 20th-century economist, once appraised Marx as an economist), but as the work of a critic of capitalist society. Marx wanted to expose the deficiencies of classical economics in order to expose the deficiencies of capitalism. He wanted to show why the enormous increase in productivity and wealth brought about by the industrial revolution had made the great majority of human beings worse off than before. He wanted to reveal how the old relationships of master and slave, lord and serf, survived under the cloak of freedom of contract. His answer to these questions was the doctrine of surplus value. As a economic doctrine it does not stand up to scientific probing. Marx's economic theories are not a scientific account of the nature and extent of exploitation under capitalism. They nevertheless offer a vivid picture of the kind of society created by the forces unleashed by capitalism: a society in which the productive workers unconsciously create the instruments of their own oppression. It is a picture of human alienation, writ larger as the dominance of past labour, or capital, over living labour. The value of the picture lies in its capacity to see its subject in a radically new way. It is a work of art, of philosophical reflection, and of social polemic, all in one, and it has the merits and the defects of all three of these forms of writing. It is a painting of capitalism, not a photograph."

[Pedro I Rengel]

Nazis never capable of generating their own opinions.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Or maybe just scared to defend them.

Scum.

[d0rkyd00d]

I especially love the last line:

It is a painting of capitalism, not a photograph.