Customer Discussions > Politics forum

What is the best thing about Marxism?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 301-325 of 333 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 11:00:31 AM PDT
So you are unaware of the change in meaning of "liberal" in the late 19th century. Marx hated the Classical Liberals The only difference between Marx and the modern liberals is that Marx hates the modern liberals because they are not violent enough for Marx.

Marx was against mitigating the effects of capitalism because he thought that it would only keep capitalism around longer. He saw that a few owners would be left and the rest would be dirt poor and the revolution would come and those industries would then be run in a democratic process. What he did not understand and what he got from Hegel was the advancments and improvments were part of the natural evolution of people and there was no need for markets because the best products would just happen.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 12:42:49 PM PDT
Far Lefkas says:
Then there were never any real marxists, because understanding Hegel (whose philosophy Marx later rejected: the Absolute) is even harder than understanding Marx. Seems to me we're impugning the wackiness of pop marxists to Marx, & Marx himself supposedly said, "I am not a marxist."

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 12:52:11 PM PDT
Far Lefkas says:
Capitalism, in fact, was very (classical) liberal notion. If so-called conservatives today embrace capitalism (of which there's very little in modern US of A: just ask outta work steel workers & coal miners), it's because they lump (modern) liberals et al. w/ marxist notions.

Lumping Obama w/ marxism is the lazy man's ambiguous way of saying, "I hate Obama." That genuine marxism died in the early years of the Soviet experiment is anathema to Obama haters. I don't see Obama as any more marxist, liberal, or dribberal than Bush II. Obama is the black man's Gerald Ford: he's there for the taking.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:38:54 PM PDT
*Then there were never any real marxists, because understanding Hegel (whose philosophy Marx later rejected: the Absolute) is even harder than understanding Marx. Seems to me we're impugning the wackiness of pop marxists to Marx, & Marx himself supposedly said, "I am not a marxist."

Nietzsche said there was only one christian and he died on the cross.

Marx wrote theoritical based on Hegel's world view. He claimed to have a scientific or rational observation. Based on observation and a dialectic view of history he made predictions. I true Marxist would take no action because they would have a faith that communism would naturally happen because of the inherent contradictions in capitalism and the progression of history.

Marxists have not been content with waiting for history to happen because Marx's predictions were wrong. It was not that capitalism spread misery but lead to improvment. Lenin then picks up and takes class exploitation to national exploitation and colonialism where rich countries exploit poor countires for their resources. That leads to the whole new world order crowd.

As we have seen Capitalism does not lead to misery but to improvments. So the Marxist tries to show that capitalism does not work and a planned economy is better. Marx is not the only influence on today's socialists. Many look to the European welfare state or the model created by Bismark.

The basic ideas of Marxism is that profit is exploitation and that competition is destructive. After that the rest falls into place.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 1:42:29 PM PDT
*Capitalism, in fact, was very (classical) liberal notion. If so-called conservatives today embrace capitalism (of which there's very little in modern US of A: just ask outta work steel workers & coal miners), it's because they lump (modern) liberals et al. w/ marxist notions.

Yes, you are not wrong. Real capitalism is free exchange. There are an ever growing regulations taxes and rules that keep people from engaging in capitalism. It can be cumbersom licences to braid hair, or all kinds of permits to sell goods on the streets. There is no one law or rule that holds people back but there are HR consulting companies that exist to keep small businesses in compliance with regluations and out of court.

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 5:18:43 PM PDT
Well.....

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 7:46:01 PM PDT
and that's that

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 5:19:08 AM PDT
Ryan says:
Thanx for your posts, they are informative..
I have a question. The primary forms of economic systems seem to be Capitalism, Communism & Socialism. All of these come in a variety of flavours. Is there another substantial economic variation..

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 10:04:04 AM PDT
*I have a question. The primary forms of economic systems seem to be Capitalism, Communism & Socialism. All of these come in a variety of flavours. Is there another substantial economic variation..

You left out fascism. Basically there are degrees an methods of control and planning by government. There is also anarchy where there is no government contol and no restraints on individuals. Capitalism depends on a government that offers protection and a place to resolve disputes such as a contract dispute.

Socialism Fascism and Communism are all forms of prohibitions of exchanges or mndates of actions. If there is a central plan then methods must be used to enforce and cary out that plan.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 10:35:55 AM PDT
Ryan says:
Joseph M. Creaney's post:
You left out fascism.
++++++++++++++++++++
Thanx will study that next. Just from memory Fascism applied to Italy and Spain late thirties, any place else I should look at..

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 11:34:19 AM PDT
*Thanx will study that next. Just from memory Fascism applied to Italy and Spain late thirties, any place else I should look at..

Germany under Hitler and the US under FDR. Fascism is indirect control of the economy where there is a great deal of regulation that protects established businesses and they implent the social agenda of the government if it be pensions and health care or right race of people hired...

Posted on Jun 15, 2012 11:46:00 AM PDT
Mickey says:
I believe the best way to explain economic systems is: Traditional, command and market with the U.S. today being a mixed economy with elements of all three.

Posted on Jun 15, 2012 1:36:20 PM PDT
Er......

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 2:20:14 PM PDT
Far Lefkas says:
>>>true Marxist would take no action because they would have a faith that communism would naturally happen<<<
>>>Marxists have not been content with waiting for history to happen because Marx's predictions were wrong.<<<

So I guess people called marxists are not true marxists. I sorta think this is what I've posted on several occasions here.

Those Marx-y ideas about scientific observation, profit is exploitation are not all: there's the matter of classes acting in unison as groups. They don't: someone (not Marx) wrote that belonging to a social class based on your wealth is like belonging to a club w/ no privileges. Based on classes being active, Marx insisted they'd make war on each other---class warfare. The latter's still a pop phrase in the press, despite there being no substance to it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 2:36:46 PM PDT
Far Lefkas says:
Capitalism, socialism (to include the element of fascism) are based on the notion of scarcity: there's not enough for everyone. Communism, according its godfather Marx, would come about when there was enough for everyone & living by subsistence wages was no longer necessary.

If there comes a time when there is enough for everyone, we'll never know it because varying degrees of corrupt govs. are too firmly entrenched. Some govs. impose an economic system, which usually results in whatever's enough being allotted to firm supporters of that gov. Under no gov. in the past 2 centuries has this "enough" gone to everyone.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:58:22 AM PDT
Richard H. Wright says:
Er......

===============

to er is human, to forgive is to er....

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 5:43:56 AM PDT
Ryan says:
Joseph M. Creaney's post:
Germany under Hitler and the US under FDR. Fascism is indirect control of the economy.
+++++++++++++++
Thanx again, never clicked with me that FDR was a fascist. Also had a problem researching the German economy under Hitler, not much info on the web..

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 8:27:35 AM PDT
It's largely a matter of who decides what's enough.

We've seen what happens when communist "leaders" make that decision.

Rick Wright
libertarian

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 8:28:26 AM PDT
Er, that's err.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:23:09 PM PDT
*Thanx again, never clicked with me that FDR was a fascist. Also had a problem researching the German economy under Hitler, not much info on the web..

We think of Fascism or Hitler and the first thing we think of is gas chambers. That was the logical end of eugenics which was pioneered by progressives. Nazism and Italian fascism were very different. The Italians did not go after Jews. Until 1942 or the extermination our treatment of blacks was not that different than how Germany treated Jews.

Part from social policy few of us know much about Nazi or fascist economics. Hitler built on the welfare state of Bismark which was also an inspiration for many progressives. We don't learn about all the boards and self policing body that were created in the depression or how Hitler ran Germany or how Italy was run.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:26:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 1:26:34 PM PDT
"....had a problem researching the German economy under Hitler, not much info on the web"

At the risk of being obvious....

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 5:59:19 PM PDT
Ryan says:
Joseph M. Creaney's post:
Part from social policy few of us know much about Nazi or fascist economics.
++++++++++++++++
Current policies seemed to be aimed at recreating the Weimar Republic, with yet another round of QE expected this week.
Seems like the dominant influence in Hitlers economy was the military spending and the same under Mussolini.
Two recent episodes of Charlie Rose when relating the current world economy to history mentioned that WW2 was what happened next..

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 7:17:25 PM PDT
Far Lefkas says:
Don't know "fascist" economics (something that kinda diminishes real fascist politics, i.e., killing off your opponents), but Nazi Germany was pretty much a state capitalism: the big companies profited but only by producing on behalf of the gov. Considering that the DoD has been the US of A's biggest purchasing agent for the past 40 yr, our "economy" doesn't seem much different.

Posted on Jul 15, 2012 2:08:27 PM PDT
Karl Towers says:
What's the best thing about the belief that powerful extraterrestrials will one day return to Earth to save us? The two questions have equal relevance.

Posted on Jul 15, 2012 2:12:30 PM PDT
May I have more time?
I still can't think of anything good about Marxism.

Rick Wright
libertarian for Romney 2012
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  31
Total posts:  333
Initial post:  Jun 5, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 15, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions