Please, people. Read "On the Poverty of Student Life", "Society of the Spectacle" and "Comments on the Society of the Spectacle". It's extremely relevant to our present.
Harvey’s perspective is not the overthrow of the present dictatorship of finance capital, but the development of a movement to pressure its representatives to “listen.” With all other channels of expression closed by “money power,” he writes, the movement has “no other option except to occupy the parks, squares and streets of our cities until our opinions are heard and our needs attended to.”
There's a pretty strong argument that Stalin only achieved power because of (quite valid) fears within the party that western invasion of Russia was inevitable. After all, the US and USSR invaded Russia during the Russian Revolution and attempted to oust the Bolsheviks. Fear of German invasion also helped Stalin consolidate power. Perhaps if the west had been more conciliatory, a more stable and compassionate leader would have emerged. (Bukharin, perhaps).
@jonblaze32 It is possible,but pure speculation,ofc. A different leader then Stalin could have been disasters---nazi.Germany could perhaps have won the war as early as 1942-43. If the nazi war-machine could have turned full power on GB,well,Europe would have been lost.There is no doubt that the young Bolsjevik Republic was under attack,from several armies from Europe but also from the inside.There was enemys everywere,also in the CP..:)
I guess my point could be distilled to the idea that militarism is not the inevitable consequence of communism, but subject to the the motivations and machinations of the state and individual actors involved.
@jonblaze32 Militarism is absoutly not the inevitable consequens of communism,we agree on that--but ww2 did happen and question is if Bukharin could have handled it..Besides,history shows us that any socialist or anti-imperial country has been attacked,not just in economics but also by soldiers.So in a way,militarism is needed to protect against foreign powers.I think a socilaist state whitout armed forces in a hostile world is,at best,a pink fantasy.The imperalist countrys back down voluntarely
@RebelSonBand DImwit, instead of you brain amputated dipshit. I not only read Marx in English and GErman, but more importantly I UNDERSTOOD Marx, contrary to all LEFTIST IDIOTS.
Obviously, you are just anothere LEFTIST IDIOT who chickens out when it comes to ARGUMENTS and FACTS. Otherwise you would be capable of answering those "easy" 2 questions below, for the answer of which I offered € 100,000 of my CAPITALISTIC EUROS!
Look at Stalin's record. Given his treaties with Hitler, his unpreparedness even when his generals told him otherwise, and his personal cowardice following the news of the invasion, I do not see how Bukharin could have done worse.
Russia could probably not get away with not having armed forces. That is the reality of it's geography. Other places are luckier, and would not need armed forces.
@jonblaze32 What should Stalin have done ? Prepared for war,that would have been an agressive stand,he was trying hard to avoid war.Hence the treaty,a true"marriage of reason"Besides,the Wehrmacht had the secret armour training program up and running as soon as 1929---long before Hitler.Dont tell me that a Socialist country anywere in the world can do without armed forces,no matter geografic.Every single Socialist country has been attacked at some point...
Stalin gravely misjudged the situation. He believed he could trust Hitler. He could have had his troops on the border in a better (or any?) state of preparedness, even as the Germans amassed troops there. He could have not purged the officer corps in the 30's. Need I go on?
If Iceland became socialist, I doubt they would be attacked, given their geographic isolation.
@jonblaze32 Stalin did misjudge Hitlers attentions.Very much so.About the purge,tell me,how many of these officers was Bolsjevik in 1918?Not many,if any.These officers were from the"old"Zarist army and had fought against the Revolution.Now,in the new times,they followed the new leader--but not because they were Communist,because they had to.These white army left over was a threat.Many conspiracys was forged,they had to go.That being said,there was mistakes+paranoia too..
@jonblaze32 And about Ireland,just look at the British response to the Irish wish for a united country.They were attacked in brutal ways,the Irish tricolore was out-lawed,Bobby Sands was voted into parlament but not accepted,only Catholic Brits could become police,unemployment for Irish over 50%,the list goes on.And you think the British would take kind to an nationalisation of GB economys interest?Absolutly no way,not 1 Socialist country in history has been left alone..
@jonblaze32 Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
What we have in America is Fascist Corporatism, What we need is for the Public to rule the economy NOT the State, We should Abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS and let Free-Market Capitalism take root and Make America a Prosperous Free country!! Vote RON PAUL for President 2012!! End The Wars!
Do all these marxists spew a long winded rant of their stream of consciousness dream without anything but concepts and no example anywhere ? I doubt they could form a WOW game group that followed their insane spewing streams and survived more than an afternoon.
socialism/communism has been tried in many countries and has failed miserably every time.for people in this day and age,after all the evidence from countries that suffered under socialism/communism to be still promoting it,must be suffering from a form of mental illness.
@mrharrytoyou1 that's because what you call socialism never was socialism. real socialism means democratic control over the means of production instead of corporate fascism. and it has been tried, in spain in the 1930s for example, it was only destroyed by fascist aggression. or in now in venezuela. you just don't hear any of this in the news of course.
@Ichtiostega democratic control over the means of production?does that mean a committee of socislists deciding what products should be made for the rest of us?democratic control of production is done through supply and demand and competition,capitalist ideals.look at the evidence.the worlds richest nations have done this,and by doing so have done more to alleviate poverty than socialism could ever hope.
@mrharrytoyou1 The richest countries are rich because of colonialist and neocolonialist exploitation. That's what capitalism is good at. And democratic control means worker's councils deciding the issues at hand which are then executed by it's members. Different councils having control of different areas of social life, be it production facilities, living communities etc. I'm talking about real democracy here, not the charade that is called democracy nowadays.
@mrharrytoyou1 Calling markets democratic is utter nonsense. Markets allocate power over production to individuals according to how much capital they hold, it is in a sense a one-dollar-one-vote system and hence totally undemocratic.
@Ichtiostega Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
@Ichtiostega eKoolan1 "and "save" yet another country "
As they did SEVERAL TIMES. Thanks to the USA the Southe Koreans enjoy capitalistic FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, while their Northern compatriots have to suffer endlessly in a COMMUNIST CONCENTRATION CAMP/SHITHOLE.
@CherryCokeNixon Nonsense. Chavez is democratically elected and has great support in the population which is is why he survived the military coup against him. He's building up worker-run businesses everywhere in the country and has started lots of social support programs for the poor.
@mrharrytoyou1 The problem is, once they try to institute their marxist commie ideal, they find out some One is still in charge. Check out our own 68'er former commie marxists who changed their ideology because of the horrors they personally witnessed, they testify that as they were planning and attempting to foment the revolution, they expected THEY would be in charge when they finally got their way. In essence, there is always a head of the snake.
I understand people being confused by politicians who conflate the free market with their own crony capitalist policies.I can see why things like the banking crisis might seem- to the less informed- to be caused by capitalism rather than a corrupt perversion that makes a mockery of capitalism's true principles.
But to suggest that capitalism is responsible for war and bigotry? Don't even the most dumbed down government schools teach that those things preceded capitalism by 1000s of years?
and capitalism has hurt more then it helped ? what bullshit,what planet are you living on? and as far as the 3rd world piece- wage rates have done nothing but go up in countries that embraced capitalism and will continue to do so. Gee, let me hurt the chinese by building my factory there and employing 1000 of them at wages triple of what they were making in the fields.
Gee, let me hurt the world by perpetuating things like war, racism, sexism, homophobia, inequality, also by starting two world wars, by developing and using the nuclear bomb, and by using children as low-cost producers of high-value commodities.
@overman926 thats absurd. capitalism is not perfect but its the best system, Im a lover of capitalism and i hate sexism, racism, homophobia,(which have nothing to do with capitalism) WTF starting 2 world wars? - usa didnt start them you douche- Stalin would have loved to invent the bomb - he was too stupid though he came in second. inequality is a great thing- i dont want anyone to starve (which they dont in america) but redistribution of wealth ruins a system
there is no "real" communism you idiot. marxism was all ivory tower theoretical bullshit. the scenario with stalin, mao and the other assbags is what will always happen when you take marx from paper to reality. lenin was a prick as well. there are not and will never be a group of benevolent angels that will graciously and viably centrally plan and operate a country
@princejphdog Well that would be why Marx never wrote about "benevolent angels" who would "graciously and viably centrally plan and operate a country," but surely you must know that since you've read so much Marx.
@overman926 I never said marx wrote about that- that's an accurate observation of what never happens when marxism is employed- it always ends up some dictatorial prick (or group of pricks)runs the country in question.
Also communist should not compare communism to Russia, China, North Korea, since none of these nations were communist. After the death of Lenin anything resembling real communism in Russia was dismantled by Stalin, whom based the nation more around the guidelines of a totalitarian system. Mao , and the others minus Cuba followed more so the examples of Stalin then they ever did Marx, Lenin, etc. Stalin, and the fools that followed his example, or insulting to real communism.
@comradeyoung The fact is communism is not possible. So when people compare Communism to the USSR or China they are pointing out that this is what communism leads to. Communism assumes that everyone has the same morals and motives or will be educated so. Truth is that is not true so when the central planners don't have 100% support by the people it usually gradually leads to totalitarianism. Planning just leads to more planning and regulation.
"if you deleted all labour movements and trade unions"
???
Trade unions are organizations that are formed by voluntary agreement (or at least often) and they are the legitimate representation of workers. So what should be wrong with it??
It was not the labour movements or any sort of sociialistic policy that raised wages and bettered working conditions, it was the progress as a result of capitalistic competition, investment etc that made all this possible.
@comradeyoung "real communism" - can you please elaborate on where in world history your perception of "real communism" has been successfully implemented. The fact is that ANY communist state (which has removed all powerful industrialists and sapped all ambition from it's people) naturally leaves it's door open to totalitarianism. Can you please name a Capitalist state which has been ruled by a dictatorship? I bet you can't!!! Capitalism is freedom / Communism is control!!! I DARE U TO REPLY!!
Capital is a force that is indifferent and often hostile to real freedom. The strides towards democracy that have been taken around the world have been in spite of capitalist tenancies, not in tandem. One need only look at modern Asia to see that the free movement of capital need not be independent of repressive regimes.
@comradeyoung So you are saying the problem with russia, china etc. were because the wrong person was in power!??! LOL. How about we decentralize power so things like the soviet union and nazi germany never happen again!?
@comradeyoung@comradeyoung Isn't it strange how the problem with communism always seems to be the sheer misfortune of having bad leaders? In every single case the answer to the repeated failures of communism seems to be: "Oh, if only so-and-so wouldn't have been in control, we would have had real communism and everything would have been hunky-dory"
Isn't it more likely that communism simply doesn't work? That it goes against human nature and common sense?
@yfirkaldan Marxist method of analyzing history is totally opposite to what you are saying. History is determined by objective conditions and subjective factors. Stalinism was a phenomena generated due to the isolation of revolution in a backward country like Russia (1917). Stalin's philosophy of "Socialism in one country" added more fuel to the fire. China, Cuba. North Korea adopted the same model later on. So Stalinism is something more than the personality cult of Stalin.
@goodmemories215 How can people still defend Marxism or Communism?
Not only do we have overwhelmingly convincing arguments and repeated historical evidence on how Marxism/Communism poorly allocates resources, was dead-wrong on the value of labor, and generally makes people poor and less free.
I can't recall a single example of a Marxist/Communist country being better off than a comparable country with a free market economy. Not to mention the millions killed in the name of Marxist equality.
@goodmemories215 Please give me your long list of states (or whatever you want to call them) where Marxism/Communism was implemented and the result wasn't poverty, misery and opression.
And do you really think that the Economist's report on "State Capitalism" was flattering? Or did you just read the cover?
But most of all: don't you, personally, have a sliver of an urge to be a free, strong, independent individual? To leave others alone and to be left alone yourself to "do your own thing"?
Its simply delusional to think that capitalism will lead to anything other then more suffering for the majority of the worlds population. Capitalism cannot be judged simply by just looking at the economies of a few 1st world countries. While even in these countries it has hurt more then its helped, we still must look at what its done to the third world for us to fully appreciate the evils, and utter failure of capitalism. If we were suddenly deprived of 3rd world labor,capitalism would crumble.
''You have masses of capital and masses of labour, unemployed, side-by-side, in the midst of world that is full of social need. How stupid is that?''
That right there is true. Some capitalist fan-boys can't handle the fact that their system has FAILED, so they whip out clever sounding mumbo-jumbo about how their free market is ''supposed'' to work, if only the mean ol'e guvument would let them.
@cayetanoluis what deaths ? you douche- start from the birth of the USA- and dont give me imperialist / colonialism bullshit that's not capitalism- that's what stalin was to the max. Capitalism though not perfect,freed more people from poverty than any other. Che was a f'ing murderous pig who slithered through the jungle executing defenseless people. socialism, liberalism etc- all have marxist underpinnings all are defense of the irresponsible, & politics/economics of pussies who cant compete
@princejphdog ''what deaths ? you douche- start from the birth of the USA''
Okay. Millions of Indians slaughtered by white settlers.
''and dont give me imperialist / colonialism bullshit that's not capitalism''
Yes it is. Imperialism is the mode of capitalism embodied by the most powerful capitalist states, who must control strategic resources, offload excess capital, and undercut their rivals. Imperialism has everything to do with capitalism.
@cayetanoluis I agree that killing Indians (and slavery) was horrible, although many of the Indians were savages- that has nothing to do with free market capitalism, I am a non- interventionist/true free market capitalist, and there are many of us. Fight against horrible foreign policy and crony/phony capitalism(which I do) and fight for true free market libertarian values- that's the only path that will improve the world, stop wasting your time on crackpot communism/socialism.
@princejphdog inheritance of wealth, leading to generational increases in the wealth of particular families, the members of whom acquire it through no ''merit'' whatsoever, boom and bust cycles, the financialisation of the economy as credit is used to stimulate growth and consumption (your hands-off policy would open the door WIDE open to financial predators and mega-corporations), and many others. What you're advocating is a dehumanising nightmare of alienation, greed and ecological collapse.
@cayetanoluis what right does another have to dictate to me who inherits my private property, whether it be my kin or my cat, i will do with it what i want , i earned it.
@princejphdog ''what right does another have to dictate to me who inherits my private property, whether it be my kin or my cat, i will do with it what i want , i earned it.''
Good for you. But pay attention to what I said: inherited wealth is one of many things that destroys the myth that wealth is acquired mostly through ''merit''. It completely destroys the equilibrium model that you would have me believe, because it leads to accumulation: its easier to make money the more you have.
@cayetanoluis there is nothing wrong with boom bust cycles if left alone for the most part, there is no way to stop them anyway- the fed can't, communism/socialism fails economically ending with a HUGE bust
you'll notice i said libertarian with a "small" l, regulations should be small in number and "laser beamed" focused on the issue. I'm against over regulation and regulatory capture by phony/crony capitalists. problem is politicians in any system cant help themselves- always must over do it
@princejphdog ''there is nothing wrong with boom bust cycles if left alone for the most part, there is no way to stop them anyway- the fed can't, communism/socialism fails economically ending with a HUGE bust''
Capitalism's solution? The destruction of excess capital, thus paving the way for a new boom. This was achieved through this thing called WW2 (no, WW2 wasn't meant as a solution, but it happened to provide one). Now the system is screeching to a halt once again. FAIL.
@princejphdog ''you'll notice i said libertarian with a "small" l, regulations should be small in number and "laser beamed" focused on the issue.''
The freedom of the market isn't a scientific category. It depends on your moral positions. Thus, if you're against child labour, you won't even notice laws against the use of it as ''restricting the free market''. If, on the other hand, you're not against it you will see an unfair restriction on the freedom of individuals to make money.
@cayetanoluis "What you're advocating is a dehumanising nightmare of alienation, greed and ecological collapse." you cant be serious- you're describing Stalin's soviet union and ,Mao's china. Don't you get it?, its a 360 degree circle, your communist paradise is nothing more than the biggest most inefficient, greedy monopoly possible- that's the end game of marxism. There is no "benevolent group of angels" that will end up as the heads of any system without greed- none /never
@princejphdog Stalin is a convenient whipping boy for free marketeers, so that they can equivocate any alternative to capitalism as a top-down, dictatorial and tyrannical nightmare. The mantra of Soviet and Maoist ''inefficiency'' is another part of the free marketeer's ideological tool kit. Interestingly, it doesn't even have the merit of being true (let alone ''most inefficient'' being true). Read up on the USSR's and China's growth figures during the Stalin and Mao eras, and catch a clue.
@cayetanoluis Stalin and Mao got things done because, through force, they threw human lives at projects . that isn't efficiency at all, it is a heinous waste of human life and ended up a disaster. Whipping boy? ok what communist style government has ever worked? Cuba? go live there and see how happy you are, better yet, live there ,speak up loudly against the regime and see what happens
@princejphdog ''Stalin and Mao got things done because, through force, they threw human lives at projects''
Cough ** So how capitalism got its start **cough. Obviously though, as in the case of capitalism, there was a lot more to it than just ''throwing lives'' at projects. Your lurid caricatures betray a deep-seated fear of being exposed.
''speak up loudly against the regime and see what happens''
Don't be silly. Freedom of speech isn't a capitalist invention, so why bring it up here?
@cayetanoluis because freedom of speech never exists in a communist society, with you its like trying to reason with a drunk- go move to cuba , you are probably too busy sucking off the teat of capitalism, i.e the hard work of others,complaining all the way through in between sucks
@princejphdog I'm not here to defend Stalin or Mao but you have to understand the context in which these governments came to be. The USSR was dealing with two world wars, a civil war, several invasions and famine while still becoming one of the two superpowers within a couple decades. Life expectency in China before Mao was around 35, and in under 30 years that rose to 63.6 for men. The great leap forward was a failed program, but it wasn't an intentional failure. You also have to understand..
@princejphdog that China's population doubled in this time. There was alot going on in a massive country with several times the population of the US during a transition from a feudal society into a modern power. Where would China or Russia be without these communist revolutions? They would be third world countries.
@johnmickle where would they be? - they would be better off if they chose a capitalist revolution like the USA did and 120 million of their citizens wouldn't have died horrible deaths, that's where they would be, in fact capitalism is the only thing saving them today
@princejphdog Privatization is what they were fighting against in the first place, it's what made the revolutions necessary. The working class decided to take their means of production back from private hands, if it was working for them why would they even want revolution? As for what's going on today, capitalism is making a small sliver of the Chinese population very rich, while the rest are in deep poverty. There were virtually NO homeless in the USSR, a rate thats skyrocketed since it's fall.
@johnmickle Czarist Russia was far from our Capitalist Democracy which was working, they had a clear model to work from and blew it with a crackpot theory. You can never believe stats from a communist country they lie like dogs. Virtually no homeless? yeah i guess the Gulag was home to millions and that counts as a home. what a joke. Same with the Chinese, that's bullshit, capitalism is bringing the population out of poverty, its not a zero sum game
@princejphdog And seriously? You're going to equivocate Mao with ''greed''? Talk about taking cheap shots. But then again, you did say the Che killed ''countless innocent people'', so these flights of fantasy aren't at all alien to you.
@cayetanoluis I didn't say countless innocent i said defenseless. you need to read history, he murdered many without trial and it wasn't in combat. Mao was an arrogant pig- while 30 million starved in his assinine "great leap forward (backward)" he got fat eating well in a palace while banging his many whore concubines , wouldn't listen to anyone & killed many who spoke against his stupid ideas, wouldn't have transpired in a free market scenario. Hitler was very efficient - do you like him too?
@princejphdog ''I didn't say countless innocent i said defenseless. you need to read history''
I got you mixed up with another dickhead. Sorry. Yeah, it's true, he did order the executions of these Batista pigs. I personally am very much in favour of due process, but like I said before, spilled milk.
Why? These weren't paths to development anywhere, except supposedly now as recommendations by the rich to the poor. Your free market nonsense will never work, for a whole range of reasons: the natural tendency for wealth to become concentrated in a market system, the co-optation of the state, local monopolies due to resource heterogeneity...
@princejphdog Today, we also have the IMF, WTO and World Bank, who impose ''free trade'' conditions (which were ignored by the powerful captilalist states when they themselves were developing. back then, protectionism was a-okay, and worked) on the poor, and generally fucking them over on a regular basis. The privatisation of the Bolivian water system and its selling to Bechtel? Capitalist provision. Socialists were against that, and fought against it.
@princejphdog ''Che was a f'ing murderous pig who slithered through the jungle executing defenseless people.''
Ummm, yeah. That's not what he did. He waged a guerrilla war against a corrupt dictatorship and shot at its armed guards. Later he executed Batista's thugs and other collaborators. Spilled milk, as far as I'm concerned. Odd how you have to resort to out-and-out lies to get your point across. Try again.
@cayetanoluis dude, read my nick name. i just read your debate with that truevoice fag and i have to personally thank you for formulating such wonderful and to-the-point "leftist" (in fact, just common sense) arguments. see, i have lost my sanity over time and succumbed to a rather tasteless temptation to say idiotic and utterly wrong things on the internet (rather than debating seriously) for the sake of some sick pleasure, so most of my comments, at least under this account…
@cayetanoluis ...are pure perverse warped out SHIT! but you are still hanging on and supporting the right cause and i wish to personally thank you for that. still, please bear in my mind that i too embrace the ideas of intellectuals like Harvey or Žižek, so please re-read my shitty ass comments with the full awareness that they are just an attempt at carrying capitalist/consumerist debauchery to the limits of its own absurd, and to the point when it just can't conceal its falsehood any longer.
@EITrollo Are you serious in praising that cayetanoluis retard? All that he has done is verbal abuse, misrepresentation and smug moralizing. The argument that "rich men in government are destroying the environment and oppressing the poor therefore Marxism has little influence" is the biggest strawman ever. How does Marxism influence public policy? It's through protectionism, anti-trust, labor controls, regulations, welfare-management states. Leninism/Stalinism is the implementation of Marxism.
@truevoice08 ''Are you serious in praising that cayetanoluis retard? All that he has done is verbal abuse, misrepresentation and smug moralizing.''
Well, you got the abuse part right. The other categories belong to you.
''The argument that "rich men in government are destroying the environment and oppressing the poor therefore Marxism has little influence" is the biggest strawman ever.''
Marxism has significant influence among non-shitheads, so you're right.
@truevoice08 ''How does Marxism influence public policy? It's through protectionism, anti-trust, labor controls, regulations, welfare-management states.''
Reagan, one of the most protectionist presidents in history, was therefore ''influenced'' by Marxism? And let me get this straight: you're AGAINST anti-trust laws? That's rich, after lambasting those who equivocate the current corporatist system with capitalism per se. Yet you would protect predatory monopolies? Your true colours, right there
@cayetanoluis so, i'm merely trying to parody twats like truvoice in (i would hope) a truly Žižekian manner:) i'm just saying the things they would say but with (intended, but often unrecognized) STRONG ironical accents... stay well and moral as ever, my beloved left-handed friend:).
just like marx this guy is a loser-its so easy to criticize a current system- they never have a concrete better way-because there is none! just revolution- Communism is crackpot and will never work except by putting in place evil dictators who kill millions- this guy is a pussy fucktard like all commies
@princejphdog ''Communism is crackpot and will never work except by putting in place evil dictators who kill millions-''
You forget that this is exactly what your beloved capitalism has done since it became the dominant economic system of the world. The deaths attributable to communism pale in comparison to those attributable to capitalism.
''this guy is a pussy fucktard like all commies''
Che Guevara was far from a pussy fucktard. If he was alive, he'd still be fighting rather than trolling.
@AUSM92 ''If people endeavored to understand basic facts about the way humans interact freely and trade on a large scale Marxists would be looked at in the light they deserve, lower than Nazis.'' <-- smacks of desperation.
@AUSM92 I said government PLANNING, not government ownership. The SG still controlled key, strategic parts of the economy while it was developing, like the banking system, several technological firms, etc. it had boards of ''technocrats'', committees and other agencies, all dedicated to directing the economy in a highly organised way.
''Citing the worlds greatest embracer of capitalism as a success of socialism is funny.''
I wasn't. I said that planning isn't antithetical to economic success.
@AUSM92 ''The sheer complexity of economic calculation precludes socialism, marxism and zeitegist super comps from replacing capitalism.''
LOL. Then you haven't heard of Singapore, an intricately PLANNED economy. If the Singaporean state can organise a capitalist economy on behalf of its bourgeoisie, then what would prevent a socialist state from organising on behalf of its proletariat?
@AUSM92 ''This rejects the subjectve law of value and makes the ridiculous implication that one would tender their labor when it only benefits another when infact any exchange occurs when there is an expectation of mutual benefit.''
''mutual benefit'' doesn't equate to ''equally beneficial''. The worker who needs to work to survive and eat isn't in the same situation as the capitalist who is expanding his inventory.
we had this in Poland for half of century - it dont work
if you want to wait in qeue half of day to buy piece of meat - than go ahead
problem with capitalism is that greedy banksters have power to print money - thats it! - marxism, communism, socialism no matter how cool will sound NEVER WORK
the problem with Marxism is that while it sounds good in theory, when put into practice it fails miserably. Capitalism and globalization are the best systems we currently have, and will continue to be the systems until a better ones are found. And it definitely won't be Marxism
The American Historical Review, among the oldest and most prestigious academic journals in the United States, has condemned Service’s biography of Trotsky, saying that it "fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship". The review has explicitly endorsed the critique of Service's book by David North, the chairman of both the Socialist Equality Party in the United States and the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site.
@AUSM92 We have so much food, we can feed the world. Its just we have no money, because the greedy rich keep all of it to them self's and don't help others.
I don't think Zeitgeist has the same stance on things as Harvey, Harvey being a scientific socialist and Zeitgeist (from what I've read about them) utopian socialist.
@scienceBpraised LOL I'm sure Harvey wouldn't oppose it since Zeitgeist is just Marxism with robots. Watch Stefan Molyneux's demolition of Zeitgeist and you'll know why its now the new philosophical whipping boy!!!
@JJaguar333 ooh, you're so generous, arent u? but that is why you are a "Marxist", you truly care for the wretched of the world. god forsook them but you "care", lol.
so, to turn ur point around, if millions are well-off while millions of others r starving, i'm just supposed to despair over their misfortune and forget about cool and sexy things in life?
i beseech you one last time - have fun. you'll die soon anyway.
@EITrollo ''o, to turn ur point around, if millions are well-off while millions of others r starving, i'm just supposed to despair over their misfortune and forget about cool and sexy things in life?''
There's nothing sexy about a chicken-fuck puto like you.
And to those who are trying to "debate" and to impose some psychopathic reasoning... Come on, today even the little children knows who is the bad guy. Don`t (i)rationalize further.
Reminder of what Warren Buffet once said: “There’s class warfare, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
@truevoice08 yeah. its the marxists fault the world is a fucked up place. from all the social and political stands, from all the economic interests, its the marxist workers to blame.
@metalorixos Not the workers, but the marxist intellectuals who propagandize the workers. Countries all over the world are awash with monetary and fiscal socialism. When those interventions fail, the Left is so quick to blame capitalism just because they didn't get the result they wanted. There's a difference between rhetoric and reality. Real socialism will always end up serving minority interests. Read 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazzlit PDF
@metalorixos QUESTION FOR YOU: Why are universities so full of marxists but then public policy is supposedly corrupted by 'neoliberal' influence? Don't the ideas in the universities have concrete effects in the real world? Where's the disconnect? The answer is that leftist ideas have been tried for a long time, they didn't work, so the leftists absolve themselves of all responsibility and blame it on capitalism. It's insane!
@truevoice08 The answer is that after the 70s worker movements capitalism stroke back with neoliberalism. Hard. This together with post modernity and the failing of the Eastern Block were the three biggest blows on communism. But now during the crisis, more and more heads are turning to unkle Carl's side and checking why is he laughing saying "I told you so"!
@metalorixos So according to your logic, communism failed in the late 80s with a staggering death toll in the tens of millions. And then capitalism failed in recent years, so therefore, we need to go back to communism?!? The hard truth is that the violent financial crises following the 70s was NOT because of trade liberalization but because of monetary socialism (real-socialism) which was institutionalized with Nixon's closing of the gold window in 1971. As I said, rhetoric versus reality.
When we refer to Communism we do not refer to the Soviet States of Eastern Europe or China under Mao. These were states that wanted to pursue an economic strategy to industrialize without the market capitalism of Western Europe and the U.S.
Every crisis in a capitalist society is due to contradictions within capitalist production. There is no such things as monetary socialism because socialism believes in the removal of money as a medium of exchange and payment of labor.
@kingmafi6699 I define socialism as State ownership of capital goods. When the government assumes a violent monopoly over the printing press in the form of a central bank, then that's monetary socialism. As I have argued, the problems of capitalism socialists decry are but the consequences of socialist policies themselves that the socialists refuse to acknowledge as their own fault. Rhetoric versus reality.
@kingmafi6699 I could of course refer you to books like 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazzlit and 'Ethics of Money Production' by Hulsmann but you are probably not interested in the history of money and banking and why the current system is a total deviation from the free market norm. Anything aside from total collectivism is unfair for you. But then again, just because reality does not conform to the Marxist dogma doesn't mean its unjust.
History shows that all economies maintained some form of protectionism or had government intervention.
And exactly is collectivism unfair? Even in capitalism all production is the work of collective and society does not function in isolation. We lived as collectives for most of our history especially in native cultures.
I don't understand how you came to such a silly and bizzare conclusion.
@kingmafi6699 Free markets mean free trade networks. Individuals are free to voluntarily engage in contractual exchanges denominated in money absent government coercion. The free market exists in degrees. The freer the better. Prices in electronics have fallen since its unregulated. Prices in health care have skyrocketed because of coerced State insurance while medication not covered by insurance is falling in price. Collectivist planning will never work due to the absence of market prices.
@kingmafi6699 Indeed, collectives are necessary. The business firm is a collective, the family is a collective. But what differentiates tribal societies from modern ones is cooperation via the price mechanism. We have food and clothes and computers not because we engaged in focused group discussions or elections or any of that crap espoused in political science courses, but because we buy and sell and save and invest. We make individual decisions based on our separate interests.
But these separete interests are a perversion and distortion.
For one it requires exploitation and also creates industrial serfdom where the majority become more impovershied. Class struggle is an inevitable featire of capitalism because there is contradictions between the bourgeois class and the proletariat. Capitalism is unsustainable, It requires mindless consumption, exploitation and depletion of resources as well as workers and the destruction of the workforce.
@kingmafi6699 As expected of a Marxist, you resort to big words, generalizations about history, and cheap emotional appeals. There exist the closest harmony of interest between the employer and the employee. Read some Boehm-Bawerk and von Mises so you can eschew exploitation theory and get on with your life. I've been hearing the same old Marxist talking points for four years and after much discernment have concluded that they are philosophically escapist garbage. Learn to argue, then we'll talk
And you need stop reading Libertarian nonsense and wake up to reality.
"There exist the closest harmony of interest between the employer and the employee."
Fallacious, You ignore the union movements, worker strike actions, collective bargaining and the fact that more than 77% of the workforce dislike their jobs and are discontent with working conditions.
This is not a sign of "harmony". The more the capitalist makes the more impoverished the workers are.
@kingmafi6699 "worker strike actions... and the fact that more than 77% of the workforce dislike their jobs and are discontent with working conditions" This doesn't refute what I said. I could buy an iPod and be dissatisfied at some point, but a lot of this is due to the success of the iPod in raising my expectations for it. In the same way, Marxism is utopian nonsense that makes the worker unable to accept reality and the fact that he wouldn't have a job without the capitalist.
@truevoice08 ''In the same way, Marxism is utopian nonsense that makes the worker unable to accept reality and the fact that he wouldn't have a job without the capitalist.'' <-- slave mentality, right there.
You need to get comfortable with the possibility (indeed the reality) that for someone to eat, he has to work. That there is no such thing as a free lunch. That ownership has to be deserved. And yes, that capitalists DESERVE their profits.
@truevoice08 TRUE but capitalism in america is seriously flawed, especially when you have a monetary system that serves the interest of big government, big corporations and big banks. they DONT deserve the money or power they get.
@HurricanesFan890 Agreed. But to (fractional-reserve) banks and government are not part of capitalism. Corporations are a chimera. They are both protect from taxes but also from debt liability. Capitalism is 'flawed' because it is hampered.
@kingmafi6699 Class conflict is there bec. of the false idea of class struggle, not the other way around. Dividing people into 2 groups (capitalist and laborer) and saying that one is evil/greedy while the other is innocently victimized like the children of Bethlehem is the height of intellectual immaturity. But the again, Marx never had a real job, lived on the dole of Engels all his life, and called some people racial trash. hahahaha
@truevoice08 Given your assumptions on freemarket brilliance, the third world has the right to starve, while the first world has the right to force third world countries into freemarket policies that produce crops for export rather than produceing food for their poor majority. Also first world countries force the third world to sell their crops and raw materials at a pittence of their worth,while the first world reaps the benefits.
@JJaguar333 There is no such thing as a 'free market policy' because the free market is not imposed from the top. It is when you remove all government interventions/policies that you have a free market. There is nothing wrong with exporting crops since farmers have the right to choose who to sell their produce to. It's called freedom of association. And who are you, who live in New Zealand, to talk to me about the 'third world' when I live in the Philippines. How presumptuous you leftists are!
@truevoice08 ''There exist the closest harmony of interest between the employer and the employee. ''
Which must explain why there is growing disgust and discontent by employees at how employers are being bailed out while workers are screwed, and why workers' wages have stagnated since the 1970s while corporate profits continue to rise. Or maybe these things are just optical illusions.
Truly, the street sweeper and the CEO of Goldman Sachs are one and the same! How silly not to have noticed.
@cayetanoluis "Which must explain why there is growing disgust and discontent by employees" That's only a perception and perceptions are subjective. I might not like my plumber's services as much as before, that doesn't mean he didn't do a service. I oppose bailouts, but to show your ignorant, bailouts of firms also benefit employees. Google 'The Myth That Is Falling Real Wages', but let's assume your correct (I just love OWNING leftists), profits are reinvested TO PAY WORKERS!!!
@truevoice08 ''but let's assume your correct (I just love OWNING leftists), profits are reinvested TO PAY WORKERS!!!''
Actually, they're mostly reinvested to acquire new capital. For WORKERS (not corporate parasites), real wages have stagnated (but credit has sky-rocketed. Credit is absolutely necessary for the continuation of capitalism. Without it, the whole system would have collapsed decades ago in another depression).
@cayetanoluis Capital investment increases worker productivity and hence raises wages (Google "The Myth That Is Falling Real Wages" to see charts). Most employers work long hours and don't have a secure income since profits are not assured and are subtracted by wage and operating expenses before the employer can earn income. Part of that income is reinvested into the firm. Most people can't sleep with that kind of risk. (google "why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich slate")
@truevoice08 ''Capital investment increases worker productivity and hence raises wages''
And ''hence'' raises wages? Perhaps you don't know what productivity actually means. Of course, it can be CORRELATED with increased wages, but it's not a necessary cause of it.
''Most employers work long hours and don't have a secure income since profits are not assured ''
Oh blah blah blah. Again with this wanker slave talk. You're such a tool.
RSAnimate should do this.
Propagandhi900 2 weeks ago
Please, people. Read "On the Poverty of Student Life", "Society of the Spectacle" and "Comments on the Society of the Spectacle". It's extremely relevant to our present.
Ahksmar 1 month ago
Harvey’s perspective is not the overthrow of the present dictatorship of finance capital, but the development of a movement to pressure its representatives to “listen.” With all other channels of expression closed by “money power,” he writes, the movement has “no other option except to occupy the parks, squares and streets of our cities until our opinions are heard and our needs attended to.”
wsws.org/articles/2011/nov2011/harv-n23.shtml
JoshuaCromarty 1 month ago
marxists are bad if communist is so good wat about the ussr hey?
TheZajac123 1 month ago
There's a pretty strong argument that Stalin only achieved power because of (quite valid) fears within the party that western invasion of Russia was inevitable. After all, the US and USSR invaded Russia during the Russian Revolution and attempted to oust the Bolsheviks. Fear of German invasion also helped Stalin consolidate power. Perhaps if the west had been more conciliatory, a more stable and compassionate leader would have emerged. (Bukharin, perhaps).
jonblaze32 2 months ago
@jonblaze32 It is possible,but pure speculation,ofc. A different leader then Stalin could have been disasters---nazi.Germany could perhaps have won the war as early as 1942-43. If the nazi war-machine could have turned full power on GB,well,Europe would have been lost.There is no doubt that the young Bolsjevik Republic was under attack,from several armies from Europe but also from the inside.There was enemys everywere,also in the CP..:)
RebelSonBand 1 month ago
@RebelSonBand
I guess my point could be distilled to the idea that militarism is not the inevitable consequence of communism, but subject to the the motivations and machinations of the state and individual actors involved.
jonblaze32 1 month ago
@jonblaze32 Militarism is absoutly not the inevitable consequens of communism,we agree on that--but ww2 did happen and question is if Bukharin could have handled it..Besides,history shows us that any socialist or anti-imperial country has been attacked,not just in economics but also by soldiers.So in a way,militarism is needed to protect against foreign powers.I think a socilaist state whitout armed forces in a hostile world is,at best,a pink fantasy.The imperalist countrys back down voluntarely
RebelSonBand 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RebelSonBand DImwit, instead of you brain amputated dipshit. I not only read Marx in English and GErman, but more importantly I UNDERSTOOD Marx, contrary to all LEFTIST IDIOTS.
Obviously, you are just anothere LEFTIST IDIOT who chickens out when it comes to ARGUMENTS and FACTS. Otherwise you would be capable of answering those "easy" 2 questions below, for the answer of which I offered € 100,000 of my CAPITALISTIC EUROS!
joaquinveyron 1 month ago
@RebelSonBand
Look at Stalin's record. Given his treaties with Hitler, his unpreparedness even when his generals told him otherwise, and his personal cowardice following the news of the invasion, I do not see how Bukharin could have done worse.
Russia could probably not get away with not having armed forces. That is the reality of it's geography. Other places are luckier, and would not need armed forces.
jonblaze32 1 month ago
@jonblaze32 What should Stalin have done ? Prepared for war,that would have been an agressive stand,he was trying hard to avoid war.Hence the treaty,a true"marriage of reason"Besides,the Wehrmacht had the secret armour training program up and running as soon as 1929---long before Hitler.Dont tell me that a Socialist country anywere in the world can do without armed forces,no matter geografic.Every single Socialist country has been attacked at some point...
RebelSonBand 1 month ago
@RebelSonBand
Stalin gravely misjudged the situation. He believed he could trust Hitler. He could have had his troops on the border in a better (or any?) state of preparedness, even as the Germans amassed troops there. He could have not purged the officer corps in the 30's. Need I go on?
If Iceland became socialist, I doubt they would be attacked, given their geographic isolation.
jonblaze32 1 month ago
@jonblaze32 Stalin did misjudge Hitlers attentions.Very much so.About the purge,tell me,how many of these officers was Bolsjevik in 1918?Not many,if any.These officers were from the"old"Zarist army and had fought against the Revolution.Now,in the new times,they followed the new leader--but not because they were Communist,because they had to.These white army left over was a threat.Many conspiracys was forged,they had to go.That being said,there was mistakes+paranoia too..
RebelSonBand 1 month ago
@jonblaze32 And about Ireland,just look at the British response to the Irish wish for a united country.They were attacked in brutal ways,the Irish tricolore was out-lawed,Bobby Sands was voted into parlament but not accepted,only Catholic Brits could become police,unemployment for Irish over 50%,the list goes on.And you think the British would take kind to an nationalisation of GB economys interest?Absolutly no way,not 1 Socialist country in history has been left alone..
RebelSonBand 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonblaze32 "Equating Stalinism to Communism is a rookie mistake."
DIMWIT, name me just ONE EXAMPLE where communism was anything else than stalinism.
But I of course, will not hear ANY ARGUMENTS coming from a sub-human LEFTISH life form like you here ... because you dont have any!
joaquinveyron 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonblaze32 Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
I pay you € 1.000.000, if you are able to.
joaquinveyron 1 month ago
dialectic blah blah. and whats w/ calling this a debate?
basscataz 2 months ago
? capitalist tech & socialist tech"?, ...... ha
basscataz 2 months ago
Nicely done.
tuttjam 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What we have in America is Fascist Corporatism, What we need is for the Public to rule the economy NOT the State, We should Abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS and let Free-Market Capitalism take root and Make America a Prosperous Free country!! Vote RON PAUL for President 2012!! End The Wars!
Leftovervictim1991 3 months ago
Do all these marxists spew a long winded rant of their stream of consciousness dream without anything but concepts and no example anywhere ? I doubt they could form a WOW game group that followed their insane spewing streams and survived more than an afternoon.
Silicondoc 4 months ago
socialism/communism has been tried in many countries and has failed miserably every time.for people in this day and age,after all the evidence from countries that suffered under socialism/communism to be still promoting it,must be suffering from a form of mental illness.
mrharrytoyou1 5 months ago
@mrharrytoyou1 that's because what you call socialism never was socialism. real socialism means democratic control over the means of production instead of corporate fascism. and it has been tried, in spain in the 1930s for example, it was only destroyed by fascist aggression. or in now in venezuela. you just don't hear any of this in the news of course.
Ichtiostega 5 months ago
@Ichtiostega democratic control over the means of production?does that mean a committee of socislists deciding what products should be made for the rest of us?democratic control of production is done through supply and demand and competition,capitalist ideals.look at the evidence.the worlds richest nations have done this,and by doing so have done more to alleviate poverty than socialism could ever hope.
mrharrytoyou1 4 months ago
@mrharrytoyou1 The richest countries are rich because of colonialist and neocolonialist exploitation. That's what capitalism is good at. And democratic control means worker's councils deciding the issues at hand which are then executed by it's members. Different councils having control of different areas of social life, be it production facilities, living communities etc. I'm talking about real democracy here, not the charade that is called democracy nowadays.
Ichtiostega 4 months ago
@mrharrytoyou1 Calling markets democratic is utter nonsense. Markets allocate power over production to individuals according to how much capital they hold, it is in a sense a one-dollar-one-vote system and hence totally undemocratic.
Ichtiostega 4 months ago
@Ichtiostega I heard about the 200% per year inflation rate in Venezuela and the government shooting people in the streets and the starving masses.
Silicondoc 4 months ago
@Silicondoc Well if the US media says so, it must be true.
Ichtiostega 4 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ichtiostega Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
I pay you € 1.000.000, if you are able to.
joaquinveyron 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ichtiostega eKoolan1 "and "save" yet another country "
As they did SEVERAL TIMES. Thanks to the USA the Southe Koreans enjoy capitalistic FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, while their Northern compatriots have to suffer endlessly in a COMMUNIST CONCENTRATION CAMP/SHITHOLE.
Great success!! :-)
joaquinveyron 1 month ago
@Ichtiostega Venezuela is a dictatorship run by a thug named Hugo Chavez.
CherryCokeNixon 3 months ago
@CherryCokeNixon Nonsense. Chavez is democratically elected and has great support in the population which is is why he survived the military coup against him. He's building up worker-run businesses everywhere in the country and has started lots of social support programs for the poor.
Ichtiostega 3 months ago
@Ichtiostega hahha come to venezuela, you're going to like ... very "rich" and democratic country.
paunocu666 2 months ago
@mrharrytoyou1 The problem is, once they try to institute their marxist commie ideal, they find out some One is still in charge. Check out our own 68'er former commie marxists who changed their ideology because of the horrors they personally witnessed, they testify that as they were planning and attempting to foment the revolution, they expected THEY would be in charge when they finally got their way. In essence, there is always a head of the snake.
Silicondoc 4 months ago
fucking morons! ALL OF YOU
suchafool990 5 months ago
I understand people being confused by politicians who conflate the free market with their own crony capitalist policies.I can see why things like the banking crisis might seem- to the less informed- to be caused by capitalism rather than a corrupt perversion that makes a mockery of capitalism's true principles.
But to suggest that capitalism is responsible for war and bigotry? Don't even the most dumbed down government schools teach that those things preceded capitalism by 1000s of years?
zackzebra 5 months ago
and capitalism has hurt more then it helped ? what bullshit,what planet are you living on? and as far as the 3rd world piece- wage rates have done nothing but go up in countries that embraced capitalism and will continue to do so. Gee, let me hurt the chinese by building my factory there and employing 1000 of them at wages triple of what they were making in the fields.
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog wow, that is miserable to say the least. and i'm not even "marxist". but that shit is miserable what you say, A to Z.
veca83 6 months ago
@princejphdog You're so right.
Gee, let me hurt the world by perpetuating things like war, racism, sexism, homophobia, inequality, also by starting two world wars, by developing and using the nuclear bomb, and by using children as low-cost producers of high-value commodities.
Capitalism rocks.
overman926 5 months ago
@overman926 thats absurd. capitalism is not perfect but its the best system, Im a lover of capitalism and i hate sexism, racism, homophobia,(which have nothing to do with capitalism) WTF starting 2 world wars? - usa didnt start them you douche- Stalin would have loved to invent the bomb - he was too stupid though he came in second. inequality is a great thing- i dont want anyone to starve (which they dont in america) but redistribution of wealth ruins a system
princejphdog 5 months ago
there is no "real" communism you idiot. marxism was all ivory tower theoretical bullshit. the scenario with stalin, mao and the other assbags is what will always happen when you take marx from paper to reality. lenin was a prick as well. there are not and will never be a group of benevolent angels that will graciously and viably centrally plan and operate a country
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog Well that would be why Marx never wrote about "benevolent angels" who would "graciously and viably centrally plan and operate a country," but surely you must know that since you've read so much Marx.
Right?
overman926 5 months ago
@overman926 I never said marx wrote about that- that's an accurate observation of what never happens when marxism is employed- it always ends up some dictatorial prick (or group of pricks)runs the country in question.
princejphdog 5 months ago
@overman926
You are having a conversation with a lier, don't expect anything positive out of it.
pulsatingremedy 5 months ago
Also communist should not compare communism to Russia, China, North Korea, since none of these nations were communist. After the death of Lenin anything resembling real communism in Russia was dismantled by Stalin, whom based the nation more around the guidelines of a totalitarian system. Mao , and the others minus Cuba followed more so the examples of Stalin then they ever did Marx, Lenin, etc. Stalin, and the fools that followed his example, or insulting to real communism.
comradeyoung 6 months ago 12
Comment removed
batman93oo 2 months ago
@comradeyoung The fact is communism is not possible. So when people compare Communism to the USSR or China they are pointing out that this is what communism leads to. Communism assumes that everyone has the same morals and motives or will be educated so. Truth is that is not true so when the central planners don't have 100% support by the people it usually gradually leads to totalitarianism. Planning just leads to more planning and regulation.
batman93oo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@comradeyoung "Marxism is the only economic system .... with morality in mind"
Really?? ;.-) :-)
This is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
More even if you consider the RESULTS of such a system: Marxism ALWAYS led to FAMINES; POVERTY; DICTATORSHIPS, TERROR, UN-FREEDOM.
You must be KIDDING!! :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
"if you deleted all labour movements and trade unions"
???
Trade unions are organizations that are formed by voluntary agreement (or at least often) and they are the legitimate representation of workers. So what should be wrong with it??
It was not the labour movements or any sort of sociialistic policy that raised wages and bettered working conditions, it was the progress as a result of capitalistic competition, investment etc that made all this possible.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Im a democratic socialist "
Hahhahahahaha, "democractic socialism" thats somewhat like bitter sweet, sour sweetness, pacifist terrorist, abstinent drunkard :-)
I pay you 100.000 € if you are able to eplaine WITH ARGUMENTS how to persue comm8unist/socialist goals WITHOUT
1) POVERTY; FAMINES, INEFFICIENCY, but PROSPEROITY
2) TERROR; FORCE; DICTATORSHIPS; but FREEDOM
:-) :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@comradeyoung " then when cornered, spew forth venomous "
Hahahahhaah, when did this happen??
Ok, let us see your "intellectual capabilities" on those questions:
1) Name just ONE example where communism was SUCCESSFUL
2) Explain how communism can be realised WITHOUT resulting in a NIGHTMARE of POVERTY, TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES.
I am ready to pay you 100,000 of my CAPITALISTIC EUROS, if you can :-)
joaquinveyron 1 month ago
@comradeyoung "real communism" - can you please elaborate on where in world history your perception of "real communism" has been successfully implemented. The fact is that ANY communist state (which has removed all powerful industrialists and sapped all ambition from it's people) naturally leaves it's door open to totalitarianism. Can you please name a Capitalist state which has been ruled by a dictatorship? I bet you can't!!! Capitalism is freedom / Communism is control!!! I DARE U TO REPLY!!
worldchangeNOW2012 1 month ago
@worldchangeNOW2012
Capital is a force that is indifferent and often hostile to real freedom. The strides towards democracy that have been taken around the world have been in spite of capitalist tenancies, not in tandem. One need only look at modern Asia to see that the free movement of capital need not be independent of repressive regimes.
jonblaze32 1 month ago 3
@comradeyoung So you are saying the problem with russia, china etc. were because the wrong person was in power!??! LOL. How about we decentralize power so things like the soviet union and nazi germany never happen again!?
LasagnaIsGood 3 weeks ago
@comradeyoung @comradeyoung Isn't it strange how the problem with communism always seems to be the sheer misfortune of having bad leaders? In every single case the answer to the repeated failures of communism seems to be: "Oh, if only so-and-so wouldn't have been in control, we would have had real communism and everything would have been hunky-dory"
Isn't it more likely that communism simply doesn't work? That it goes against human nature and common sense?
yfirkaldan 2 weeks ago
@yfirkaldan Wrong, Marxists would disagree with both of these premises; that the leader caused the revolution to fail and that human nature exists.
Propagandhi900 2 weeks ago
@yfirkaldan Marxist method of analyzing history is totally opposite to what you are saying. History is determined by objective conditions and subjective factors. Stalinism was a phenomena generated due to the isolation of revolution in a backward country like Russia (1917). Stalin's philosophy of "Socialism in one country" added more fuel to the fire. China, Cuba. North Korea adopted the same model later on. So Stalinism is something more than the personality cult of Stalin.
goodmemories215 6 days ago
@goodmemories215 How can people still defend Marxism or Communism?
Not only do we have overwhelmingly convincing arguments and repeated historical evidence on how Marxism/Communism poorly allocates resources, was dead-wrong on the value of labor, and generally makes people poor and less free.
I can't recall a single example of a Marxist/Communist country being better off than a comparable country with a free market economy. Not to mention the millions killed in the name of Marxist equality.
yfirkaldan 6 days ago
@yfirkaldan "How can people still defend Marxism or Communism?"
Look at the front page of latest edition of The Economist. That would be enough to shut your mouth up.
"I can't recall a single example of a Marxist/Communist country . . . "
Marxist/Communist Country? You very choice of terminologies shows what kind of "arguments you have come across :P
goodmemories215 5 days ago
@goodmemories215 Please give me your long list of states (or whatever you want to call them) where Marxism/Communism was implemented and the result wasn't poverty, misery and opression.
And do you really think that the Economist's report on "State Capitalism" was flattering? Or did you just read the cover?
But most of all: don't you, personally, have a sliver of an urge to be a free, strong, independent individual? To leave others alone and to be left alone yourself to "do your own thing"?
yfirkaldan 4 days ago
@goodmemories215 The video "what really works" on the EvergreenFF YouTube channel explains this better. Look it up.
yfirkaldan 6 days ago
Its simply delusional to think that capitalism will lead to anything other then more suffering for the majority of the worlds population. Capitalism cannot be judged simply by just looking at the economies of a few 1st world countries. While even in these countries it has hurt more then its helped, we still must look at what its done to the third world for us to fully appreciate the evils, and utter failure of capitalism. If we were suddenly deprived of 3rd world labor,capitalism would crumble.
comradeyoung 6 months ago 2
''You have masses of capital and masses of labour, unemployed, side-by-side, in the midst of world that is full of social need. How stupid is that?''
That right there is true. Some capitalist fan-boys can't handle the fact that their system has FAILED, so they whip out clever sounding mumbo-jumbo about how their free market is ''supposed'' to work, if only the mean ol'e guvument would let them.
Marx's ghost: ''Told you so.''
cayetanoluis 6 months ago 2
@cayetanoluis what deaths ? you douche- start from the birth of the USA- and dont give me imperialist / colonialism bullshit that's not capitalism- that's what stalin was to the max. Capitalism though not perfect,freed more people from poverty than any other. Che was a f'ing murderous pig who slithered through the jungle executing defenseless people. socialism, liberalism etc- all have marxist underpinnings all are defense of the irresponsible, & politics/economics of pussies who cant compete
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog ''what deaths ? you douche- start from the birth of the USA''
Okay. Millions of Indians slaughtered by white settlers.
''and dont give me imperialist / colonialism bullshit that's not capitalism''
Yes it is. Imperialism is the mode of capitalism embodied by the most powerful capitalist states, who must control strategic resources, offload excess capital, and undercut their rivals. Imperialism has everything to do with capitalism.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis I agree that killing Indians (and slavery) was horrible, although many of the Indians were savages- that has nothing to do with free market capitalism, I am a non- interventionist/true free market capitalist, and there are many of us. Fight against horrible foreign policy and crony/phony capitalism(which I do) and fight for true free market libertarian values- that's the only path that will improve the world, stop wasting your time on crackpot communism/socialism.
princejphdog 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@princejphdog inheritance of wealth, leading to generational increases in the wealth of particular families, the members of whom acquire it through no ''merit'' whatsoever, boom and bust cycles, the financialisation of the economy as credit is used to stimulate growth and consumption (your hands-off policy would open the door WIDE open to financial predators and mega-corporations), and many others. What you're advocating is a dehumanising nightmare of alienation, greed and ecological collapse.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis what right does another have to dictate to me who inherits my private property, whether it be my kin or my cat, i will do with it what i want , i earned it.
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog ''what right does another have to dictate to me who inherits my private property, whether it be my kin or my cat, i will do with it what i want , i earned it.''
Good for you. But pay attention to what I said: inherited wealth is one of many things that destroys the myth that wealth is acquired mostly through ''merit''. It completely destroys the equilibrium model that you would have me believe, because it leads to accumulation: its easier to make money the more you have.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis there is nothing wrong with boom bust cycles if left alone for the most part, there is no way to stop them anyway- the fed can't, communism/socialism fails economically ending with a HUGE bust
you'll notice i said libertarian with a "small" l, regulations should be small in number and "laser beamed" focused on the issue. I'm against over regulation and regulatory capture by phony/crony capitalists. problem is politicians in any system cant help themselves- always must over do it
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog ''there is nothing wrong with boom bust cycles if left alone for the most part, there is no way to stop them anyway- the fed can't, communism/socialism fails economically ending with a HUGE bust''
Capitalism's solution? The destruction of excess capital, thus paving the way for a new boom. This was achieved through this thing called WW2 (no, WW2 wasn't meant as a solution, but it happened to provide one). Now the system is screeching to a halt once again. FAIL.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@princejphdog ''you'll notice i said libertarian with a "small" l, regulations should be small in number and "laser beamed" focused on the issue.''
The freedom of the market isn't a scientific category. It depends on your moral positions. Thus, if you're against child labour, you won't even notice laws against the use of it as ''restricting the free market''. If, on the other hand, you're not against it you will see an unfair restriction on the freedom of individuals to make money.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis "What you're advocating is a dehumanising nightmare of alienation, greed and ecological collapse." you cant be serious- you're describing Stalin's soviet union and ,Mao's china. Don't you get it?, its a 360 degree circle, your communist paradise is nothing more than the biggest most inefficient, greedy monopoly possible- that's the end game of marxism. There is no "benevolent group of angels" that will end up as the heads of any system without greed- none /never
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog Stalin is a convenient whipping boy for free marketeers, so that they can equivocate any alternative to capitalism as a top-down, dictatorial and tyrannical nightmare. The mantra of Soviet and Maoist ''inefficiency'' is another part of the free marketeer's ideological tool kit. Interestingly, it doesn't even have the merit of being true (let alone ''most inefficient'' being true). Read up on the USSR's and China's growth figures during the Stalin and Mao eras, and catch a clue.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis Stalin and Mao got things done because, through force, they threw human lives at projects . that isn't efficiency at all, it is a heinous waste of human life and ended up a disaster. Whipping boy? ok what communist style government has ever worked? Cuba? go live there and see how happy you are, better yet, live there ,speak up loudly against the regime and see what happens
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog ''Stalin and Mao got things done because, through force, they threw human lives at projects''
Cough ** So how capitalism got its start **cough. Obviously though, as in the case of capitalism, there was a lot more to it than just ''throwing lives'' at projects. Your lurid caricatures betray a deep-seated fear of being exposed.
''speak up loudly against the regime and see what happens''
Don't be silly. Freedom of speech isn't a capitalist invention, so why bring it up here?
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis because freedom of speech never exists in a communist society, with you its like trying to reason with a drunk- go move to cuba , you are probably too busy sucking off the teat of capitalism, i.e the hard work of others,complaining all the way through in between sucks
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog I'm not here to defend Stalin or Mao but you have to understand the context in which these governments came to be. The USSR was dealing with two world wars, a civil war, several invasions and famine while still becoming one of the two superpowers within a couple decades. Life expectency in China before Mao was around 35, and in under 30 years that rose to 63.6 for men. The great leap forward was a failed program, but it wasn't an intentional failure. You also have to understand..
johnmickle 6 months ago
@princejphdog that China's population doubled in this time. There was alot going on in a massive country with several times the population of the US during a transition from a feudal society into a modern power. Where would China or Russia be without these communist revolutions? They would be third world countries.
johnmickle 6 months ago
@johnmickle where would they be? - they would be better off if they chose a capitalist revolution like the USA did and 120 million of their citizens wouldn't have died horrible deaths, that's where they would be, in fact capitalism is the only thing saving them today
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog Privatization is what they were fighting against in the first place, it's what made the revolutions necessary. The working class decided to take their means of production back from private hands, if it was working for them why would they even want revolution? As for what's going on today, capitalism is making a small sliver of the Chinese population very rich, while the rest are in deep poverty. There were virtually NO homeless in the USSR, a rate thats skyrocketed since it's fall.
johnmickle 6 months ago
@johnmickle Czarist Russia was far from our Capitalist Democracy which was working, they had a clear model to work from and blew it with a crackpot theory. You can never believe stats from a communist country they lie like dogs. Virtually no homeless? yeah i guess the Gulag was home to millions and that counts as a home. what a joke. Same with the Chinese, that's bullshit, capitalism is bringing the population out of poverty, its not a zero sum game
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog And seriously? You're going to equivocate Mao with ''greed''? Talk about taking cheap shots. But then again, you did say the Che killed ''countless innocent people'', so these flights of fantasy aren't at all alien to you.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis I didn't say countless innocent i said defenseless. you need to read history, he murdered many without trial and it wasn't in combat. Mao was an arrogant pig- while 30 million starved in his assinine "great leap forward (backward)" he got fat eating well in a palace while banging his many whore concubines , wouldn't listen to anyone & killed many who spoke against his stupid ideas, wouldn't have transpired in a free market scenario. Hitler was very efficient - do you like him too?
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog ''I didn't say countless innocent i said defenseless. you need to read history''
I got you mixed up with another dickhead. Sorry. Yeah, it's true, he did order the executions of these Batista pigs. I personally am very much in favour of due process, but like I said before, spilled milk.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why? These weren't paths to development anywhere, except supposedly now as recommendations by the rich to the poor. Your free market nonsense will never work, for a whole range of reasons: the natural tendency for wealth to become concentrated in a market system, the co-optation of the state, local monopolies due to resource heterogeneity...
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@princejphdog Today, we also have the IMF, WTO and World Bank, who impose ''free trade'' conditions (which were ignored by the powerful captilalist states when they themselves were developing. back then, protectionism was a-okay, and worked) on the poor, and generally fucking them over on a regular basis. The privatisation of the Bolivian water system and its selling to Bechtel? Capitalist provision. Socialists were against that, and fought against it.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@princejphdog ''Che was a f'ing murderous pig who slithered through the jungle executing defenseless people.''
Ummm, yeah. That's not what he did. He waged a guerrilla war against a corrupt dictatorship and shot at its armed guards. Later he executed Batista's thugs and other collaborators. Spilled milk, as far as I'm concerned. Odd how you have to resort to out-and-out lies to get your point across. Try again.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis Where can I go to learn more about Che?
BuddhaBebop 1 month ago
@BuddhaBebop 'Where can I go to learn more about Che?'
John Lee Anderson's ''Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life''
cayetanoluis 1 month ago
@cayetanoluis dude, read my nick name. i just read your debate with that truevoice fag and i have to personally thank you for formulating such wonderful and to-the-point "leftist" (in fact, just common sense) arguments. see, i have lost my sanity over time and succumbed to a rather tasteless temptation to say idiotic and utterly wrong things on the internet (rather than debating seriously) for the sake of some sick pleasure, so most of my comments, at least under this account…
EITrollo 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis ...are pure perverse warped out SHIT! but you are still hanging on and supporting the right cause and i wish to personally thank you for that. still, please bear in my mind that i too embrace the ideas of intellectuals like Harvey or Žižek, so please re-read my shitty ass comments with the full awareness that they are just an attempt at carrying capitalist/consumerist debauchery to the limits of its own absurd, and to the point when it just can't conceal its falsehood any longer.
EITrollo 6 months ago
@EITrollo Are you serious in praising that cayetanoluis retard? All that he has done is verbal abuse, misrepresentation and smug moralizing. The argument that "rich men in government are destroying the environment and oppressing the poor therefore Marxism has little influence" is the biggest strawman ever. How does Marxism influence public policy? It's through protectionism, anti-trust, labor controls, regulations, welfare-management states. Leninism/Stalinism is the implementation of Marxism.
truevoice08 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@truevoice08 ''Are you serious in praising that cayetanoluis retard? All that he has done is verbal abuse, misrepresentation and smug moralizing.''
Well, you got the abuse part right. The other categories belong to you.
''The argument that "rich men in government are destroying the environment and oppressing the poor therefore Marxism has little influence" is the biggest strawman ever.''
Marxism has significant influence among non-shitheads, so you're right.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@truevoice08 ''How does Marxism influence public policy? It's through protectionism, anti-trust, labor controls, regulations, welfare-management states.''
Reagan, one of the most protectionist presidents in history, was therefore ''influenced'' by Marxism? And let me get this straight: you're AGAINST anti-trust laws? That's rich, after lambasting those who equivocate the current corporatist system with capitalism per se. Yet you would protect predatory monopolies? Your true colours, right there
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis so, i'm merely trying to parody twats like truvoice in (i would hope) a truly Žižekian manner:) i'm just saying the things they would say but with (intended, but often unrecognized) STRONG ironical accents... stay well and moral as ever, my beloved left-handed friend:).
EITrollo 6 months ago
@EITrollo Oh, well in that case ;)
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
just like marx this guy is a loser-its so easy to criticize a current system- they never have a concrete better way-because there is none! just revolution- Communism is crackpot and will never work except by putting in place evil dictators who kill millions- this guy is a pussy fucktard like all commies
princejphdog 6 months ago
@princejphdog ''Communism is crackpot and will never work except by putting in place evil dictators who kill millions-''
You forget that this is exactly what your beloved capitalism has done since it became the dominant economic system of the world. The deaths attributable to communism pale in comparison to those attributable to capitalism.
''this guy is a pussy fucktard like all commies''
Che Guevara was far from a pussy fucktard. If he was alive, he'd still be fighting rather than trolling.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AUSM92 ''Says the one who tried to suggest arguably the most cut throat capitalist country in the world is a success of socialism.''
I'll say it once more, slow fuck: PLANNING is not anathema to economic success. Understand now? Or do you want to persist in twisting my words?
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@AUSM92 ''If people endeavored to understand basic facts about the way humans interact freely and trade on a large scale Marxists would be looked at in the light they deserve, lower than Nazis.'' <-- smacks of desperation.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@AUSM92 I said government PLANNING, not government ownership. The SG still controlled key, strategic parts of the economy while it was developing, like the banking system, several technological firms, etc. it had boards of ''technocrats'', committees and other agencies, all dedicated to directing the economy in a highly organised way.
''Citing the worlds greatest embracer of capitalism as a success of socialism is funny.''
I wasn't. I said that planning isn't antithetical to economic success.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@AUSM92 ''The sheer complexity of economic calculation precludes socialism, marxism and zeitegist super comps from replacing capitalism.''
LOL. Then you haven't heard of Singapore, an intricately PLANNED economy. If the Singaporean state can organise a capitalist economy on behalf of its bourgeoisie, then what would prevent a socialist state from organising on behalf of its proletariat?
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@AUSM92 ''This rejects the subjectve law of value and makes the ridiculous implication that one would tender their labor when it only benefits another when infact any exchange occurs when there is an expectation of mutual benefit.''
''mutual benefit'' doesn't equate to ''equally beneficial''. The worker who needs to work to survive and eat isn't in the same situation as the capitalist who is expanding his inventory.
Seriously, is this hard to understand?
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis Lol. No it isn't.
BuddhaBebop 1 month ago
hes got nothing...
gen6k 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What an idiot. Hope he dies soon :)
100percenteri 6 months ago
"Irrational rationalizing of a rational system...." Oh my god, get over yourself. Sometimes I can't stand intellectuals.
flyoverjoe 6 months ago
@flyoverjoe
At least try to quote him correctly, What he said was "Irrational rationalizing of an irrational system....".
Hardwyck 6 months ago
@Hardwyck I did try to quote him correctly. Nonetheless, I stand corrected.
flyoverjoe 6 months ago
we had this in Poland for half of century - it dont work
if you want to wait in qeue half of day to buy piece of meat - than go ahead
problem with capitalism is that greedy banksters have power to print money - thats it! - marxism, communism, socialism no matter how cool will sound NEVER WORK
H5N1XD 7 months ago
the problem with Marxism is that while it sounds good in theory, when put into practice it fails miserably. Capitalism and globalization are the best systems we currently have, and will continue to be the systems until a better ones are found. And it definitely won't be Marxism
shetinonthelittleguy 7 months ago
@shetinonthelittleguy
Both capitalism and marxism were never put in practice.
The systems we have now fail utterly and can destroy our civilization.
Prometheus4096 7 months ago
The American Historical Review, among the oldest and most prestigious academic journals in the United States, has condemned Service’s biography of Trotsky, saying that it "fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship". The review has explicitly endorsed the critique of Service's book by David North, the chairman of both the Socialist Equality Party in the United States and the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site.
robharris38 7 months ago
@AUSM92
You seem to not have realistic views of capitalism and socialism. What books advocating socialism have you read?
pulsatingremedy 7 months ago
@AUSM92
Not really.
pulsatingremedy 7 months ago
@AUSM92
All you have said is that farming takes some planning. Nobody denies that. Then suddenly that is an argument that Marxism fails? You fail.
pulsatingremedy 7 months ago
@AUSM92 We have so much food, we can feed the world. Its just we have no money, because the greedy rich keep all of it to them self's and don't help others.
blackhole73 7 months ago
if you agree with Harvey, go check out "zeitgeist moving forward"
scienceBpraised 7 months ago
@scienceBpraised
I don't think Zeitgeist has the same stance on things as Harvey, Harvey being a scientific socialist and Zeitgeist (from what I've read about them) utopian socialist.
pulsatingremedy 7 months ago
@pulsatingremedy
there is nothing utopian about the zeitgeist movement or the venus project
they explicitly reject the notion of a utopia
What they propose is just an improvement on what we have today, there are no final frontiers
i don't think Harvey would be opposed to the change that the zeitgeist movement advocates
scienceBpraised 7 months ago
@scienceBpraised LOL I'm sure Harvey wouldn't oppose it since Zeitgeist is just Marxism with robots. Watch Stefan Molyneux's demolition of Zeitgeist and you'll know why its now the new philosophical whipping boy!!!
truevoice08 7 months ago
old school.
epar832 7 months ago
@JJaguar333 ooh, you're so generous, arent u? but that is why you are a "Marxist", you truly care for the wretched of the world. god forsook them but you "care", lol.
so, to turn ur point around, if millions are well-off while millions of others r starving, i'm just supposed to despair over their misfortune and forget about cool and sexy things in life?
i beseech you one last time - have fun. you'll die soon anyway.
EITrollo 7 months ago
@EITrollo ''o, to turn ur point around, if millions are well-off while millions of others r starving, i'm just supposed to despair over their misfortune and forget about cool and sexy things in life?''
There's nothing sexy about a chicken-fuck puto like you.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
Comment removed
EITrollo 7 months ago
Its the banks and corporatism not political philosophy which has caused the downfall of capitalism. RON PAUL!!!!
PaleoAthletics 7 months ago
Finally... Marx enters Capital.
And to those who are trying to "debate" and to impose some psychopathic reasoning... Come on, today even the little children knows who is the bad guy. Don`t (i)rationalize further.
Reminder of what Warren Buffet once said: “There’s class warfare, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
dekonstrukcija 7 months ago
@dekonstrukcija LOL.. the super rich LOVE class warfare. Those who want to 'soak the rich' are just useful idiots who perpetuate the status quo.
truevoice08 7 months ago
i made ti to 1.45 before i turned it off....fuck this god damn anti American bullshit
TheMusicismylife56 8 months ago
Socialism didnt survive due to its fragility near a capitalism adversary.
gustavolavras 8 months ago
This guy is a complete idiot who does not understand Capitalism, he himself is the 'irrational'.
jimmyt3411 8 months ago
Marxism is dying. Most of the leftists now are Rawlsians who increasingly compromise in favor of lassiez faire. Only the deluded remain marxists.
truevoice08 8 months ago
@truevoice08 zSjwwf91rEg <- this is more marxists than all the rawlians worldwide.
metalorixos 8 months ago
@metalorixos If that's the case then no wonder the world is fucked
truevoice08 8 months ago
@truevoice08 yeah. its the marxists fault the world is a fucked up place. from all the social and political stands, from all the economic interests, its the marxist workers to blame.
metalorixos 8 months ago
@metalorixos Not the workers, but the marxist intellectuals who propagandize the workers. Countries all over the world are awash with monetary and fiscal socialism. When those interventions fail, the Left is so quick to blame capitalism just because they didn't get the result they wanted. There's a difference between rhetoric and reality. Real socialism will always end up serving minority interests. Read 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazzlit PDF
truevoice08 8 months ago
@metalorixos QUESTION FOR YOU: Why are universities so full of marxists but then public policy is supposedly corrupted by 'neoliberal' influence? Don't the ideas in the universities have concrete effects in the real world? Where's the disconnect? The answer is that leftist ideas have been tried for a long time, they didn't work, so the leftists absolve themselves of all responsibility and blame it on capitalism. It's insane!
truevoice08 8 months ago
@truevoice08 The answer is that after the 70s worker movements capitalism stroke back with neoliberalism. Hard. This together with post modernity and the failing of the Eastern Block were the three biggest blows on communism. But now during the crisis, more and more heads are turning to unkle Carl's side and checking why is he laughing saying "I told you so"!
metalorixos 8 months ago
@metalorixos So according to your logic, communism failed in the late 80s with a staggering death toll in the tens of millions. And then capitalism failed in recent years, so therefore, we need to go back to communism?!? The hard truth is that the violent financial crises following the 70s was NOT because of trade liberalization but because of monetary socialism (real-socialism) which was institutionalized with Nixon's closing of the gold window in 1971. As I said, rhetoric versus reality.
truevoice08 8 months ago
@truevoice08
When we refer to Communism we do not refer to the Soviet States of Eastern Europe or China under Mao. These were states that wanted to pursue an economic strategy to industrialize without the market capitalism of Western Europe and the U.S.
Every crisis in a capitalist society is due to contradictions within capitalist production. There is no such things as monetary socialism because socialism believes in the removal of money as a medium of exchange and payment of labor.
kingmafi6699 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 I define socialism as State ownership of capital goods. When the government assumes a violent monopoly over the printing press in the form of a central bank, then that's monetary socialism. As I have argued, the problems of capitalism socialists decry are but the consequences of socialist policies themselves that the socialists refuse to acknowledge as their own fault. Rhetoric versus reality.
truevoice08 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 I could of course refer you to books like 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazzlit and 'Ethics of Money Production' by Hulsmann but you are probably not interested in the history of money and banking and why the current system is a total deviation from the free market norm. Anything aside from total collectivism is unfair for you. But then again, just because reality does not conform to the Marxist dogma doesn't mean its unjust.
truevoice08 7 months ago
@truevoice08
Free markets are myths.
It never has existed and never will.
History shows that all economies maintained some form of protectionism or had government intervention.
And exactly is collectivism unfair? Even in capitalism all production is the work of collective and society does not function in isolation. We lived as collectives for most of our history especially in native cultures.
I don't understand how you came to such a silly and bizzare conclusion.
kingmafi6699 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 Free markets mean free trade networks. Individuals are free to voluntarily engage in contractual exchanges denominated in money absent government coercion. The free market exists in degrees. The freer the better. Prices in electronics have fallen since its unregulated. Prices in health care have skyrocketed because of coerced State insurance while medication not covered by insurance is falling in price. Collectivist planning will never work due to the absence of market prices.
truevoice08 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 Indeed, collectives are necessary. The business firm is a collective, the family is a collective. But what differentiates tribal societies from modern ones is cooperation via the price mechanism. We have food and clothes and computers not because we engaged in focused group discussions or elections or any of that crap espoused in political science courses, but because we buy and sell and save and invest. We make individual decisions based on our separate interests.
truevoice08 7 months ago
@truevoice08
But these separete interests are a perversion and distortion.
For one it requires exploitation and also creates industrial serfdom where the majority become more impovershied. Class struggle is an inevitable featire of capitalism because there is contradictions between the bourgeois class and the proletariat. Capitalism is unsustainable, It requires mindless consumption, exploitation and depletion of resources as well as workers and the destruction of the workforce.
kingmafi6699 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 As expected of a Marxist, you resort to big words, generalizations about history, and cheap emotional appeals. There exist the closest harmony of interest between the employer and the employee. Read some Boehm-Bawerk and von Mises so you can eschew exploitation theory and get on with your life. I've been hearing the same old Marxist talking points for four years and after much discernment have concluded that they are philosophically escapist garbage. Learn to argue, then we'll talk
truevoice08 7 months ago
@truevoice08
And you need stop reading Libertarian nonsense and wake up to reality.
"There exist the closest harmony of interest between the employer and the employee."
Fallacious, You ignore the union movements, worker strike actions, collective bargaining and the fact that more than 77% of the workforce dislike their jobs and are discontent with working conditions.
This is not a sign of "harmony". The more the capitalist makes the more impoverished the workers are.
kingmafi6699 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 "worker strike actions... and the fact that more than 77% of the workforce dislike their jobs and are discontent with working conditions" This doesn't refute what I said. I could buy an iPod and be dissatisfied at some point, but a lot of this is due to the success of the iPod in raising my expectations for it. In the same way, Marxism is utopian nonsense that makes the worker unable to accept reality and the fact that he wouldn't have a job without the capitalist.
truevoice08 7 months ago
@truevoice08 ''In the same way, Marxism is utopian nonsense that makes the worker unable to accept reality and the fact that he wouldn't have a job without the capitalist.'' <-- slave mentality, right there.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
You need to get comfortable with the possibility (indeed the reality) that for someone to eat, he has to work. That there is no such thing as a free lunch. That ownership has to be deserved. And yes, that capitalists DESERVE their profits.
truevoice08 7 months ago
@truevoice08 TRUE but capitalism in america is seriously flawed, especially when you have a monetary system that serves the interest of big government, big corporations and big banks. they DONT deserve the money or power they get.
HurricanesFan890 7 months ago
@HurricanesFan890 Agreed. But to (fractional-reserve) banks and government are not part of capitalism. Corporations are a chimera. They are both protect from taxes but also from debt liability. Capitalism is 'flawed' because it is hampered.
truevoice08 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 Class conflict is there bec. of the false idea of class struggle, not the other way around. Dividing people into 2 groups (capitalist and laborer) and saying that one is evil/greedy while the other is innocently victimized like the children of Bethlehem is the height of intellectual immaturity. But the again, Marx never had a real job, lived on the dole of Engels all his life, and called some people racial trash. hahahaha
truevoice08 7 months ago
@truevoice08 Given your assumptions on freemarket brilliance, the third world has the right to starve, while the first world has the right to force third world countries into freemarket policies that produce crops for export rather than produceing food for their poor majority. Also first world countries force the third world to sell their crops and raw materials at a pittence of their worth,while the first world reaps the benefits.
JJaguar333 7 months ago
@JJaguar333 There is no such thing as a 'free market policy' because the free market is not imposed from the top. It is when you remove all government interventions/policies that you have a free market. There is nothing wrong with exporting crops since farmers have the right to choose who to sell their produce to. It's called freedom of association. And who are you, who live in New Zealand, to talk to me about the 'third world' when I live in the Philippines. How presumptuous you leftists are!
truevoice08 7 months ago
@truevoice08 ''There exist the closest harmony of interest between the employer and the employee. ''
Which must explain why there is growing disgust and discontent by employees at how employers are being bailed out while workers are screwed, and why workers' wages have stagnated since the 1970s while corporate profits continue to rise. Or maybe these things are just optical illusions.
Truly, the street sweeper and the CEO of Goldman Sachs are one and the same! How silly not to have noticed.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis "Which must explain why there is growing disgust and discontent by employees" That's only a perception and perceptions are subjective. I might not like my plumber's services as much as before, that doesn't mean he didn't do a service. I oppose bailouts, but to show your ignorant, bailouts of firms also benefit employees. Google 'The Myth That Is Falling Real Wages', but let's assume your correct (I just love OWNING leftists), profits are reinvested TO PAY WORKERS!!!
truevoice08 6 months ago
@truevoice08 ''That's only a perception and perceptions are subjective.''
Oh, thank goodness then! I was worried that the workers might have had REASON to be disgusted, but apparently not.
Stupid cunt.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@truevoice08 ''but let's assume your correct (I just love OWNING leftists), profits are reinvested TO PAY WORKERS!!!''
Actually, they're mostly reinvested to acquire new capital. For WORKERS (not corporate parasites), real wages have stagnated (but credit has sky-rocketed. Credit is absolutely necessary for the continuation of capitalism. Without it, the whole system would have collapsed decades ago in another depression).
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
@cayetanoluis Capital investment increases worker productivity and hence raises wages (Google "The Myth That Is Falling Real Wages" to see charts). Most employers work long hours and don't have a secure income since profits are not assured and are subtracted by wage and operating expenses before the employer can earn income. Part of that income is reinvested into the firm. Most people can't sleep with that kind of risk. (google "why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich slate")
truevoice08 6 months ago
@truevoice08 ''Capital investment increases worker productivity and hence raises wages''
And ''hence'' raises wages? Perhaps you don't know what productivity actually means. Of course, it can be CORRELATED with increased wages, but it's not a necessary cause of it.
''Most employers work long hours and don't have a secure income since profits are not assured ''
Oh blah blah blah. Again with this wanker slave talk. You're such a tool.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago
Oh, and i said STAGNANT wages, not falling wages. Hence i won't bother looking at the article.
cayetanoluis 6 months ago