What dont people read Karl Marx? He has amazing insight and one of the best critiques of capitalism... His Base and Superstructure theory is amazing and puts into context many contemporary issues. I bet most Americans who attack Marxism haven't even read a page, nor would be able to understand. Critique Marx as an intellectual not as an ignorant redneck Beck fan.
This is sad. Marxism is a world without private property, but no control on social freedoms unlike Absolute Monarchies. Socialism is a world with limited private property, and some control on social freedoms. Obama is a Democrat or just slightly left of center. Calling Obama a socialist or a Marxist is just as stupid as calling Mitt Romney a corporatist or a Fascist.
Socialist, really? So you have democracy at the workplace? so there is full employment in the United States, no hungry people in the Us? Last i checked, more than 25 million americans are hungry. If any capitalist "leftists" like the democratic party in the us were socialists, then why is the highly subsidized GM allowed to hoard a profit of more than $4.7 billion, instead of employing the nearly 50% unemployed blacks (racism if compared, btw) of Detroit? Read & Think you idiots!
I refuse to call this man President ! He's fed the American people a tractor trailer size load of lies and sadly many millions have believed him and will continue to do so and thus he figures he can just keep his bag of lies going. Can we have Carter back? Never thought there could be a worse one then him but the sorry sob tops even him !
Yes. The problem is the press will not identify Marxists as such. And the public schools will not teach children about its evils, but rather teach them it is virtuous.
Marxism is the working class taking over and eventually creating a stateless society where everybody is equal and everybody works for everybody else. Redistribution of wealth is progressivism. So, please don't call people Marxists if you don't even know what Marxism is. It just makes you sound stupid.
@SomeoneCrazy2 Well Marxism is much more complex and there are alot of other things to it but Obama isn't a socialist. In Sweden he'd be a far-right politician.
@atosafi1 I know lol, it's just very hard to explain all of that in 500 characters. And even here in Germany Obama would be considered right-wing. I guess to most American conservatives, the words "socialism", "communism", "marxism" etc. simply have no real meaning except "evil". They neither know what those concepts are (there are even people who think communism and fascism are the same thing), nor do they care.
Shows you how fucking stupid some people are if they can possibly consider Obama a Marxist. Anyone who does clearly does not understand Marxism, or Obama for that matter.
Redistribution of wealth to the poor is Christianity, not Marxism.
@gracie1232 Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and all other major religions said pretty much the same thing that Marx did - The rich man should share his wealth to those who helped him accumulate it, he should not enter a room and take 9 pieces of the pie and leave his workers to fight over the last one.
Christianity forbids material wealth under certain conditions. Like if you're a RC priest in some sort of jesuit order or if you were one of the 12 disciples.
@testmark1 Roman Catholics and their "priests" aren't Christians! Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one. Roman Catholicism is one of the religions of the Great Whore!
Why just ask Hossam El Hamalawy who he & his others work for, who pays them, for taking apart the middle east & delivering it in the hands of the Anti Christ movement, wasn't it going that route anyway, was it going too slow? there is a Russian & French & German & Spain & England connection too, its Gorbachev & you might know the others, they are just as stupid & dying to show it too! Ignorance loves to prove exactly what it is, stupid indeed! right white wired stone house! no more presidents!
eavesdropping. which includes drugs, drugs & money laundering & every criminal act goes & they have falsified credentials & are holding Americans against their wills too! so how different from the middle east is this country, not different at all! only difference is we have stupid media who sticks up for the corrupted bastards in power for a story or money or anything else, they are definite sellouts! the new middle east will not work, its again in the hands of shitforbrains & they don't know!
to take that lying sack of Obama out, & he damn well knows he lies each & every damn day, you should also know he & the others have a stupid secret concerning domestic eavesdropping, they have hired Cubans who are prostitutes, uneducated, liars, criminals, & who also have mental health records, who are also pedophiles & have also brought in from Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Argentina, Haiti & other countries & islands the very worse & have them running a personal business domestic
stinks of USA planned bullshit, as I said before, that is why they won't get involved, because if it wasn't their plan, they would have sent in millions of military, to secure the Oil fields & put holds on the money of those countries, because they are greedy bastards, but since they are holding the cards, are placing their own garbage yet again in power, we are going to get screwed yet again! they can never be in power again, arrest them after this presidency is over since no one has the guts
our military, our fire personal, our people, & bombing this country, disguising it as a terrorist attack in order to release a vicious move against another country, based on greed for their value in oil, it was a war of profit & it was based on false information, supplied & made up by those I've just named, so they could take & use tax payers money to accumulate more wealth by using corporations they took stock options on & made money & genocided at the same time. This middle east problem
I accused Obama & the Clinton's of working covertly with the Bush's to bring about a dictatorship, but not as a communist way, but as a capitalist way, greed, vanity, power struggle, uncaring, using personal ambitions, & placing them in the forefront, while ignoring the people for self gratification & I was definitely right, before the media was even aware or anyone else for that matter, & I accuse them of the deaths of those who stood up to them & genociding our law enforcement, our agents,
for & trashed it, plus us, as Americans! we owe our thanks to those worthless politicians who are the Clinton's, the Bush's, the Obama's, the Kissinger's, the Cheney's, the Powell's, just to name a few, but there are others, who were also all recruited by the Bushman Sr himself, yes all of these were recruited by him, as well as Pakistan's Bhuta & others, who did wrong, & then were executed for changing their minds & doing something right, like going against Bush, & placing the people first.
also had the help of underhanded politicians in this country, who couldn't make it without the help of Castro & his people coming into this country, with lies under their belt, disguised as helpless cubans looking for a better way of life & faking their embrace of democracy, while actually coming in as votes for the unworthy & useless American traitors who took over political offices & helped to execute our president, & others, who they felt would take democracy & want this country really stood
Just as I thought: this government has been pushing communism, the Moslem Brotherhood, is a spin off of the Castro regime's interpretation of the Young Lords Party movement from back in the 1970's, in New York, started by castro himself, in New York, as he would sneak into the country & give his ideology in tenement housing basements to the young puerto ricans, he had the support of those who claimed they came from Cuba to be Americans & were actually followers of castro, invading the USA, he
Do you really think cnn and glenn beck encourages you to think clearly for yourself? If you think Marxism is a negative you really are greatly mislead and profoundly unread (which is usual for your persuasion)... propaganda has destroyed your brain into a high toxic viscosity that interestingly spells the word 'subservient'.
This rat bastard socialist son of a bitch needs to have his ass handed to him.
The fools that elected this Marxist piece of dog shit are responsible. How could people become so stupid? What kind of people are we raising now. They damn sure are nothing like the "Greatest Generation".
Hopefully when this new congress gets under way they can find some shit good enough to start impeachment toward this criminal. I certainly hope so.
@GlobalAlternateMedia ..I understand that you are a smarmy little rat bastard sick twisted freak. You are just running you stupid mouth off, don't know a damn thing and have nothing to say.
You are an embarrassment to yourself.
Just shut up before you look even more foolish.
Now crawl back under the porch and commence gnawing on your hind leg you pathetic piece of slimy shit.
If you're not a troll, then kindly explain why you think my "rambling" (i.e. Marxists believe in a stateless society, so hopefully Obama is indeed a Marxist) is erroneous. Because everything in the sentence is a fact. If you did not know that Marxists aim for a stateless society then you have obviously never extensively read Marx (or possibly never at all).
i hope he is a marxist, that would be a really good thing for everyone, who cares if the minority of ruling classes suffer for the greater good of all the normal everyday hardworking people
Folks, wealth gets redistributed before it ever makes it into your paycheck. That is, your boss determines if your contribution to the success of the business you helped
make successful will be taken into consideration or if you'll just be held hostage by a
dare to leave ultimatum. Who you work for and their interpretation of fairness has much of an influence on your income than this government bogeyman thats used to scare the population. Beck is simply a whore clown.
I feel the ingorant among the American general public do not even know what Socialism even means. But they listen to Beck uncritically and they jump of the fearwagon. If someone came on TV and simply just explained what it really means, that basically the workers should controll the means of production, they would see that it isnt that far away from what they believe in themselves.
Marxism is not a way of government. It is a philosophy. It is a science.
What is a way of government though, is Marxism-Leninism, which is Vladimir Lenin's interpretations of Karl Marx and his own input into the ways of government. You cannot claim that the USSR was a failure because it was not. Because the leadership was hijacked by Stalin. Lenin's dream for the USSR was much more logical and workable than that of Stalin's.
@pulsatingremedy His idea of centralizing power was different than the 1 ure thinking His vision of the USSR was different than that of Stalins Although the way you say "power corrupts" I can see the perfect example in the "free" USA But anyways USSRs democracy was just different. yes it centralized the economy but it was diff. than that of USA I cannot tell you how it felt for the people because I didnt live it, but from what I have heard from friends that have lived it, it wasnt all that bad.
This argument has strayed so far from being anything relevant. Both sides have let the argument become about labels. Who cares what you call him. Call Obama Marxist, Fascist, Corpratist, Capitalist, it does not matter. The fact is the man is implementing a policy that takes more and more freedom from the people and gives more and more authority to the State. At the same time it is ruining the wealth of the nation. These are not good things, no matter what you call the ideology driving them.
Socialism means that every man deserves only for how much he works.
Not how much the people UNDER him work.
Lenin himself said, do not give the beggar bread.
Because that will only keep him full for a day.
The beggar must stay hungry, and revolt.
Socialism is against "distribution of wealth".
It is for the PROPER distribution of wealth.
Redistribution of wealth is when the taxpayer's money is given to rich banks that are failing in a "FREE MARKET" economy, which is meant for them to fail.
@NavidZady: What about the innovator? Without a reward for innovation, those workers wouldn't have a place to work in the first place.
If not for the people at the top (employers, CEOs, etc.) those workers who work UNDER would not be employed. A business can't remain above the ground if the employer cannot afford to hire employees.
Finally, by your logic, nobody would want to invent things or innovate! There's no reward for it!
@MCJ62 You have completely dismissed my whole comment except for a couple of words, taken out of context.
I did not say anything about the inventor nor the innovator.
By the way, there was a significant amount of innovations, inventions and discoveries that came from the Soviet Union.
You do not need to the reward of becoming a multi-billionaire to come up with ideas. Yes, you do need a higher standard of living, but not like here in the USA when one can earn the so called "funny money"
@MCJ62 You have to think outside of the Capitalism-box. Capitalism is historically just another mode of production. Nothing special about it. There are dozens of ways to organise production and consumption. The world doesn't really need capitalists. Not every invention is created for gaining profit. Many useful things have been around way before the rise of capitalism, and if labour is cheap enough, they won't buy any machinery. (so if you want a lot of innovation, you have to pay workers more.
@InterZlatan8 It is special in that it allows (not 'creates for all' which impossible) the highest average wealth a society can have. Socialism is special in that it creates the highest rate of social regression, whilst its leaders concurrently claim it creates the highest rate of social progress. I personally think living comfortably is 'special'. But a socialist thinks any instance of a man living comfortably is imposed on those who aren't. Hence the above definition of socialism.
@tothemax01 That's the reason why there is such an interest in China right now. The value of labour-power is very low, so the past-labour of machinery is also gonna be low. The ideal place to produce values for the western market., if you are Nike and want to make huge profits.
You can produce cheaply, but you can sell high, because in the west we have more money to spend, because our labour-value is higher.
@InterZlatan8 Incorrect. We have more money to spend because we have more capital. The laborer in China is still doing what the American laborer is - moving things from one machine to another, operating controls etc. It is ridiculous to say that the latter has higher value labor than the former, and I cant see how you can think that. The higher wage of the latter is due only to the higher value of the resulting products, which is a function of the value of the machines he is operating.
@tothemax01 Because the value of labour-power is determined by the market where the labourer finds himself in. That value depends on where you are. You can easily see that if an American went to work in China, he will recieve wages according to the standard wage rate in China. When he comes back to America, he finds that he can't survive. He can't buy all the things he was able to buy before his trip.
That's why businesses produce in China and sell in America.
@InterZlatan8 In america, he was using american capital, which I have already said, is superior to chinese capital in technological level and quantity (at least for now). Secondly, the wage is lower in china because the stock of labor is higher. When there is more of something, it is worth less. This is why in China it can be a substitute to using less labor and more capital.
This is caused by past and present social attitudes in china regarding family size, only.
@adiosucks123 No doubt a few inventions have been given to society by the inventor but the vast majority have come from people looking to make a profit. Do you really think people, on a large scale, are going to put in the effort and take the risk on a new product if there is no reward involved? Would you risk everything you have to bring a new product to market if the most you could possibly benefit would be 5% or 10% of what that product made?
@shananagans5 I think you are looking at things in a completely different way then they would actually be in a socialist or communist society. The point is to stop thinking solely about yourself and your money and to start thinking about helping others.
@adiosucks123 I help people for a living. I also see how many people refuse to help themselves. Many want to just ride the system and we allow it. This hurts those that truly can not work, or those that truly need help. Nobody wants their tax $ going to people that would simply prefer to sit on their rear and watch TV all day.
@MCJ62 The innovators do not generaly get paid for it. You think the board of directors of a software company is in the lab writing code? Of couse not. But who gets paid when the stock goes up?
That's the flaw in your reasoning. People ALREADY innovate without being rewarded for it.
Moreover from that, there could be no distribution of roles (let's assume everyone is incentivised by altruism, let's see how Socialism works with a bunch of angels) according to who uses capital goods more effectively, because without private ownership of the means of production there is not a propertarian way of securing control over capital therefore arbitrary communal decisions or brute force decide. Private ownership of the means of production exploits nothing for capital is scarce.
the full answer may be too large to discuss on youtube .
one thing is to innovate by creating something new and other very different is to profit on others work (thats what a burgoise does).
it is a false assumption to believe that human creativity is limited by the reward, creativity (unlike the greed) is something inherent to the human being.
remember the golden rule of socialism: everyone gives what he is capable of and receives what he needs
@NavidZady And as usual, you leftists try to make out that the labourer produces an excess to what he gets paid, which is then expropriated from him by his thieving employer. This is a blatant statement of your naivety. By himself, what value is the labourers work? Smacking rocks together, what could he produce? It is only through the capital created by men of the mind that he can produce anything of value, and hence it is to them that he owes the excess.
@tothemax01 Labour-power is the one thing that has the capacity to produce more value than it itself has. This surplus-value is what capitalists are looking for. So the capitalist buys labour-power to produce use-values that other people want. But, as a capitalist, he is in business to gain surplus. So if the value of labour-power is fixed by a daily wage, everything that remains is for the capitalist. So, without labour, there can't be value, and no surplus-value.
@InterZlatan8 So what, you are just going to reply to my comment, and thoroughly ignore it at the same time? I guess ill repeat myself. Labor cannot produce more 'that it itself has', and can only do so with the use of capital. Yes or No. The capitalist buys labor PLUS capital, land, energy products etc. His profit (not 'surplus') is derived from correctly combining these to produce products people want, it is not extracted from any one of the elements alone. His labor is of the mind, not muscle
@tothemax01 Capital is not a thing, it is value used in a certain way to produce more value. You can have all sorts of fancy computers, buildings, you can have a huge track of land, but without labour getting into a process of production of creating new values, you've got nothing. Machines and buildings are past labour as well, they're not a source of value. So, capitalists are dependend on labour, as cheap as possible, to have as much value in the end for themselves as possible.
@InterZlatan8 Yes it is a 'thing', you just gave it a definition. I don't know what form of logical inversion or joke that is but whatev. The root of your 'labor is unfairly exploited' thesis still remains that you don't consider mental labor to be labor, only muscular labor counts. The generation of capital is still a combined function of the things I mentioned, including capital. I could just as soon say 'without capitalists combining these things, labor would be valueless, youve got nothing'
@tothemax01 No, capital and value are relations between people and things, they are not physical things themselves. You can't actually 'see' capital or value. Money and things become capital if used to make more value. (commodities and money) And I did't make a distiction between mental or physical labour. that's nonsense. if the capitalist is working himself to produce the value, that's fine. But in the end he is interested in the surplus, while the workers recieve a specific wage...
@InterZlatan8 ..and this surplus has to be of a certain amount that he can live from it and stay in business. That's where the competition element comes in. Just take a look at the advertising of Coca-Cola or Nike...
@InterZlatan8 ...To invest in something like that, they must have had a huge profit. part of the source of that profit comes from the wages we recieve and spend. That's the reason we're gettting higher wages, otherwise there wouldn't be a market to sell the products to.
That's why low wages can result in a crisis of effective demand
@InterZlatan8 You speak as though you socialists are already in at the helm. There is no assignment of wage by some organization in capitalism, there is only trade. I'm sure with your grasp of economics, if the chinese government --fixed-- wages higher, all of a sudden, they would have high standard of living. Btw we spend because we --want-- those products, and Im quite happy that someone else made a profit from making them.
@tothemax01 There are trade-unions and the government (at least here in Europe) who guarantees a minimum wage. But even if there wasn't what's the difference? Capitalists have to make sure that a portion of the new value created has to go to the workers in the form of money, otherwise they'll have a serieus problem of demand. But if the government nor the capitalists are willing to do that, you have one last option. credit-cards. Just let people go into debt to fix the demand problem.
@InterZlatan8 *sigh*. All guarantees of a minimum wage mean unemployment, it is not fair for those workers who want to get on the ladder and earn a living. And no, the capitalists could keep all the value themselves, couldn't they? They could be the demand, they are greedy, right? They could start whole businesses just to build themselves yachts, mansions, planes etc. The fact remains that they can't, because workers won't work unless they get paid enough.
@tothemax01 minimum wages are healthy for capitalism. if you keep on lowering wages, then soon the market will crash. a guaranteed standard of income will prevent certain crisis of demand, and will provide a steady growth. Unemployment is also healthy for capitalism. It weakens the power of labour. (they are threatened by getting replaced by people currently without work) All the talk about doing away with unemployment will never succeed to anything. (unless you abolish capitalism)
@InterZlatan8 The statement 'If you keep lowering wages, a market will crash' is an meaningless statement that shows a distinct lack of any form of understanding of economics. What is 'crash', who is 'you', what is a 'market' when prices are set by force etc etc. Also, 'guaranteed standard of income' is mind-boggling. It means either 'magically the gov creates income for everyone' or 'the gov steals from people who have and give to those without'. My standard is reality, I'd love to know yours.
@tothemax01 Are we still talking about capitalism here? I am.
so, if 'they' (capitalists and the state) go on repressing wages, where are 'they' going to find a market for their products? They have to re-invest in new products because of competition.
until the 1970s wages kept on rising according to profits (labours shared in the wealth) but the neo-liberal project changed all that. The credit-card saved the demand-problem, so basically in the USA people are living from going into debt.
@tothemax01 Here in western Europe there is a minimum wage that employers must give to workers. And if one can't work for any reason you'll get a minimum guaranteed income provided by the state through taxes wich is ofcourse lower then the working minimum). You may disagree with that, but that is the situation here. This has worked pretty well for decades, but the last 25 years or so, those minimums turned out to be insufficient, so actually poverty has risen in some of the wealthiest countries.
@InterZlatan8 Poverty has risen because that system doesn't work long term. You can't force a market or values on things. You can't force a min wage, it throws the value of everything off eventually. There is a big portion of people that will not work unless they have to. If you keep giving those people enough to live on it drags your entire society down. That is the downfall of socialism. Why work hard?
@shananagans5 1. If you give people too little, it will drag the system down. A vast portion of the money in society has to go to the workers in the form of wages, otherwise capitalists have a serious problem in the market (who are you going to sell the products to?)
2. My idea of socialism is not state-run, but workers owning a company as a collective. So if they work harder and more efficient, they can share more profit at the end of the day
@tothemax01 Great, but the last three decades we have had a stagnation of wage-rates, (but the demand problem was fixed by households going into debt, now people even recieve credit to pay of their credit-cards) while the profits went sky high, due to neo-liberalism and globalization....
@InterZlatan8 .....At the same time, communism fell around '89, opening up a huge market of milions of people wich could buy western products and could work for half the money. So despite this huge wealth on part of capitalists, our wages have not gone up since 1980 (in real terms). This huge profit at one end, and the stagnation or sometimes even poverty at the other strikes me as immoral and unfair to millions of people.
@InterZlatan8 ...and btw, capitalism shoots itself in the foot by continuing like this. You can't expect keeping investing into more and more production in the hope for more profits when you've crashed the market (our wages) to sell your products to. something must change, otherwise there will be a demand-crisis in the near future. so either the Chinese, the Mexicans etc must have more access in the worldmarket (higher standard of living) to get the economic growth, or the end of Capitalism
@InterZlatan8 The chinese are doing it to themselves. They have not yet shed all of socialism, and are still a one-party dictatorship. If they would stop holding their yuan semi-pegged to the dollar, they would stop exporting in exchange for bits of US paper, and would be able to consume those products, or get something in return (imports). Its their choice.
@InterZlatan8 Whilst there has been only a small rise in average incomes (and yes there has been a higher rise for those in the upper brackets), the value of those incomes has risen. The products you can buy now with $1k (infl. adj.) greatly exceed the value of what you could buy 20 years ago. And some of those millions of ppl are in poverty because of their own actions (drugs, crime instead of work, pregnancy too young, using consumption credit etc), not because of others.
@tothemax01 Yo man, all of the problems that you cite could likely be traced back to the fetishes established by capitalist structure and can only be solved through deconstructing it. Regarding the income stuff you discuss above, progression of society, tech, etc. means that whatever you buy today isn't going to be PROPORTIONALLY shared based on multifarious workings of capitalism. Is capitalism zero sum? Hell yeah. If capitalism was driving for egalitarianism it would would have succeeded.
@austinjhammer Capitalism is not a 'structure' that has been 'constructed'. It is the automatic outcome of respect for individual rights. Socialism is constructed, by force. If capitalism was zero sum, the wealth of the western factory worker of the 1700s would be the same as today. However, his yearly income now buys many many times over the value that his historical predecessor could buy for his yearly income. Capitalism is good, and 'good' is the capitalists fetish.
@tothemax01 Capitalism is something inherent in perceptions of western society, these perceptions would be included in the usage of 'construction.' Individual rights are violated because of capitalist exploitation and power grabbing. Your zero-sum argument is bogus. Didn't you listen to the disproportional distribution of goods along traditional lines of bourgeoisie class that I argued earlier? If you can justify 20th century atrocities and most of the current problems, then capitalism's good.
@austinjhammer You are performing a definition inversion on 'individual rights'. Individual rights is the concept that dictates 'Every man should be free to carry out his own will'. Since this is --every-- man, it therefore logically requires than men do not initiate force against each other. Capitalism is a subset of this concept, specific to property. In this context, exploitation and power-grabbing are weasel words for 'trade'.
bogus', the density of wealth is not a one-to-one function of the average wealth. Indeed, if the 20th century atrocities resulting from socialism teach us anything, deliberately trying to force a uniform density results in a massive depression of the average wealth. Non-uniform wealth exists because of non-uniform people. And as much as communists like to think that declaration makes reality, people are not equal nonetheless.
@tothemax01 Ofcourse workers can buy more today than 200 years ago. But that's hardly a virtue of the system. Who else are you going to sell your products to?
You need the vast majority of people to have a sustainable market
@tothemax01 I'm talking about the value of wages. You can roughly buy the same things with the average wage now as in 1980 (for Europe) and something like 1967 (for USA). This is one of the strategies of Neo-Liberalism, called wage-repression.
because of many strategies the last 30 years (inc. this one) Profits have gone skyhigh for the capitalists, workers did not share in this profit (for the first time in American history). This has led to fare more crisis than ever before.
@InterZlatan8 That profit is never guaranteed either, unlike the wage of the laborer. The founders of google could have come away with nothing, whilst their workers were guaranteed their wage either way.
And of course, the computers they were typing on were not real physical things.
@tothemax01 ofcourse it's not guaranteed, but typically a capitalist will do anything to stay in business. There are always barriers to overcome. They have no choice either, cos the competition is trying the same thing. They can find cheap labour by immigration or by offshoring. They can fire some workers or sell some machines cos it turns out to be too expansive, or move to a different location for rent or tax reasons, or they can try to get new credit (wich is a problem right now)
@InterZlatan8 A lathe is a thing, and a physical thing. But I'm not interested in these word games. I can see that it is capital and value because I bear the capacity to perceive, to generate concepts from what I perceive, and to assign value to concepts based on what is best for a humans (like myself) position in the world. You simply do not accept that while a man lifting stuff is labor, so too is the mental exercise of combining resources (which you think arent real).
@tothemax01 OK, so you have different perception of what capital is then. All I'm saying is that machines, money or land are only capital when engaged in a process of making new value. That's my definition.
And what is value? you can't asume some object having a value without taking into consideration the labour-process and the market.
@InterZlatan8 I'm pretty sure we are using the same definition, but I am separating capital and labor. Only in the case of a genuine slave (i.e. a person purchased, for a fixed price, working without his consent, and expended upon him maintenance costs only) are they the same. Value is deduced by the individual, he does not need to consider the collective to judge value. He only need consider the market to gain things of value (by trade) which he cannot produce himself.
@tothemax01 You seem to suggest that capital is a bunch of things, stock, money, machines, etc. While that in effect is true, I say it's only capital when those things are used to create more value. (money in my pocket, or my computer at home are not capital)
Value can't be determined by the market or individual taste only. You need something more, wich is the Labour Theory of Value used by Adam Smith, Ricardo and eventually perfected by Marx. wich is by far the best way to explain value.
@InterZlatan8 Lol @ perfected by Marx. I have Das Kapital, but I also have books written by people who have no interest in mad obscurantism (especially von Mises, who has produced the closest to a valid and accurate concept of 'economics and value').
With regards specifically to value, value is a higher-order concept (philosophy) built upon a concept which is biological in nature. Value refers to those things a human automatically gravitates towards to increase his position in the world.
@tothemax01 That's wonderful, but when we are talking about capitalism, the only definition of value we can use, is the definition within capitalism.
That's where Smith, Ricardo and Marx come in. They argued that value in capitalism is a particular form of value wich is different to other systems of the past. So, the Labour Theory of Value, hardly obscure at all, is only usefull when used in the context of capitalism.
@NavidZady No I'm sorry, but you are misinformed or have been given only partial information on the subject of wealth. "From each to his own abilities, to each to his own needs." - Karl Marx. Thats fairly self explanatory....no other interpretations necessary. I Have a nice day, thanks for posting.
@NavidZady G.M. (the largest auto manufacturer in the U.S.) got its start in 1916 or close to then. THEY BOUGHT OUT UNITED MOTORS BECAUSE THEY COLLAPSED BASED ON POOR BUSINESS DECISIONS. So as cold as a free market system is; socialism and government involvement in free enterprise is historically a HUGE mistake. Another quote "That government which governs best; governs least. " -Unknown
@NavidZady There is no moral argument for any kind of wealth distribution through govn't and to think anything else IS MARXISM. Charity, the only true moral wealth distribution, is the only way to distribute wealth.
However, I do somewhat agree with you that bailing out big banks, AIG, and Wall Street is also immoral. In a true free market economy these entities should fail if they're run poorly. However, to say we have a truly free market economy in the US is completely false, we don't.
@mikebri527 Wealth is distributed anyways through purchases, trade, etc. I think you are talking about redistribution of wealth, and not the distribution of wealth.
What the Marxist ideology in socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." That means no bailouts, no charities, no welfare state, no taking money and giving it to someone else. It means everyone earns for how much they work, and not live under the wage slavery of capitalism.
@NavidZady Capitalism is not wage slavery. It appears that way now because we're in a bad recession where jobs are in demand. The only way to reverse that is to have a vibrant economy where people are in demand. The only way to get to that goal without a boom and bust scenario is to let the free markets work and get govn't completely out of the way. Govn't creates more problems than it solves.
@mikebri527 Dude, we did that for the last 20 years. We did leave Wall Street on its own, we did de-regulate the financiers, we privatized almost the entire system. You think the global crisis is just a coincidence? You're suggesting to keep on doing the very things that got us into this mess.
The best thing you can do now is stop parotting the people who are at the controls of this system, who will be delighted if nothing changed ofcourse.
@mikebri527 Dude, we did that for the last 20 years. We did leave Wall Street on its own, we did de-regulate the financiers, we privatized almost the entire system. You think the global crisis is just a coincidence? You're suggesting to keep on doing the very things that got us into this mess.
The best thing you can do now is stop parotting the people who are at the controls of this system, who will be delighted if nothing changed ofcourse.
@InterZlatan8 No we really haven't been doing that for 20 years. In fact if you go back to about 2002 and see what Alan Greenspan and the Fed did to interest rates you'll see why we're in the mess we're in now. Again, it's govn't intervention into our society and economy that causes more problems then they solve, if they solve any at all. And also, If you think we did de-regulation you're sadly mistaken (even under Bush regulations increased).
@TheBlindPowerslave Tell me more about it, if you feel so intelligent having never visited USSR. And please, don't use China/N.Korea/Cuba as examples of communist societies. China is state capitalism, N.Korea is an authoritarian state, and Cuba is under over half a century of harsh and inhumane economic sanctions.
@NavidZady When did I ever say N.K. china or cuba were communist? They are all trying to do their best in a capitalist world but that's not enough to be a socialist country. Honestly I don't think Chine is even trying to be socialist but cuba really tried it but failed after the fall of soviets. My parents/grandparents are from socialist bulgaria and circassia. I never visited it but I sure know how life was like 30 years ago in soviets.
Maybe I'm not the one that is so "duped" after all. Tell me. What has this system done for you and the people you know? Did you know 30%+ Americans and 50%+ of minorities drop out of high school? The fact that minority person is more likely to go to jail than get a 4 year degree college education or that USA is currently in 2+ wars that costs each marine $1million/year to keep them there? Who is really the one that is "complete duped"?
@NavidZady You are completely duped. Govn't run public schools have failed our children. Govn't run programs have failed minorities. Govn't starts wars and govn't fights wars. You need to dig a little deeper and see where the problems really start. Don't believe what govn't and the media are telling you. They're lying to you. Do some investigation on your own as to why we have poverty and inflation. Why our healthcare costs so much. You'll see govn't is the problem not the solution.
@NavidZady Three words were entirely sufficient. Why enter into an argument with you?? But since you replied..... What can I derive from this? YOU WANT IT. AND YOU WANT IT NOW! That's the way it works isn't it? I mean granted, it has taken a while, but now these 'oppressed' people are coming into their own. They are beginning to become educated.
@NavidZady And thanks to strong arming by the government they are finding their way into good positions. And therefore the communities should change for the better. But it will not happen as long as they still have a chip on their shoulder. And Marxism will not make it happen either. Only the gutterally stupid could believe that. You must be blond.
@NavidZady And my point still stands. What you describe is not socialism it is capitalism. Every men are equal so they all get the same amount of money and social security. I'm sorry but the man who works more gets more money is capitalism because in socialism no man is forced to work more than the other.
@TheBlindPowerslave Part1 The term means simply that each worker in a socialist society receives wages and benefits according to the quantity and value of the labor that he or she contributed. This translates into workers of high productivity receiving more wages and benefits than workers of average productivity, and substantially more than workers of low productivity.
@TheBlindPowerslave Part2 n extension of this principle could also be made so that the more difficult one's job is - whether this difficulty is derived from greater training requirements, job intensity, safety hazards, etc. - the more one is rewarded for the labor contributed. The purpose of the principle, as Trotsky would later state,[2] is to promote productivity. This is done by creating incentives to work harder, longer, and more productively.
@TheBlindPowerslave Part3 The principle is ultimately a stowaway from capitalism that, according to Marx, will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance.
Part4 The principle has its roots in the way that capitalism manages its affairs. That is, each is rewarded according to how much he produces. Remuneration increases as the amount of labor contributed increases. However within capitalism, the means of production are owned by a small minority who does not produce, but rather lives off the labor of others. Socialism is said to remedy this by putting the means of production in common hands and rewarding individuals according to their contributions.
@NavidZady You fail to understand the animal we call the human being. It is an animal that thrives on a risk reward system. Do you really think olympic athletes train all those years to be equal to everybody else and not rewarded for their efforts? Why do we have races and competitive events? We do it because we're a competitive people by nature. Socialism tries to remove that and that's why it fails. It goes against the very nature of what we are as a people.
@mikebri527 Jesus, that's scary. You must be one of those dogmatic Human nature=Capitalism=Freedom people.
Capitalism fails to benefit the 2 billion people who still live in huge poverty for the last 200 years, even if that's not what it says in the mainstream economic textbooks.
@mikebri527 Jesus, that's scary. You must be one of those dogmatic Human nature=Capitalism=Freedom people.
Capitalism fails to benefit the 2 billion people who still live in huge poverty for the last 200 years, even if that's not what it says in the mainstream economic textbooks.
@InterZlatan8 No it's people like you who are scary thinking that govn't is going to save them. It's govn't that oppresses it's people. Look at Haiti compared to the US. Haiti is in poverty because of govn't. Also, mainstream economics textbooks teaches Keynesian economics that says govn't has to act and play role in the economy. Most countries practice Keynesian economics and that's why they're (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain and now the US) going broke because of govn't.
@TheBlindPowerslave You are correct. Our friend NZady here doesn't understand what socialism really is so how can he defend it? The bad rap that the free market economy takes is not it's fault but the fault of people who don't help their fellow man thru charity (the way it should be). Instead we rely on govn't (the worst possible entity to do that) to be charity and we all know it doesn't work.
Most people posting here and other similar clips haven't got the slightest idea of the nature of political definitions. They use words like: "socialist" or "communist", not really knowing what they mean.
Idiots think that by saying someone is something that becomes true, just because they would like it to be true to justify their views. I am afraid they only show their ignorance.
Obama is just one more product of the elites that perpetuate themselves in power, Con. or Dem. same beast diff face.
Frankly calling Obama a Marxist is an insult to Marxism. People who say that he's a Marxist have absolutely no idea what Marxism is (as seen by Glenn Beck), and would do well to at least read the bloody Wikipedia page on Marxism before you go pointing fingers.
Anyone who says, "He believes in redistribution of wealth, therefore he's a Marxist", does not deserve to be making comments on someone's ideology, and does not deserve to be hosting a political news show.
All of your arguments could be made in reverse. It can be said calling Obama a Capitalist is insulting to Capitalists, that anyone who makes that claim has no idea what Capitalism is, and finally, anyone who says, "He believes in redistribution of wealth, therefore he's a Capitalist", does not deserve to be making comments on someone's ideology.
I'm not a communist,but people put communism in their black agenda,and make everything for money,even kill or let people die of starvation,that's pretty hypocritical when people say communism is the cancer of the world,and don't realize that their own savage ans selfish capitalism is causing big problems in a world scale.
I agree with lots of points in the marxist ideology,but i don't like the interpretations of Marx's works that USSR and others so said "communist" countries made,they used Marx's ideals in a distorted way to cover their desire to power,to alienate people,letting them thing they were equal,the only one that i really like from the bolshevik party was Leon Trotsky,that tried to stop Stalin's madness,since trotsky was killed,USSR went to drain with their false communism.
Wal, see, ya got yer bbq pit. On th' lef' side is whar th' hot fire is. On th' right side is whar yer sausage an' possum an' pawk ribs an' brisket is smokin'. Once th' smoked stuff is done, yo' to'que th' fire back up real hot an' grill yer steak real fast.
Listen to:
"Marxism in America" by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin - OAK
He will give you a clear view on Marxism.
LiesRtrue2 2 weeks ago
What dont people read Karl Marx? He has amazing insight and one of the best critiques of capitalism... His Base and Superstructure theory is amazing and puts into context many contemporary issues. I bet most Americans who attack Marxism haven't even read a page, nor would be able to understand. Critique Marx as an intellectual not as an ignorant redneck Beck fan.
DLOINS 3 weeks ago
This is sad. Marxism is a world without private property, but no control on social freedoms unlike Absolute Monarchies. Socialism is a world with limited private property, and some control on social freedoms. Obama is a Democrat or just slightly left of center. Calling Obama a socialist or a Marxist is just as stupid as calling Mitt Romney a corporatist or a Fascist.
DjPyro2010 1 month ago
In communist America, free health care and solidarity is commnism.
SirSharon 1 month ago
@SirSharon haha
DLOINS 3 weeks ago
Cute
SunsetStorm1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Socialist, really? So you have democracy at the workplace? so there is full employment in the United States, no hungry people in the Us? Last i checked, more than 25 million americans are hungry. If any capitalist "leftists" like the democratic party in the us were socialists, then why is the highly subsidized GM allowed to hoard a profit of more than $4.7 billion, instead of employing the nearly 50% unemployed blacks (racism if compared, btw) of Detroit? Read & Think you idiots!
noprofitmaximierung 3 months ago
If you think Obama is a Marxist, then you clearly have no idea what Marxism is. Do some reading on the subject you morons.
OToMb 3 months ago
I hate american politics.
princessotto 5 months ago
I refuse to call this man President ! He's fed the American people a tractor trailer size load of lies and sadly many millions have believed him and will continue to do so and thus he figures he can just keep his bag of lies going. Can we have Carter back? Never thought there could be a worse one then him but the sorry sob tops even him !
onstageagain 6 months ago
Is there any american that actually knows what marxism is?
motorheadanthrax 7 months ago 15
@motorheadanthrax
No
Pheebz1991 4 months ago
@motorheadanthrax
Yes. The problem is the press will not identify Marxists as such. And the public schools will not teach children about its evils, but rather teach them it is virtuous.
NoGuff 3 months ago
hahaha he doesnt even know what is marxism. Marxism, sosialism, leninsm etc. are not the same
dimalex8 7 months ago
I WISH Obama was a Marxist.
USAFFountain 8 months ago 12
what a ignorant fool ! notice that he realate's drinking and drugs to marxism just so you will get a bad impression. thypical
seper1 8 months ago
Beck is a moron.
chris96kalonji 9 months ago
Marxism is the working class taking over and eventually creating a stateless society where everybody is equal and everybody works for everybody else. Redistribution of wealth is progressivism. So, please don't call people Marxists if you don't even know what Marxism is. It just makes you sound stupid.
SomeoneCrazy2 10 months ago
@SomeoneCrazy2 Well Marxism is much more complex and there are alot of other things to it but Obama isn't a socialist. In Sweden he'd be a far-right politician.
atosafi1 10 months ago
@atosafi1 I know lol, it's just very hard to explain all of that in 500 characters. And even here in Germany Obama would be considered right-wing. I guess to most American conservatives, the words "socialism", "communism", "marxism" etc. simply have no real meaning except "evil". They neither know what those concepts are (there are even people who think communism and fascism are the same thing), nor do they care.
SomeoneCrazy2 10 months ago
Shows you how fucking stupid some people are if they can possibly consider Obama a Marxist. Anyone who does clearly does not understand Marxism, or Obama for that matter.
Redistribution of wealth to the poor is Christianity, not Marxism.
gracie1232 11 months ago
@gracie1232 Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and all other major religions said pretty much the same thing that Marx did - The rich man should share his wealth to those who helped him accumulate it, he should not enter a room and take 9 pieces of the pie and leave his workers to fight over the last one.
atosafi1 10 months ago
@atosafi1 Fair point but Marx doesn't forbit wealth for anyone he forbids subjugating others to accrue that wealth.
Christianity absolutely forbids material wealth (camel's eyes etc...).
gracie1232 9 months ago
Comment removed
NoGuff 7 months ago
@gracie1232
"Marx doesn't forbit wealth for anyone he forbids subjugating others to accrue that wealth"
--Lie.
"Christianity absolutely forbids material wealth"
--Lie.
NoGuff 7 months ago
Christianity forbids material wealth under certain conditions. Like if you're a RC priest in some sort of jesuit order or if you were one of the 12 disciples.
testmark1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@testmark1
"Christianity forbids material wealth under certain conditions. Like if you're a RC priest in some sort of jesuit order"
--That's the Catholic Church's rules, not Christianity's rules, you dummy.
NoGuff 3 months ago
@testmark1 Roman Catholics and their "priests" aren't Christians! Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one. Roman Catholicism is one of the religions of the Great Whore!
MrIHADANACCOUNT 2 months ago
Why just ask Hossam El Hamalawy who he & his others work for, who pays them, for taking apart the middle east & delivering it in the hands of the Anti Christ movement, wasn't it going that route anyway, was it going too slow? there is a Russian & French & German & Spain & England connection too, its Gorbachev & you might know the others, they are just as stupid & dying to show it too! Ignorance loves to prove exactly what it is, stupid indeed! right white wired stone house! no more presidents!
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
eavesdropping. which includes drugs, drugs & money laundering & every criminal act goes & they have falsified credentials & are holding Americans against their wills too! so how different from the middle east is this country, not different at all! only difference is we have stupid media who sticks up for the corrupted bastards in power for a story or money or anything else, they are definite sellouts! the new middle east will not work, its again in the hands of shitforbrains & they don't know!
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
to take that lying sack of Obama out, & he damn well knows he lies each & every damn day, you should also know he & the others have a stupid secret concerning domestic eavesdropping, they have hired Cubans who are prostitutes, uneducated, liars, criminals, & who also have mental health records, who are also pedophiles & have also brought in from Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Argentina, Haiti & other countries & islands the very worse & have them running a personal business domestic
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
stinks of USA planned bullshit, as I said before, that is why they won't get involved, because if it wasn't their plan, they would have sent in millions of military, to secure the Oil fields & put holds on the money of those countries, because they are greedy bastards, but since they are holding the cards, are placing their own garbage yet again in power, we are going to get screwed yet again! they can never be in power again, arrest them after this presidency is over since no one has the guts
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
our military, our fire personal, our people, & bombing this country, disguising it as a terrorist attack in order to release a vicious move against another country, based on greed for their value in oil, it was a war of profit & it was based on false information, supplied & made up by those I've just named, so they could take & use tax payers money to accumulate more wealth by using corporations they took stock options on & made money & genocided at the same time. This middle east problem
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
I accused Obama & the Clinton's of working covertly with the Bush's to bring about a dictatorship, but not as a communist way, but as a capitalist way, greed, vanity, power struggle, uncaring, using personal ambitions, & placing them in the forefront, while ignoring the people for self gratification & I was definitely right, before the media was even aware or anyone else for that matter, & I accuse them of the deaths of those who stood up to them & genociding our law enforcement, our agents,
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
for & trashed it, plus us, as Americans! we owe our thanks to those worthless politicians who are the Clinton's, the Bush's, the Obama's, the Kissinger's, the Cheney's, the Powell's, just to name a few, but there are others, who were also all recruited by the Bushman Sr himself, yes all of these were recruited by him, as well as Pakistan's Bhuta & others, who did wrong, & then were executed for changing their minds & doing something right, like going against Bush, & placing the people first.
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
also had the help of underhanded politicians in this country, who couldn't make it without the help of Castro & his people coming into this country, with lies under their belt, disguised as helpless cubans looking for a better way of life & faking their embrace of democracy, while actually coming in as votes for the unworthy & useless American traitors who took over political offices & helped to execute our president, & others, who they felt would take democracy & want this country really stood
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
Just as I thought: this government has been pushing communism, the Moslem Brotherhood, is a spin off of the Castro regime's interpretation of the Young Lords Party movement from back in the 1970's, in New York, started by castro himself, in New York, as he would sneak into the country & give his ideology in tenement housing basements to the young puerto ricans, he had the support of those who claimed they came from Cuba to be Americans & were actually followers of castro, invading the USA, he
ogismotheonly101 1 year ago
No marxist or communist argues for redistribution of wealth.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
American propaganda....
that's all I have to say about this
uncleruckus714 1 year ago
Do you really think cnn and glenn beck encourages you to think clearly for yourself? If you think Marxism is a negative you really are greatly mislead and profoundly unread (which is usual for your persuasion)... propaganda has destroyed your brain into a high toxic viscosity that interestingly spells the word 'subservient'.
VoxJoxx 1 year ago
@hempartist420 You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder....and you are it's poster child.
Now crawl back under the porch and resume gnawing on your hind foot, you pathetic rat bastard.
GutpileCharlie 1 year ago
@GutpileCharlie Doesn't get any more to the point than what I said. Liberalism is a mental disorder. You've got a terminal case of it.
You ;need to get a life Sparky.
GutpileCharlie 1 year ago
@GutpileCharlie
its poster child*
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
would be so cool, if he would be a marxist, but unfortunately he isn't =(
DeinKoenig 1 year ago
2012 can not come soon enough.
This rat bastard socialist son of a bitch needs to have his ass handed to him.
The fools that elected this Marxist piece of dog shit are responsible. How could people become so stupid? What kind of people are we raising now. They damn sure are nothing like the "Greatest Generation".
Hopefully when this new congress gets under way they can find some shit good enough to start impeachment toward this criminal. I certainly hope so.
GutpileCharlie 1 year ago
@GutpileCharlie
Marxists believe in a stateless society, so hopefully Obama is indeed a Marxist.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia ...What the hell are you rambling about? You don't make a hell of a lot of sense.
GutpileCharlie 1 year ago
@GutpileCharlie
"rambling'? one sentence is rambling? What part did you not understand?
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia ..I understand that you are a smarmy little rat bastard sick twisted freak. You are just running you stupid mouth off, don't know a damn thing and have nothing to say.
You are an embarrassment to yourself.
Just shut up before you look even more foolish.
Now crawl back under the porch and commence gnawing on your hind leg you pathetic piece of slimy shit.
GutpileCharlie 1 year ago
@GutpileCharlie
That doesn't make any sense.
You're just trolling.... trolololollollollolollololollollol
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Troll my ass. Looks like the pot calling the kettle black?
GutpileCharlie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GutpileCharlie
If you're not a troll, then kindly explain why you think my "rambling" (i.e. Marxists believe in a stateless society, so hopefully Obama is indeed a Marxist) is erroneous. Because everything in the sentence is a fact. If you did not know that Marxists aim for a stateless society then you have obviously never extensively read Marx (or possibly never at all).
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
revolution in ammerica! socialism is the way forward for your country
ooohpie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ooohpie You are a pathetic piece of shit you little socialist rat bastard.
GutpileCharlie 1 year ago
the people who say Obama is socialist is absurd...he is a right wing democrat...these people have no history credibility
SLACKER614 1 year ago
i hope he is a marxist, that would be a really good thing for everyone, who cares if the minority of ruling classes suffer for the greater good of all the normal everyday hardworking people
tawandanebula 1 year ago
Folks, wealth gets redistributed before it ever makes it into your paycheck. That is, your boss determines if your contribution to the success of the business you helped
make successful will be taken into consideration or if you'll just be held hostage by a
dare to leave ultimatum. Who you work for and their interpretation of fairness has much of an influence on your income than this government bogeyman thats used to scare the population. Beck is simply a whore clown.
omegapointil 1 year ago
Obama is good because he can see different views on things, unlike Republicans, who are scared of all things not capitalist.
m1up 1 year ago
Comparing Obama to Marsism is like saying a 13 year old boy who masturbates is a serial rapist. What rubbish.
johneamer 1 year ago
marxism FTW
supermorshu 1 year ago
I feel the ingorant among the American general public do not even know what Socialism even means. But they listen to Beck uncritically and they jump of the fearwagon. If someone came on TV and simply just explained what it really means, that basically the workers should controll the means of production, they would see that it isnt that far away from what they believe in themselves.
TanoBrati 1 year ago
We're all marxists
enogtoogtre 1 year ago
niggers
stevenmiller100 1 year ago
Marxism is not a way of government. It is a philosophy. It is a science.
What is a way of government though, is Marxism-Leninism, which is Vladimir Lenin's interpretations of Karl Marx and his own input into the ways of government. You cannot claim that the USSR was a failure because it was not. Because the leadership was hijacked by Stalin. Lenin's dream for the USSR was much more logical and workable than that of Stalin's.
NavidZady 1 year ago
@NavidZady
Then Lenin's idea was a failure.
The social construction made by Lenin was not democratic enough. Lenin did not allow independent soviets and unions.
All power was placed at the central government. Lenin died, as people tend to die. Because of the power centralization it gave way to corruption.
So in short: centralize power -> power corrupts -> the idea of centralizing power is a bad idea.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy His idea of centralizing power was different than the 1 ure thinking His vision of the USSR was different than that of Stalins Although the way you say "power corrupts" I can see the perfect example in the "free" USA But anyways USSRs democracy was just different. yes it centralized the economy but it was diff. than that of USA I cannot tell you how it felt for the people because I didnt live it, but from what I have heard from friends that have lived it, it wasnt all that bad.
NavidZady 1 year ago
This argument has strayed so far from being anything relevant. Both sides have let the argument become about labels. Who cares what you call him. Call Obama Marxist, Fascist, Corpratist, Capitalist, it does not matter. The fact is the man is implementing a policy that takes more and more freedom from the people and gives more and more authority to the State. At the same time it is ruining the wealth of the nation. These are not good things, no matter what you call the ideology driving them.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
Socialism means that every man deserves only for how much he works.
Not how much the people UNDER him work.
Lenin himself said, do not give the beggar bread.
Because that will only keep him full for a day.
The beggar must stay hungry, and revolt.
Socialism is against "distribution of wealth".
It is for the PROPER distribution of wealth.
Redistribution of wealth is when the taxpayer's money is given to rich banks that are failing in a "FREE MARKET" economy, which is meant for them to fail.
NavidZady 1 year ago 4
@NavidZady: What about the innovator? Without a reward for innovation, those workers wouldn't have a place to work in the first place.
If not for the people at the top (employers, CEOs, etc.) those workers who work UNDER would not be employed. A business can't remain above the ground if the employer cannot afford to hire employees.
Finally, by your logic, nobody would want to invent things or innovate! There's no reward for it!
MCJ62 1 year ago
@MCJ62 You have completely dismissed my whole comment except for a couple of words, taken out of context.
I did not say anything about the inventor nor the innovator.
By the way, there was a significant amount of innovations, inventions and discoveries that came from the Soviet Union.
You do not need to the reward of becoming a multi-billionaire to come up with ideas. Yes, you do need a higher standard of living, but not like here in the USA when one can earn the so called "funny money"
NavidZady 1 year ago
@MCJ62 You have to think outside of the Capitalism-box. Capitalism is historically just another mode of production. Nothing special about it. There are dozens of ways to organise production and consumption. The world doesn't really need capitalists. Not every invention is created for gaining profit. Many useful things have been around way before the rise of capitalism, and if labour is cheap enough, they won't buy any machinery. (so if you want a lot of innovation, you have to pay workers more.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 It is special in that it allows (not 'creates for all' which impossible) the highest average wealth a society can have. Socialism is special in that it creates the highest rate of social regression, whilst its leaders concurrently claim it creates the highest rate of social progress. I personally think living comfortably is 'special'. But a socialist thinks any instance of a man living comfortably is imposed on those who aren't. Hence the above definition of socialism.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 That's the reason why there is such an interest in China right now. The value of labour-power is very low, so the past-labour of machinery is also gonna be low. The ideal place to produce values for the western market., if you are Nike and want to make huge profits.
You can produce cheaply, but you can sell high, because in the west we have more money to spend, because our labour-value is higher.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 Incorrect. We have more money to spend because we have more capital. The laborer in China is still doing what the American laborer is - moving things from one machine to another, operating controls etc. It is ridiculous to say that the latter has higher value labor than the former, and I cant see how you can think that. The higher wage of the latter is due only to the higher value of the resulting products, which is a function of the value of the machines he is operating.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Because the value of labour-power is determined by the market where the labourer finds himself in. That value depends on where you are. You can easily see that if an American went to work in China, he will recieve wages according to the standard wage rate in China. When he comes back to America, he finds that he can't survive. He can't buy all the things he was able to buy before his trip.
That's why businesses produce in China and sell in America.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 In america, he was using american capital, which I have already said, is superior to chinese capital in technological level and quantity (at least for now). Secondly, the wage is lower in china because the stock of labor is higher. When there is more of something, it is worth less. This is why in China it can be a substitute to using less labor and more capital.
This is caused by past and present social attitudes in china regarding family size, only.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@MCJ62 So you think nobody has invented things just to invent things and not solely for the money? If you do, your completely wrong.
adiosucks123 1 year ago
@adiosucks123 No doubt a few inventions have been given to society by the inventor but the vast majority have come from people looking to make a profit. Do you really think people, on a large scale, are going to put in the effort and take the risk on a new product if there is no reward involved? Would you risk everything you have to bring a new product to market if the most you could possibly benefit would be 5% or 10% of what that product made?
shananagans5 1 year ago
@shananagans5 I think you are looking at things in a completely different way then they would actually be in a socialist or communist society. The point is to stop thinking solely about yourself and your money and to start thinking about helping others.
adiosucks123 1 year ago
@adiosucks123 I help people for a living. I also see how many people refuse to help themselves. Many want to just ride the system and we allow it. This hurts those that truly can not work, or those that truly need help. Nobody wants their tax $ going to people that would simply prefer to sit on their rear and watch TV all day.
shananagans5 1 year ago
@shananagans5 I never said anything about welfare, taxes, or even the state. There are many ways to go about it.
adiosucks123 1 year ago
@MCJ62 The innovators do not generaly get paid for it. You think the board of directors of a software company is in the lab writing code? Of couse not. But who gets paid when the stock goes up?
That's the flaw in your reasoning. People ALREADY innovate without being rewarded for it.
AntiLazarus 1 year ago 2
@MCJ62
Moreover from that, there could be no distribution of roles (let's assume everyone is incentivised by altruism, let's see how Socialism works with a bunch of angels) according to who uses capital goods more effectively, because without private ownership of the means of production there is not a propertarian way of securing control over capital therefore arbitrary communal decisions or brute force decide. Private ownership of the means of production exploits nothing for capital is scarce.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@MCJ62 interesting question.
the full answer may be too large to discuss on youtube .
one thing is to innovate by creating something new and other very different is to profit on others work (thats what a burgoise does).
it is a false assumption to believe that human creativity is limited by the reward, creativity (unlike the greed) is something inherent to the human being.
remember the golden rule of socialism: everyone gives what he is capable of and receives what he needs
alanch90 1 year ago
@NavidZady no such thing as PROPER distribution of wealth
brocz0r 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brocz0r Then wealth itself must be abolished.
NavidZady 1 year ago
@NavidZady And as usual, you leftists try to make out that the labourer produces an excess to what he gets paid, which is then expropriated from him by his thieving employer. This is a blatant statement of your naivety. By himself, what value is the labourers work? Smacking rocks together, what could he produce? It is only through the capital created by men of the mind that he can produce anything of value, and hence it is to them that he owes the excess.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Labour-power is the one thing that has the capacity to produce more value than it itself has. This surplus-value is what capitalists are looking for. So the capitalist buys labour-power to produce use-values that other people want. But, as a capitalist, he is in business to gain surplus. So if the value of labour-power is fixed by a daily wage, everything that remains is for the capitalist. So, without labour, there can't be value, and no surplus-value.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 So what, you are just going to reply to my comment, and thoroughly ignore it at the same time? I guess ill repeat myself. Labor cannot produce more 'that it itself has', and can only do so with the use of capital. Yes or No. The capitalist buys labor PLUS capital, land, energy products etc. His profit (not 'surplus') is derived from correctly combining these to produce products people want, it is not extracted from any one of the elements alone. His labor is of the mind, not muscle
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Capital is not a thing, it is value used in a certain way to produce more value. You can have all sorts of fancy computers, buildings, you can have a huge track of land, but without labour getting into a process of production of creating new values, you've got nothing. Machines and buildings are past labour as well, they're not a source of value. So, capitalists are dependend on labour, as cheap as possible, to have as much value in the end for themselves as possible.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 Yes it is a 'thing', you just gave it a definition. I don't know what form of logical inversion or joke that is but whatev. The root of your 'labor is unfairly exploited' thesis still remains that you don't consider mental labor to be labor, only muscular labor counts. The generation of capital is still a combined function of the things I mentioned, including capital. I could just as soon say 'without capitalists combining these things, labor would be valueless, youve got nothing'
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 No, capital and value are relations between people and things, they are not physical things themselves. You can't actually 'see' capital or value. Money and things become capital if used to make more value. (commodities and money) And I did't make a distiction between mental or physical labour. that's nonsense. if the capitalist is working himself to produce the value, that's fine. But in the end he is interested in the surplus, while the workers recieve a specific wage...
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 ..and this surplus has to be of a certain amount that he can live from it and stay in business. That's where the competition element comes in. Just take a look at the advertising of Coca-Cola or Nike...
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 ...To invest in something like that, they must have had a huge profit. part of the source of that profit comes from the wages we recieve and spend. That's the reason we're gettting higher wages, otherwise there wouldn't be a market to sell the products to.
That's why low wages can result in a crisis of effective demand
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 You speak as though you socialists are already in at the helm. There is no assignment of wage by some organization in capitalism, there is only trade. I'm sure with your grasp of economics, if the chinese government --fixed-- wages higher, all of a sudden, they would have high standard of living. Btw we spend because we --want-- those products, and Im quite happy that someone else made a profit from making them.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 There are trade-unions and the government (at least here in Europe) who guarantees a minimum wage. But even if there wasn't what's the difference? Capitalists have to make sure that a portion of the new value created has to go to the workers in the form of money, otherwise they'll have a serieus problem of demand. But if the government nor the capitalists are willing to do that, you have one last option. credit-cards. Just let people go into debt to fix the demand problem.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 *sigh*. All guarantees of a minimum wage mean unemployment, it is not fair for those workers who want to get on the ladder and earn a living. And no, the capitalists could keep all the value themselves, couldn't they? They could be the demand, they are greedy, right? They could start whole businesses just to build themselves yachts, mansions, planes etc. The fact remains that they can't, because workers won't work unless they get paid enough.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 minimum wages are healthy for capitalism. if you keep on lowering wages, then soon the market will crash. a guaranteed standard of income will prevent certain crisis of demand, and will provide a steady growth. Unemployment is also healthy for capitalism. It weakens the power of labour. (they are threatened by getting replaced by people currently without work) All the talk about doing away with unemployment will never succeed to anything. (unless you abolish capitalism)
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 The statement 'If you keep lowering wages, a market will crash' is an meaningless statement that shows a distinct lack of any form of understanding of economics. What is 'crash', who is 'you', what is a 'market' when prices are set by force etc etc. Also, 'guaranteed standard of income' is mind-boggling. It means either 'magically the gov creates income for everyone' or 'the gov steals from people who have and give to those without'. My standard is reality, I'd love to know yours.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Are we still talking about capitalism here? I am.
so, if 'they' (capitalists and the state) go on repressing wages, where are 'they' going to find a market for their products? They have to re-invest in new products because of competition.
until the 1970s wages kept on rising according to profits (labours shared in the wealth) but the neo-liberal project changed all that. The credit-card saved the demand-problem, so basically in the USA people are living from going into debt.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Here in western Europe there is a minimum wage that employers must give to workers. And if one can't work for any reason you'll get a minimum guaranteed income provided by the state through taxes wich is ofcourse lower then the working minimum). You may disagree with that, but that is the situation here. This has worked pretty well for decades, but the last 25 years or so, those minimums turned out to be insufficient, so actually poverty has risen in some of the wealthiest countries.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 Poverty has risen because that system doesn't work long term. You can't force a market or values on things. You can't force a min wage, it throws the value of everything off eventually. There is a big portion of people that will not work unless they have to. If you keep giving those people enough to live on it drags your entire society down. That is the downfall of socialism. Why work hard?
shananagans5 1 year ago
@shananagans5 1. If you give people too little, it will drag the system down. A vast portion of the money in society has to go to the workers in the form of wages, otherwise capitalists have a serious problem in the market (who are you going to sell the products to?)
2. My idea of socialism is not state-run, but workers owning a company as a collective. So if they work harder and more efficient, they can share more profit at the end of the day
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Great, but the last three decades we have had a stagnation of wage-rates, (but the demand problem was fixed by households going into debt, now people even recieve credit to pay of their credit-cards) while the profits went sky high, due to neo-liberalism and globalization....
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 .....At the same time, communism fell around '89, opening up a huge market of milions of people wich could buy western products and could work for half the money. So despite this huge wealth on part of capitalists, our wages have not gone up since 1980 (in real terms). This huge profit at one end, and the stagnation or sometimes even poverty at the other strikes me as immoral and unfair to millions of people.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 ...and btw, capitalism shoots itself in the foot by continuing like this. You can't expect keeping investing into more and more production in the hope for more profits when you've crashed the market (our wages) to sell your products to. something must change, otherwise there will be a demand-crisis in the near future. so either the Chinese, the Mexicans etc must have more access in the worldmarket (higher standard of living) to get the economic growth, or the end of Capitalism
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
Comment removed
tothemax01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@InterZlatan8 The chinese are doing it to themselves. They have not yet shed all of socialism, and are still a one-party dictatorship. If they would stop holding their yuan semi-pegged to the dollar, they would stop exporting in exchange for bits of US paper, and would be able to consume those products, or get something in return (imports). Its their choice.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 Whilst there has been only a small rise in average incomes (and yes there has been a higher rise for those in the upper brackets), the value of those incomes has risen. The products you can buy now with $1k (infl. adj.) greatly exceed the value of what you could buy 20 years ago. And some of those millions of ppl are in poverty because of their own actions (drugs, crime instead of work, pregnancy too young, using consumption credit etc), not because of others.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Yo man, all of the problems that you cite could likely be traced back to the fetishes established by capitalist structure and can only be solved through deconstructing it. Regarding the income stuff you discuss above, progression of society, tech, etc. means that whatever you buy today isn't going to be PROPORTIONALLY shared based on multifarious workings of capitalism. Is capitalism zero sum? Hell yeah. If capitalism was driving for egalitarianism it would would have succeeded.
austinjhammer 1 year ago
@austinjhammer Capitalism is not a 'structure' that has been 'constructed'. It is the automatic outcome of respect for individual rights. Socialism is constructed, by force. If capitalism was zero sum, the wealth of the western factory worker of the 1700s would be the same as today. However, his yearly income now buys many many times over the value that his historical predecessor could buy for his yearly income. Capitalism is good, and 'good' is the capitalists fetish.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Capitalism is something inherent in perceptions of western society, these perceptions would be included in the usage of 'construction.' Individual rights are violated because of capitalist exploitation and power grabbing. Your zero-sum argument is bogus. Didn't you listen to the disproportional distribution of goods along traditional lines of bourgeoisie class that I argued earlier? If you can justify 20th century atrocities and most of the current problems, then capitalism's good.
austinjhammer 1 year ago
@austinjhammer You are performing a definition inversion on 'individual rights'. Individual rights is the concept that dictates 'Every man should be free to carry out his own will'. Since this is --every-- man, it therefore logically requires than men do not initiate force against each other. Capitalism is a subset of this concept, specific to property. In this context, exploitation and power-grabbing are weasel words for 'trade'.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@austinjhammer (two replies if you dont mind) Regarding
bogus', the density of wealth is not a one-to-one function of the average wealth. Indeed, if the 20th century atrocities resulting from socialism teach us anything, deliberately trying to force a uniform density results in a massive depression of the average wealth. Non-uniform wealth exists because of non-uniform people. And as much as communists like to think that declaration makes reality, people are not equal nonetheless.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 Ofcourse workers can buy more today than 200 years ago. But that's hardly a virtue of the system. Who else are you going to sell your products to?
You need the vast majority of people to have a sustainable market
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@tothemax01 I'm talking about the value of wages. You can roughly buy the same things with the average wage now as in 1980 (for Europe) and something like 1967 (for USA). This is one of the strategies of Neo-Liberalism, called wage-repression.
because of many strategies the last 30 years (inc. this one) Profits have gone skyhigh for the capitalists, workers did not share in this profit (for the first time in American history). This has led to fare more crisis than ever before.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 That profit is never guaranteed either, unlike the wage of the laborer. The founders of google could have come away with nothing, whilst their workers were guaranteed their wage either way.
And of course, the computers they were typing on were not real physical things.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 ofcourse it's not guaranteed, but typically a capitalist will do anything to stay in business. There are always barriers to overcome. They have no choice either, cos the competition is trying the same thing. They can find cheap labour by immigration or by offshoring. They can fire some workers or sell some machines cos it turns out to be too expansive, or move to a different location for rent or tax reasons, or they can try to get new credit (wich is a problem right now)
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 A lathe is a thing, and a physical thing. But I'm not interested in these word games. I can see that it is capital and value because I bear the capacity to perceive, to generate concepts from what I perceive, and to assign value to concepts based on what is best for a humans (like myself) position in the world. You simply do not accept that while a man lifting stuff is labor, so too is the mental exercise of combining resources (which you think arent real).
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 OK, so you have different perception of what capital is then. All I'm saying is that machines, money or land are only capital when engaged in a process of making new value. That's my definition.
And what is value? you can't asume some object having a value without taking into consideration the labour-process and the market.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 I'm pretty sure we are using the same definition, but I am separating capital and labor. Only in the case of a genuine slave (i.e. a person purchased, for a fixed price, working without his consent, and expended upon him maintenance costs only) are they the same. Value is deduced by the individual, he does not need to consider the collective to judge value. He only need consider the market to gain things of value (by trade) which he cannot produce himself.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 You seem to suggest that capital is a bunch of things, stock, money, machines, etc. While that in effect is true, I say it's only capital when those things are used to create more value. (money in my pocket, or my computer at home are not capital)
Value can't be determined by the market or individual taste only. You need something more, wich is the Labour Theory of Value used by Adam Smith, Ricardo and eventually perfected by Marx. wich is by far the best way to explain value.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 Lol @ perfected by Marx. I have Das Kapital, but I also have books written by people who have no interest in mad obscurantism (especially von Mises, who has produced the closest to a valid and accurate concept of 'economics and value').
With regards specifically to value, value is a higher-order concept (philosophy) built upon a concept which is biological in nature. Value refers to those things a human automatically gravitates towards to increase his position in the world.
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01 That's wonderful, but when we are talking about capitalism, the only definition of value we can use, is the definition within capitalism.
That's where Smith, Ricardo and Marx come in. They argued that value in capitalism is a particular form of value wich is different to other systems of the past. So, the Labour Theory of Value, hardly obscure at all, is only usefull when used in the context of capitalism.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@NavidZady No I'm sorry, but you are misinformed or have been given only partial information on the subject of wealth. "From each to his own abilities, to each to his own needs." - Karl Marx. Thats fairly self explanatory....no other interpretations necessary. I Have a nice day, thanks for posting.
usnate1 1 year ago
@NavidZady G.M. (the largest auto manufacturer in the U.S.) got its start in 1916 or close to then. THEY BOUGHT OUT UNITED MOTORS BECAUSE THEY COLLAPSED BASED ON POOR BUSINESS DECISIONS. So as cold as a free market system is; socialism and government involvement in free enterprise is historically a HUGE mistake. Another quote "That government which governs best; governs least. " -Unknown
usnate1 1 year ago
@NavidZady There is no moral argument for any kind of wealth distribution through govn't and to think anything else IS MARXISM. Charity, the only true moral wealth distribution, is the only way to distribute wealth.
However, I do somewhat agree with you that bailing out big banks, AIG, and Wall Street is also immoral. In a true free market economy these entities should fail if they're run poorly. However, to say we have a truly free market economy in the US is completely false, we don't.
mikebri527 1 year ago
@mikebri527 Wealth is distributed anyways through purchases, trade, etc. I think you are talking about redistribution of wealth, and not the distribution of wealth.
What the Marxist ideology in socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." That means no bailouts, no charities, no welfare state, no taking money and giving it to someone else. It means everyone earns for how much they work, and not live under the wage slavery of capitalism.
NavidZady 1 year ago
@NavidZady Capitalism is not wage slavery. It appears that way now because we're in a bad recession where jobs are in demand. The only way to reverse that is to have a vibrant economy where people are in demand. The only way to get to that goal without a boom and bust scenario is to let the free markets work and get govn't completely out of the way. Govn't creates more problems than it solves.
mikebri527 1 year ago
@mikebri527 Dude, we did that for the last 20 years. We did leave Wall Street on its own, we did de-regulate the financiers, we privatized almost the entire system. You think the global crisis is just a coincidence? You're suggesting to keep on doing the very things that got us into this mess.
The best thing you can do now is stop parotting the people who are at the controls of this system, who will be delighted if nothing changed ofcourse.
don't believe in the neo-liberal utopia.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@mikebri527 Dude, we did that for the last 20 years. We did leave Wall Street on its own, we did de-regulate the financiers, we privatized almost the entire system. You think the global crisis is just a coincidence? You're suggesting to keep on doing the very things that got us into this mess.
The best thing you can do now is stop parotting the people who are at the controls of this system, who will be delighted if nothing changed ofcourse.
don't believe in the neo-liberal utopia.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 No we really haven't been doing that for 20 years. In fact if you go back to about 2002 and see what Alan Greenspan and the Fed did to interest rates you'll see why we're in the mess we're in now. Again, it's govn't intervention into our society and economy that causes more problems then they solve, if they solve any at all. And also, If you think we did de-regulation you're sadly mistaken (even under Bush regulations increased).
mikebri527 1 year ago
@NavidZady You are a little confused about wealth distribution in socialist countries aren't you comrade ? :)
TheBlindPowerslave 1 year ago
@TheBlindPowerslave Tell me more about it, if you feel so intelligent having never visited USSR. And please, don't use China/N.Korea/Cuba as examples of communist societies. China is state capitalism, N.Korea is an authoritarian state, and Cuba is under over half a century of harsh and inhumane economic sanctions.
NavidZady 1 year ago
@NavidZady When did I ever say N.K. china or cuba were communist? They are all trying to do their best in a capitalist world but that's not enough to be a socialist country. Honestly I don't think Chine is even trying to be socialist but cuba really tried it but failed after the fall of soviets. My parents/grandparents are from socialist bulgaria and circassia. I never visited it but I sure know how life was like 30 years ago in soviets.
TheBlindPowerslave 1 year ago
@NavidZady You're completely duped.
AmazGraz 1 year ago
@AmazGraz
I'm not so suprirsed of a 3 word reply.
Maybe I'm not the one that is so "duped" after all. Tell me. What has this system done for you and the people you know? Did you know 30%+ Americans and 50%+ of minorities drop out of high school? The fact that minority person is more likely to go to jail than get a 4 year degree college education or that USA is currently in 2+ wars that costs each marine $1million/year to keep them there? Who is really the one that is "complete duped"?
NavidZady 1 year ago
@NavidZady You are completely duped. Govn't run public schools have failed our children. Govn't run programs have failed minorities. Govn't starts wars and govn't fights wars. You need to dig a little deeper and see where the problems really start. Don't believe what govn't and the media are telling you. They're lying to you. Do some investigation on your own as to why we have poverty and inflation. Why our healthcare costs so much. You'll see govn't is the problem not the solution.
mikebri527 1 year ago
@NavidZady Three words were entirely sufficient. Why enter into an argument with you?? But since you replied..... What can I derive from this? YOU WANT IT. AND YOU WANT IT NOW! That's the way it works isn't it? I mean granted, it has taken a while, but now these 'oppressed' people are coming into their own. They are beginning to become educated.
AmazGraz 1 year ago
@NavidZady And thanks to strong arming by the government they are finding their way into good positions. And therefore the communities should change for the better. But it will not happen as long as they still have a chip on their shoulder. And Marxism will not make it happen either. Only the gutterally stupid could believe that. You must be blond.
AmazGraz 1 year ago
@NavidZady And my point still stands. What you describe is not socialism it is capitalism. Every men are equal so they all get the same amount of money and social security. I'm sorry but the man who works more gets more money is capitalism because in socialism no man is forced to work more than the other.
TheBlindPowerslave 1 year ago
@TheBlindPowerslave Part1 The term means simply that each worker in a socialist society receives wages and benefits according to the quantity and value of the labor that he or she contributed. This translates into workers of high productivity receiving more wages and benefits than workers of average productivity, and substantially more than workers of low productivity.
NavidZady 1 year ago
@TheBlindPowerslave Part2 n extension of this principle could also be made so that the more difficult one's job is - whether this difficulty is derived from greater training requirements, job intensity, safety hazards, etc. - the more one is rewarded for the labor contributed. The purpose of the principle, as Trotsky would later state,[2] is to promote productivity. This is done by creating incentives to work harder, longer, and more productively.
NavidZady 1 year ago
@TheBlindPowerslave Part3 The principle is ultimately a stowaway from capitalism that, according to Marx, will vanish as work becomes more automated and enjoyable, and goods become available in abundance.
NavidZady 1 year ago
Part4 The principle has its roots in the way that capitalism manages its affairs. That is, each is rewarded according to how much he produces. Remuneration increases as the amount of labor contributed increases. However within capitalism, the means of production are owned by a small minority who does not produce, but rather lives off the labor of others. Socialism is said to remedy this by putting the means of production in common hands and rewarding individuals according to their contributions.
NavidZady 1 year ago
@NavidZady You fail to understand the animal we call the human being. It is an animal that thrives on a risk reward system. Do you really think olympic athletes train all those years to be equal to everybody else and not rewarded for their efforts? Why do we have races and competitive events? We do it because we're a competitive people by nature. Socialism tries to remove that and that's why it fails. It goes against the very nature of what we are as a people.
mikebri527 1 year ago
@mikebri527 Jesus, that's scary. You must be one of those dogmatic Human nature=Capitalism=Freedom people.
Capitalism fails to benefit the 2 billion people who still live in huge poverty for the last 200 years, even if that's not what it says in the mainstream economic textbooks.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikebri527 Jesus, that's scary. You must be one of those dogmatic Human nature=Capitalism=Freedom people.
Capitalism fails to benefit the 2 billion people who still live in huge poverty for the last 200 years, even if that's not what it says in the mainstream economic textbooks.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 No it's people like you who are scary thinking that govn't is going to save them. It's govn't that oppresses it's people. Look at Haiti compared to the US. Haiti is in poverty because of govn't. Also, mainstream economics textbooks teaches Keynesian economics that says govn't has to act and play role in the economy. Most countries practice Keynesian economics and that's why they're (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain and now the US) going broke because of govn't.
mikebri527 1 year ago
@TheBlindPowerslave You are correct. Our friend NZady here doesn't understand what socialism really is so how can he defend it? The bad rap that the free market economy takes is not it's fault but the fault of people who don't help their fellow man thru charity (the way it should be). Instead we rely on govn't (the worst possible entity to do that) to be charity and we all know it doesn't work.
mikebri527 1 year ago
no just no
qerrtre 1 year ago
no just no
qerrtre 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most people posting here and other similar clips haven't got the slightest idea of the nature of political definitions. They use words like: "socialist" or "communist", not really knowing what they mean.
Idiots think that by saying someone is something that becomes true, just because they would like it to be true to justify their views. I am afraid they only show their ignorance.
Obama is just one more product of the elites that perpetuate themselves in power, Con. or Dem. same beast diff face.
AxleMunshine001 1 year ago
Frankly calling Obama a Marxist is an insult to Marxism. People who say that he's a Marxist have absolutely no idea what Marxism is (as seen by Glenn Beck), and would do well to at least read the bloody Wikipedia page on Marxism before you go pointing fingers.
Anyone who says, "He believes in redistribution of wealth, therefore he's a Marxist", does not deserve to be making comments on someone's ideology, and does not deserve to be hosting a political news show.
Learn.
theycallhim 1 year ago
@theycallhim
All of your arguments could be made in reverse. It can be said calling Obama a Capitalist is insulting to Capitalists, that anyone who makes that claim has no idea what Capitalism is, and finally, anyone who says, "He believes in redistribution of wealth, therefore he's a Capitalist", does not deserve to be making comments on someone's ideology.
sgtkpf 1 year ago
I'm not a communist,but people put communism in their black agenda,and make everything for money,even kill or let people die of starvation,that's pretty hypocritical when people say communism is the cancer of the world,and don't realize that their own savage ans selfish capitalism is causing big problems in a world scale.
shadow0106 1 year ago
I agree with lots of points in the marxist ideology,but i don't like the interpretations of Marx's works that USSR and others so said "communist" countries made,they used Marx's ideals in a distorted way to cover their desire to power,to alienate people,letting them thing they were equal,the only one that i really like from the bolshevik party was Leon Trotsky,that tried to stop Stalin's madness,since trotsky was killed,USSR went to drain with their false communism.
shadow0106 1 year ago
Wal, see, ya got yer bbq pit. On th' lef' side is whar th' hot fire is. On th' right side is whar yer sausage an' possum an' pawk ribs an' brisket is smokin'. Once th' smoked stuff is done, yo' to'que th' fire back up real hot an' grill yer steak real fast.
loonmaniac 1 year ago
obama, NOT a communist
canyonerodriver 1 year ago
Obama is not a Marxist. Jeesh.
MrMonkeyInk 1 year ago