The Interests of Capital and Wage-Labour by Karl Marx

[Armando1735]

Marx vive em suas idéias revolucionárias.

[primetimebeatz]

Burn In Hell Carl Marx!!!!!!

[mightybaboonking]

@primetimebeatz at least spell his name right you muppet

[primetimebeatz]

@mightybaboonking lol your right but that doesnt make me a muppet you chia pet

[eoghan93]

@primetimebeatz  it's karl :P its even in the title.

[vkvladman]

@primetimebeatz his communism idea was not great sure... but his criticism of capitalism is spot on so post that on a communism video :P

[cris750]

The reality because of current technology: The State - The Corporation - The citizen(workers). When all 3 spheres are responsible and just no need of Hegel's observation of social conflict.

[Rico8458]

pay me for my labor in pure .9999 gold coins not worthless paper dollars.

[Questfortruth86]

The main objection raised against monopolies since the 20's has been that they're "unfair" competitors, that is, that they lower the price too much. FDR during the depression sought to "stabilize" the price of oil through forced unitization schemes (government monopolies), and severe inter-state regulations (wanted to increase prices). The businessmen, who don't want to compete, are more than happy to oblige. The businessmen get government protection, and the politicians get campaign $.

[oraci]

"The main objection raised against monopolies since the 20's has been that they're "unfair" competitors, that is, that they lower the price too much"

there are tow states of a monopolist company:

-defending the monopoly: low prices (sometimes lower then the costs), supply chain conditioning, etc (see Std. oil).

-enjoying the monopoly: max QP prices (if politicaly possible), supply chain enslavement.

what you described so far was the first state.

[Questfortruth86]

Marx didn't understand the codependency of the factors of production. Increased capital necessarily means an increase in labor. The pie increases, it's not stuck in a static condition. As a matter of fact, labor gets 70% of aggregate income, while capital gets 30%; though it's true that there are far fewer capitalists, they are the ones taking the risk. Their risk leads to innovation and progression, benefiting everyone. The poorest people today are richer than the richest of 100 yrs ago.

[oraci]

increase in capital doesn't mean inclease in variable capital (labor).

It seams that you don't even know that labor is only a kind of capital (the variable one) and yet you say that "Marx didn't understand"

read Marx first, then criticise him.

[Questfortruth86]

Yes, in the Marxian world, labor is just one type of capital called 'variable capital,' while actual capital is considered 'fixed capital.' I understand his position; you don't understand mine.

[oraci]

"I understand his position; you don't understand mine. "

I know very well what you are trying to say. But:

When exchanging varible capital (VC) for fixed capital (FC) (workforce by machinery) one rule has to be fallowed:

the cost of the FC should be lower than that of the VC it substitutes. So the VC that build the machinery is lower than the VC the machinery substitutes. Consequently the typical increase in FC creates a decrease in VC on the economy.

[Questfortruth86]

At first, but then there's an opposing force which increases 'VC' relative to 'FC.' To use your terminology, production is a function of both VC and FC, or Y=f(VC,FC). As capital increases, the marginal product of capital decreases (since increasing capital, in the hands of a fixed labor supply has diminishing returns), while Q increases. If Q is increasing, and the MPK is decreasing, the marginal product of labor increases, thus increasing labor demand. Increased capital increases wages.

[oraci]

you forgot to define Q.

the marginal product of labor can only increase if there is demand to absorb production. And in times of increased unemployment (decreased VC) demand doesn't increase. The MPL will only be alowed to increase when wages decreased tremendously or money is injected in the economy. thus we have ciclic crysis.

[Questfortruth86]

We have to be clear about what kind of market we're talking about. Generally speaking, you're right if we're talking about 'perfect competition,' but in the far more prominent markets, namely monopolistic and oligipolistic competition, labor and K is demanded in order to increase output and take additional market share. The former has a steeper sloping marginal revenue curve, while the latter may have a downward sloping long-run average total cost curve implying economies of scale ad infinitum.

[oraci]

economies of scale are great (hell even Industrial automatization) but the problem is the how much steeper is the slope of demand. Even economies of scale decrease demand. The simple fact is that capital is concentrating to rapidly and generaly only with money injection we can compensate for that. Anyway for a moment I thought we were negating the cyclic nature of economical activity. I glad I was wrong.

[Questfortruth86]

Yes, when the rate of interest is arbitrarily set below its equilibrium position, there will be excess capital accumulation and increased investment activity. But this only increased employment and nominal wages, as we've seen the past 2 decades. The problem is that this condition, namely a bubble economy, requires additional and perpetual inflation. Once the inflation stops, the boom comes to an end. This clearly contradicts Marx, as booms have increased investment and employment simultaneously

[oraci]

This doesn't contradict Marx because it is not Capitalism so Marx's analyses of capitalism ends here, were money tweaking begins. Money tweaking is a planned measure generally done by a democratic hand (some would say this is the definition of socialism, namely the submission of the economy to democracy).

[CajunCommie]

Socialism is when the working class as a whole democratically controls the productive forces of society, including wages, hours, conditions, and distribution.

[oraci]

Ask Ron Paul

[oraci]

Relatively to your statement that inflation is not a cure but only a chronic drug. I agree but politically without the drug it would be worse for capitalism. Thats why European right wing politicians are less economical libertarians.

[Questfortruth86]

It's not worse for Lichtenstein, Singapore, Taiwan, ect, ect. Also, I don't know what you mean when you say "European right wing politicians." Who are these so-called European right wingers?

Interesting tactic though; Marx's critique only applies to actual free-market capitalism, instead of economics in general. Unfortunately, true free market capitalism has never existed, so I guess Marx's so-called critique never applies?

[oraci]

"It's not worse for Lichtenstein, Singapore, Taiwan, ect, ect. Also, I don't know what you mean when you say "European right wing politicians." Who are these so-called European right wingers?"

Yes thats true. What is different is the ability of the people to put-up with economical decline. Some people accept it better than others. In America a economical crysis has almost no implications on the faith people have in capitalism. That is not true for us europeans. We are a bit more faithless!

[oraci]

"I'm from Europe (former Yugoslavia), and most of the people I talk to understand how destructive communism is, and how markets are vital. Yugoslavians understand the nature of inflation and bureaucracy. "

as Rumsfeld said thats the "New Europe"

[oraci]

If you have a unfree market, capitalism will continue to sell his products at a price higher than the sum of AC+VC costs. So politicly speaking we still have 2 social classes.

[oraci]

ops, a mean FC+VC costs

[Questfortruth86]

I'm from Europe (former Yugoslavia), and most of the people I talk to understand how destructive communism is, and markets are vital. Yugoslavians understand the nature of inflation and bureaucracy.

In capitalism there will be supernormal profits, but that's just because the people value those products more than the money they exchange for them. In fact, capitalism assures massive product differentiation and prices way below what consumers are willing to pay, or what's called consumer surplus

[CajunCommie]

That doesn't really follow, unless you like to create some sort of idealized form of economic relations. "free-market capitalism" was the fact of Marx's day, and it passed into monopoly capitalism shortly after his death, what we know as modern imperialism (like what the US is doing in Iraq). There is little to no real free market capitalism anymore, correct, but it did exist at one point. Marx's ideas have only be affirmed as capitalism evolved.

[Questfortruth86]

""free-market capitalism" was the fact of Marx's day,"

Right, with central banks centrally planning monetary systems, in turn, centrally planning the price of every commodity, capital good, service, and wage rate in the economy. The Mercantilist mentality dominated (dominates this day), with heavy regulations and protectionism. How is this free-market capitalism?

Free markets prevent monopolies; in fact, the real definition of monopoly is a firm granted special rights from the government.

[oraci]

"The Mercantilist mentality dominated (dominates this day), with heavy regulations and protectionism"

in the 19'th century? where? there was no central price fixing; the market was global (Imperialwise); there was child labor;

there was no minimal wage; no health care system; no unemployment benefits; no employment laws; no strike protection; no consurmer protection laws...

do you think you got the right century??

[Questfortruth86]

The Corn Laws severely regulated international trade through dramatic tariffs and import quotas. The early to middle part of the 19th century was plagued with wars and revolutions which promoted governments to throw out the gold standard and run heavy deficits, which were financed by central banks causing enormous inflation. Inflation, along with the heavy trade regulations lead to perpetual rise in the price of commodities, destroying profitability and real wages.

[oraci]

"The Corn Laws severely regulated international trade through dramatic tariffs and import quotas"

international trade not national trade. So inside countries there was free-trade.

free market can exist in a country regardles of its relations with neirbouring countries.

[Questfortruth86]

Stop with the equivocation please. You said the 19th century was the epitome of market liberalism. There was no free trade, monetary systems were centrally planned, there were massive regulations (especially of the banking system--See "Peel's act"), and kings constantly debasing the coinage. It wasn't communism, but it was nowhere near free market capitalism.

This is what Marx does as well, if it's not communism, it's "free-market capitalism." Create false dichotomies.

[oraci]

"This is what Marx does as well, if it's not communism, it's "free-market capitalism." Create false dichotomies"

false dichotomies is communism vs free-market.

show me a wrighting where Marx states this dichotomy.

[oraci]

"There was no free trade"

there was free trade (something that existed for milenia)

"monetary systems were centrally planned"

by means of the gold standard (inside the rules of the market)

"there were massive regulations"

...about labor rights, unions, consumer rights, polution, human rights, antitrust...

give me a break!

[oraci]

" The early to middle part of the 19th century was plagued with wars and revolutions"

In war all countries have somewhat planed economies because that is the only way they can survive.

But that is not a good way to judge the economy of the 19th century. try the 1830-1890 period instead.

Example: 1833 the bank of USA ceases to exist... 1839 a creadit bubble burst.

[Questfortruth86]

The Children worked because they wanted to increase their family income. There has always been child labor, and always will be in developing nations (which was every nation in the 19th century). African nations tried to ban child labor, the result? Children turned to prostitution.

You're presupposing the validity of your premises in your conclusion. Welfare programs hurt those they're supposed to help. The minimum wage causes unemployment for young people and minorities.

[oraci]

African nations tried to ban child labor, the result? Children turned to prostitution"

so children to avoid breaking the law by working, decide to break the law by prostitution.

it seems to me that child prostituition existed for other reason... because there was a market for it.

[oraci]

Welfare programs hurt those they're supposed to help. The minimum wage causes unemployment for young people and minorities.""

actualy I am against the welfare state.

the welfare state is a social democrat patch to capitalism. It does what is intended to: mitigate sufering, but hides the need for a proper solution.

[Questfortruth86]

"It does what is intended to: mitigate sufering, but hides the need for a proper solution."

You don't have a "proper solution." Communism is not an economic system, it merely destroys the economic system and replaces it with nothing. It reverses the division of labor and capital. It's why Lenin's USSR had massive famine, and systemic collapse. It's why people fled Moscow and began hunting wild game in the woods in order to survive. It's why Lenin ultimately allowed farmers to own land.

[oraci]

" Lenin's USSR (...)"

was not communist.

"It's why Lenin ultimately allowed farmers to own land."

if farmers own land they are workers

if farmers don't own land, how owns it is a capitalist.

given that I defend that farmer should have control of productive land (for instance: by owning it!) I don't see what is your point.

[Questfortruth86]

No Firm has ever obtained 100% market share through the free market. My use of the Term monopoly is the mainstream definition--that is, every firm. The only 100% monopolies which have ever existed were created by the State.

[oraci]

"No Firm has ever obtained 100% market share through the free market."

actualy Std Oil obtained 100% of the Market.

[oraci]

By the way I am not against free market.

I am against capitalism (which you mistake with free-market).

So even if you proved that free market doesn't naturaly create monopolies (you didn't!), you would still acomplish nothing. because that says nothing about Capitalism.

[Questfortruth86]

"I am not against free market."

"I am against capitalism."

[oraci]

"When, in the extremely rare case (...)"

rare because of law not free market.

in the 19th century (there was no law) every major industry was leaning or subjulgated by a monopoly in the USA.

[Questfortruth86]

The industrial revolution was the result of incredibly horrid conditions (massive population booms and famine simultaneously). The people in pre-capitalistic Europe had a choice: stay and die on a farm, or go work in a factory. They chose to work in factories, they weren''t forced. If you want to look at a nation not industrialized at that point, look at Ireland; millions dead of starvation. Since the industrial revolution, capitalism has drastically improved the lots of everyday citizens.

[oraci]

" millions dead of starvation. Since the industrial revolution, capitalism has drastically improved the lots of everyday citizens. "

do not mistake industrialization with capitalism.

the Ireland famine was the resolt of Natural causes (blight) + Capitalist concentration of land.

[Questfortruth86]

The blight hit most of central Europe as well, but it didn't lead to massive famine; take a guess why? Ireland was the slowest and last to industrialize (that's just a fact--not debatable).

[oraci]

"The blight hit most of central Europe as well, but it didn't lead to massive famine; take a guess why? Ireland was the slowest and last to industrialize (that's just a fact--not debatable)."

And what did I said?

it was the last industrialized but it wasn't by far the less capitalistic country.

There were almost no land owning farmers.

You should read my words carefuly.

[Questfortruth86]

"it was the last industrialized but it wasn't by far the less capitalistic country."

Why are you wasting my time?

[Questfortruth86]

You throw out the word monopoly as if it was some kind of argument. If you want to attack market made monopolies (all 5), then explain why they yield negative effects. Simply calling them "monopoly" (as defined today) doesn't get you anywhere. There are monopolies which are inefficient, but they're granted by the state, through patent rights, ad hoc regulations, and nationalization. All of these monopolies produce the effects you ignorantly attach to market monopolies.

[oraci]

" then explain why they yield negative effects"

- subjulgation of intervenients: supply-wise and demand-wise.

- higher prices then by competition.

- hampering of innovation

it is not me who says that it is economist. but hey if you know better go tell them

[oraci]

"Why are you wasting my time?"

don't waste mine!

[Questfortruth86]

I'm going to explode your myths and give you facts; if you don't believe the facts, go look them up for yourself. Not going to waste my time.

[oraci]

"Right, with central banks centrally planning monetary systems"

...which was based on the gold standard.

"Free markets prevent monopolies"

no! free markets create monopolies.

if you have a company that dominates 80 percent of the market, that company will have competitive advantages to a company that has only 5 percent of the market share. so Market-share-wise you got and instable system.

[Questfortruth86]

The term monopoly was introduced by Adam Smith, and it meant a firm with government granted privilege. Free markets almost never create monopolies on their own, and when they do, it's because those companies were the most efficient. Standard oil, Carnegie steel, and Vanderbuilt lowered the price of their products by 90%, and sparked a major period of rapid growth and industrialization where real wages grew by 5% per year.

You're plagued by dogma and myths. You know nothing.

[oraci]

"Standard oil, Carnegie steel"

I thank you for proving my point.

the problem with monopolies is not how they become one (by free-market) but what they do once they are one.

[Questfortruth86]

Monopolies made by the free market do nothing when they become a monopoly. They lower price by 90%, and are the most efficient, until their competitors over take them. There is no example, whatsoever, of any market made monopoly jacking up prices after competitors leave the market (because the competitors, in the face of supernormal profits, merely re-enter).

I challenge you to give me one example. The only monopolies who engage in that kind of behavior are govnt made ones.

[oraci]

"do nothing when they become a monopoly. They lower price by 90%, and are the most efficient,"

which is completly irrelevant to what I have said:

-Free market creates monopolies.

-monopolies implement max (QP) prices.

"until their competitors over take them."

by definition if their competitors can overtake them (without legislative help) they are not monopolies.

[Questfortruth86]

You misunderstand me. Free markets don't create monopolies, governments create monopolies. When, in the extremely rare case (I can count on one hand) they do create a monopoly, it's because of efficiency, and it leads to maximum possible surplus.

"By definition if their competitors can overtake them, they are not monopolies."

Where the fuck do you get this from? Where is U.S.S? Monopolies disintegrate over time when they lose their edge. The competitive fringe over-takes them.

[oraci]

"Where the fuck do you get this from? Where is U.S.S? Monopolies disintegrate over time when they lose their edge. The competitive fringe over-takes them."

history shows that monopolies only have one type of end: the political one.

[CajunCommie]

That argument can only emerge by ignoring history and facts. The people who run the large monopolies are one and the same with the government, if not by being politicians themselves than by bankrolling pro-big business politicians. to expect them NOT to do this is to ignore what drives capitalists: the quest for ever-increasing profits.

[Questfortruth86]

I'm glad we agree.

[oraci]

"(because the competitors, in the face of supernormal profits, merely re-enter)"

If they do, they comit a fatal error because:

- those kind of profits belong only to the monopolistic state of the market.

- they will be competing with an adversary that has built in advantages (absortion of fixed costs, supply leverage, conections, better credit conditions and an almost endless supply of money)

As I have said: a positive-feedback system!

[Questfortruth86]

You don't know anything about monopoly theory so please stop. The only way the monopoly can suppress the competitive fringe is through a limit price strategy which requires extreme cost advantages. They could drive costs below MC, or near MC, and push out the fringe. But once they increase price, and obtain supernormal profits, the fringe will re-enter. Without cost advantages, the monopoly has to out-compete the fringe through differentiation, which is quite difficult to do.

[oraci]

"The only way the monopoly can suppress the competitive fringe (...)"

I already explained you what are the advantages of a monopoly.

And there is empirical evidence: what we see in markets is concentration and rarely fragmentation.

[CajunCommie]

Or they can muscle them out using their immense wealth to control politics, passing laws and regulations only large monopolies have the wealth to inact. They can also use the police more broadly to suppress civil rights movements, which have historically happeend and continue to happen.

[SamuelsStatement]

Im glad I subscibed to you.

[Questfortruth86]

So your objection is not aimed towards the market, or competition, but at those politicians, those segments of the government, which are corrupt. I agree. That's my objection as well. The only logical remedy then, is to make the government so small/weak that it cannot possibly provide any firm with any kind of advantage. The capitalists quest for ever-increasing profits (and, that must include the laborer's quest for ever higher wages) must never meet the politicians never-ending quest for power

[TheNationalistParty]

that's the conflict, the antagonism: the labourer fights for increased wages, the capitalist wants those wages reduced to increase profit.

If it were possible, the capitalist would have workers working for no wages at all, slavery? Imagine the profit margins then

[oraci]

"The term monopoly was introduced by Adam Smith, and it meant a firm with government granted privilege"

And knowing a word's history is important but that doesn't change the fact that today monopoly means: a market with only one provider. and that not only refers to government-grant monopolies but also with marker-driven ones.

[oraci]

"You're plagued by dogma and myths. You know nothing"

Well then I should cure myself of that terrible desease.

I know! I should talk with people that thinks diferent then me and avoid ad-hominem-attack my interlocutor.

[oraci]

"the real definition of monopoly (...)"

the real definition of monopoly is: a market with only one provider.

the market can be free (people trade their goods by marginal costs) yet the price is always the monopolist price (max QP)

[Questfortruth86]

Monopolies are not homogeneous, they could set prices at marginal costs, essentially acting like perfect competitors, or they could earn supernormal profits. This is why mainstream neo-classicals have such a hard time with monopoly and oligopoly theory. Furthermore, supernormal profit is the driving force of innovation and technology, which is a major determinant of growth (see Schumpeter).

[oraci]

"they could set prices at marginal costs, essentially acting like perfect competitors"

marginal cost for them is diferent then marginal cost for a competitive market.

"(...) Furthermore, supernormal profit is the driving force of innovation and technology, which is a major determinant of growth (see Schumpeter)."

I count profits outside RD investment (a cost by management standards). so super-profits = less RD investment.

[Questfortruth86]

No one cares about your own personal definition of supernormal profits. It is what it is.

Marginal costs are different from firm to firm, much less from industry to industry. The point is that if prices fall to marginal costs you completely maximize consumer surplus--you're charging the lowest possible price. Perfect competition is merely a posit used by neo-classical's in their perfect little general equilibrium models. So I don't even understand your point.

[oraci]

"No one cares about your own personal definition of supernormal profits."

other then all management theory.

but if you think RD cost are profits...

[oraci]

"The point is that if prices fall to marginal costs you completely maximize consumer surplus--you're charging the lowest possible price" what I refer as marginal cost driven prices is not necessarily what you are thinking. The monopolist price (max QP) is calculated by marginal cost analisys (isn't it?) and yet it is not the lowest price (minimum profit) monopolies can handle.

[Questfortruth86]

Yes, for standard monopoly theory profit maximization is a combination of PQ (downward sloping marginal revenue curves); but if price competition is fierce, the marginal revenue curve may become completely elastic (horizontal), which is why monopoly/oligopoly is so difficult for mainstream neo-classical's. They simply aren't monopolies.

[oraci]

Now you would do a better work defending your position if you stated that manopolistic companies in a free market still have to protect them selfs from a possible arising competitor, by mean of still doing some RD investment and increasing Q from the Max QP state.

that's true!

But that company will still have a competitive advantage (because of market share) then any new arrasing competitor.

so, as I said before, you got an positive feedback (instable) system.

[oraci]

"Interesting tactic though; Marx's critique only applies to actual free-market capitalism, instead of economics in general. Unfortunately, true free market capitalism has never existed, so I guess Marx's so-called critique never applies?"

(sorry I forgot to coment this one)

Marx theory was ment to be applied to economy (capitalism)

not to politics (money regulation, etc).

but if you have a "theory" of politics I will be glad to listen :-)

[Questfortruth86]

Marx doesn't lay out a system, he merely criticizes the current one. None of his premises were his own except for the exploitation theory of interest. His criticism of Say's Law was put forth by Malthus, the LTV was put forth by Smith, his theory of rent was put forth by Ricardo. Marx said that putting out a comprehensive systems would be "unscientific." This is why "real communism" can never truly be attempted--it doesn't exist. Lenin tried, he took over the means of production, it was a mess.

[oraci]

"Marx doesn't lay out a system, he merely criticizes the current one (...)"

Well puting it simple: Marx wanted a system were the (political created) title of property wasn't more important then the link between a man and his work.

a planed economy was not his ultimate end.

[tonyman1989]

Good video.

[littleleekeater]

Democratic consumption couldn't be allowed in the USSR by anyone who didn't want the USSR's demise for the simple reason that the USSR was under increasing military threat from a fanatical decision to destroy it at all costs: "Better dead than Red". They sold the wageslaves on going along. The democratic buying habits of the consumers could not guarantee the decision to dedicate a sufficient expenditure to the arms race. You "faithful" have murdered Jesus again by your vast ignorance Insh'Allah!

[abuabdellah80]

The theory of Marx's theory of acute Almighty God and the founder of an atheist who does not believe in the existence of God Almighty, it is against the corrupt theory of creation theory, which believes in the existence of the creator of the creatures living Vnasr of Islam and the death of heresy and atheism

[a0eoj]

Thanks for posting this video.

[davidlkendall]

I realize this is a lot of work. But this work is also essential. Please complete your public reading of Marx's "Capital". Thank you.

[Guevaristas]

If you set up your own business and become a capitalist, as stated, you are, unless already rich, indebted to a private bank, which is itself a business out to make a profit. How does this capitalist mitigate his risk? The workers he exploits, for a profit, allow him to make repayments to the parasite bank. He must produce a profit to generate back into his new business in order to remain competative on the industrial stage.

he coercces his workers/ the bank, as leech, coerces him

[Guevaristas]

you can work for a capitalist, & be exploited etc.

You can set up as a capitalist eg. get a bank loan and enter into a kind of debt-bondage. Here, the privatized bank with make a profit from you, ie. from the loan it advanced.

Either way, someone will be exploited, essentially, used for exploitative purposes.

Should others use money they have not worked for, or food etc? Yes, those who are unable, through no fault of their own to work, the ill, disabled, sick, dying, thats who!

[darkapitude]

But this was not the fault of socialism, it was the lack of democracy in the soviet union because a democratic society can decide wich consumption goods and services should be produced.

If people could choose A: More tanks for the governement or B: More and better consumption gods

i think 90% would choose B.

The result will be that money is real money because you can buy products with it, so the economy works because the people will work without coercive force.

[darkapitude]

But this was not the fault of socialism, it was the lack of democracy in the soviet union because a democratic society can decide wich consumption goods and services should be produced.

If people could choose A: More tanks for the governement or B: More and better consumption gods

i think 90% would choose B.

The result will be that money is real money because you can buy products with it, so the economy works because the people will work without coercive force.

[darkapitude]

But this was not the fault of socialism, it was the lack of democracy in the soviet union because a democratic society can decide wich consumption goods and services should be produced.

If people could choose beteen A: More tanks for the governement or B: More and better consumption gods

i think 90% would choose B.

The result will be that money is real money because you can buy products with it, so the economy works and the people will work without coercive force.

[darkapitude]

In the end Gorbatschow made the sovietunion democratic and stopped the coercive forces but the result was that the soviet economy crashed down.

[ronwandell]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You can't create a Marxist economy without emigration away from it by the same people it is trying to help. This is way you need barb wire and guard towers, to shoot the workers as they try to escape the "workers paradise".

Anyone today that ponders Marxism seriously in the twenty first century is by definition a pseudo intellectual. The movement is responsible for the deaths of one hundred million in the twentieth century.

[darkapitude]

lenin, Stalin, Mao where no Socialists they have been Dictators and Tyrants like Hitler, Saddam and many others.

The Socialism as Marx wanted it to be is Democratic and Free with the right to vote and free speech.

By the way, some of Marx writings have been censored and banned in the Sovjetunion and Red China because they where an Danger to this Dictators who called themselfs communists.

Socialism without direct Democracy is impossible, beacause Democracy is included in the concept of social

[ronwandell]

51% of the population can not run YOUR life any better that a Dictator. 51% of the population is just another tyrant.

My question is; can you have a voluntary Marxist economy without coercive force? If so go start one. If it works better people will flock to it. In reality socialism can't work without enslaving the highly productive. And making them work against their will for others.

[darkapitude]

This is why every democratic nation has a Constitution to protect those who have an other opinion.

The Sovietunion or Red China had no Constitution or democracy to controll the governement, so if this Government ordered to kill 10.000 people the security police swarmed out to arrest and liquidate all persons from who they thought that they might be against the Government.

[darkapitude]

But such methods of terror are not only used by this regimes who called themselves communistic also the nazis or the indonesian dictator Suharto used this methods to destroy any opposition.

[darkapitude]

Also in the Capitalist Economy exists a force to get the People working even if they dont want.

If you are not willing to work you don't earn money and without money you can't buy the things you need to live.

In the Sovietunion people where coercive forced because they dont get real money, simply because the money was nothing worth.

They still got got money for their work but they could not buy anything from that money because the soviet economy prodcued nearly no consumption goods.

[darkapitude]

Would you work for money that is worthless because you cant buy anything with it ?

It think the answer is "NO !" so this is why the sovietunion forced their people to work because the workers had no interest in working without getting real hard money.

Instead of producing consumption goods most of the economic power was used to produce Weapons and strenghten the Millitary, in its livetime the sovietunion produced several million tanks, jets and more than 40.000 atom bombs.

[darkapitude]

In the end Gorbatschow made the sovietunion democratic and stopped the coercive forces but the result was that the soviet economy crashed down.

[rexdom1]

I believe that this is an interesting question, for Americans, in the present time. There is no peace in a house divided. Those living in a house of cards must beware of the winds of change. A stable structure requires a solid foundation, and if an economy is built on debt, how then shall it remain standing?

[ronwandell]

This is wrong, if you don't want to consume the product of others you don't need to produce for others. Capitalists do not force people to work but that is the easiest way to produce and get paid on Friday. You can always go into business for yourself and sell something directly to customers. You could join a commune. There are ways to make money without working for Capitalist.

But if you don't work you can't take other people's food. Does that seem fair?

[epiphany55]

You are correct in that there are ways to make money without working for a capitalist. Aside from self-employment, you could work in a co-op. That's assuming that there are jobs available in that sector.

Unfortunately, because of the domination of monopoly capital in the marketplace, co-ops have a mammoth struggle for market share.

It is still, however, of the utmost importance for consumers to vote more consciously with their purchasing power. You are empowering people with your "vote".

[uglyslacker]

marx is my homeboy

[stewarthome]

Marx rocks! Keep it feisty!

[brendanmcooney]

groovy, thanks for posting this.I just posted some videos on marxist theory. check it out.