|
17 Apr 07 - 12:29 PM (#2027885) Subject: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Peace The Communist Manifesto argued that communism was the logical end result of history. Obviously it wasn't. However, I have not seen anything that talks about capitalism (in its many guises) and the logical end result of that. Marxism suggested that the world would come to a static point at which communism would fine tune itself and that would be that. Happy ever after. But capitalism: it looks to be that the logical end result of that is a totalitarian state. Anyone have ideas they want to kick into this? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 12:33 PM (#2027887) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Folk Form # 1 I think it was Geroge Orwell who said that Marxism wsa such a stupid idea only an intellectual could believe in it. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM (#2027957) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: bobad I am not familiar with the model of Communism as described in the Communist manifesto but would be curious to know how closely it was adhered to by any Communist government. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:37 PM (#2028122) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger It seems to me that Marx had a lot of good ideas that are still valid. He just failed to recognize the necessity of markets. Without markets there is no way to determine value or demand. I can recall when the Soviet Union used to have a "five year plan" to produce more grain, and while they were doing that, the country would run out of steel or something. In China, however, they still insist they are following the principals of Marxism, but are allowing markets to take care of some of the problems. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:44 PM (#2028133) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: bobad In China it's looking like the logical end result of totalitarianism is capitalism. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM (#2028135) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: autolycus From my study of maexism,i remember he said the change from capitalism couldn't happen until capitalism had completed its full development. ('Tho' the seeds of a new society would grow in the womb of the old.) That hasn't yet happened (China,India,developing world) tho' with shortages of rare materials factually inevitable,it's a matter of time. in some respects,perhaps capitalism is approaching its limits. It's certainly beginning to eat its young e.g. in many parts of the poorer world. perhaps marx was right except for the timing. Ivor |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM (#2028178) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Teribus Trouble is people always equate the two as being the opposite sides of the same coin - They are not, and never have been. Communism is first and last a political ideology, Capitalism is commercial and non-political. Totalitarianism is anathema to Capitalism as totalitarian regimes whether Fascist or Communist tend to rely heavily on central control of things. For capitalism to flourish it requires de-regulation to allow entrepreneurial flair to challenge the status quo. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:23 PM (#2028399) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: michaelr For communism to work, it is required that all participants want to be equal, and none want to be or have more than the others. Diametrically opposed to human nature, I'd say. Cheers, Michael |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:31 PM (#2028408) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Peace Then is the phenomena we are seeing with Neocons the start of something new? Centrally planned economy of the entire world? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:32 PM (#2028411) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos In addition, it comes apart hard on the rocks when it is enforced. Benevolence enforced is a fragile, synthetic, artifice that cannot survive and usually does not evolve into somethign that can. Socialsm cannot be made mandatory, because it constitutes a kind of social theft. What can be required is the minimum set of devices to provide a leve playing field and a basic level of decency for those in need of charity. My opinion is that some basic safety net of health care comes under this standard. A |
|
17 Apr 07 - 09:07 PM (#2028439) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: John on the Sunset Coast Marx, I daresay, would be quite surprised with Communism as praciticed since the 1920s. If I remember correctly, he predicted that Communism would take root, first, in highly industrialized economies; it actually took root in basically agrarian societies, Russia and China. Countries forcibly given Communist economies eventually returned to Capitalism or mixed Socialist economies. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 09:12 PM (#2028442) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Bobert There is no such thing as pure communism or capiatlism in this globalized economy... What Marx did figure out is that greedy folks will get inevitably their butts whupped up on... He was right about that... B~ |
|
17 Apr 07 - 09:16 PM (#2028445) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Little Hawk There is no logical end of history. The only thing you can expect in human history is ongoing change, and the only thing you can say for sure about social systems is that they all pass away in time and are replaced by something else. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 11:44 AM (#2028977) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: autolycus I don't think socia;lism/communism is about absolute equality,mote about 'From each according to his ability,to each according to his need.' And to say socialism amounts to social theft from the vantage point of our existing system is sorta breathtaking. So Capitalism never has,doesn't and never will involve social theft? (I think it's called 'projection') If the observation wasn't so painful,it would be very funny. Ivor |
|
18 Apr 07 - 12:23 PM (#2029011) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: GUEST,ifor Onr thing that terrifies the owners of wealth is the marxist view that every ruling class will eventually fall. The thought that their wealth,power and status will eventually be overturned makes many of our bosses fearful. And who have they identified as the potential agency of their overthrow....the working class ....in all its sprawling, uneven development. Hence all the efforts to subdue it through anti trade union laws,the use of the police and court judgements, the use of the media and education and the military in reserve should everything else going wrong. ifor |
|
18 Apr 07 - 12:53 PM (#2029036) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Ivor: Come on. There is plenty of social theft in current capitalist societies, but the basic principles of capital deployment and development and profit do not require any participant to spend any of their resources on anything they don't want to. The tax system in the US does, however, require it -- it was perhaps the first major drift toward socialism. The Marxist system requires complete donation to the "common good" and fails thereby. Pure socialism stands between these two extremes. Applying capitalist principles has the benefit of encouraging individual excellence for reward, an approach which appears to take human nature into account. The United States these days is more of a socialized republic than a democracy, and is also a major node in an international mega-archy -- domination by the huge. This also brings about social theft, indirectly. A |
|
19 Apr 07 - 01:56 AM (#2029690) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: autolycus Amos, Everybody (more or less) in the West pays for things they don't want because we do not have (and couldn't have) total control of where our money,purchases and tax go. Rewards are doled out fantastically unfairly - capitalism is not a fair system - very biblical tho' - 'to them that hath shall be given'. Capitalism also hinges on stealing from working people,who , for example,can make things they can't afford. It's because working people creat greater wealth than they are paiud,a crux of the system. Ivor |
|
19 Apr 07 - 01:57 AM (#2029691) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: autolycus And what 'human nature' is,is not unarguable or transparent. There are vast arguments raging around the term and have for some time. Ivor |
|
19 Apr 07 - 09:14 AM (#2029883) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger "Capitalism also hinges on stealing from working people,who , for example,can make things they can't afford. It's because working people creat greater wealth than they are paiud,a crux of the system." And it got a lot worse with the implementation of "Supply Side Economics." Now everything pays to capital. Somebody in control of huge gobs of amalgamated capital can make money doing almost anything. Hard work and ingenuity have very little value at all--almost none without capital behind it. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 10:19 AM (#2029951) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Peace Much of what we have today--unequal division of wealth/labour--results from the time of Newton and his establishment of the 'gold standard'. Much of the way it is today would not be possible without that having happened. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:03 AM (#2030012) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Ivor: It is a given that trade in general involvesgetting something for price "x" and selling it for a bit more than that. The machinist spends an hour turning out a lathed wangle. He is paid $20 salary plus whatever the proportionate amounts for health care, insurance, building maintenance, and retirement benefits. Call it $30. But his cost of living for that one hour is presumably only $25. Several other workers have produced at the same time a dangle, a mingle and a rotary morgle which are attached to the wangle to make a semi-automated dorkus system. On the same terms, we now have spent $120 plus raw materials -- call it another $30 -- to make this dorkus. $150. We add some shipping costs and incidentals and maybe we have a total cost of a delivered, perfect dorkus system of $170. It is perfectly reasonable to sell that dorkus system to the retailer for $350, and see him charge a street price of $400-500. If he can slap a premiere label on it, which commands a price for intangible benefit, maybe even $1000. This is the way the chain of self-interested and reasonable people work with each other. Each decision to buy and each price point is thought about, and is voluntary. Granted, this is over simplification of a very complex mesh. At what point in this chain do you see theft occurring? A |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:39 AM (#2030064) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger "At what point in this chain do you see theft occurring?" I don't know what system you're describing. It cerainly doesn't work that way in the US. What happens here is, Genius A developes a computer program that lets blind people speak into a mic that produces text on a page to e-mail to somebody. He takes his idea to Microsoft, who encourages Genius A to continue development and takes him to lunch, but they don't make him an offer. Then, after several months, when nothing develops with Microsoft, Genius A gets a bunch of his friends together, produces the product, and puts it on the market. The minute Genius A's product hits the streets, Microsoft announces--through all the media connections they have--that they will be coming out with a newer better product in 3 to 4 months, and that it will be compatible with Windows. Nobody buys Genius A's product, because they're all waiting for Microsoft to come out with their new and better product, with all the warranties and backing of the giant company. In 3 to 4 months, Genius A is broke, and Microsoft picks up his patents and equipment in a "distress sale" situation, and a few weeks after that, Microsoft comes out witht exact same product they picked up from Genius A, but with their own name on it. Microsoft makes a fortune to add to the billions they already have. Microsoft offers Genius A a job, but he gets a 9mm Glock and goes on a shooting rampage instead. It's called Reaganomics here, but where is the theft in this scenario? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:47 AM (#2030072) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Well, you can bundle all those moral flaws into the label "capitalism", but you obscure the issue by doing so. None of the basic systems discussed in economics -- capitalism, socialism, communism, monarchic dispensation, guilds, and so on -- include th emanagement of individual ethics in their protocols, and any of them can be soured and perverted by greed and ruthlessness. Greed and ruthlessness were ALSO what brought down the Communist experiment in the USSR, from one point of view. I would assert that the flaws you are describing are not in "capitalism" but "the nature of human aberration". A |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:23 PM (#2030107) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger "I would assert that the flaws you are describing are not in "capitalism" but "the nature of human aberration"." What I'm describing is Capitalism before Teddy Roosevelt and after Ronald Reagan. We used to have anit-trust laws, usary laws, truth in lending legislation, fair bankruptcy parameters, and checks in place to prevent controllers of capital from completely dominating the lives of individuals. Whoever was running Rondald Reagan did away with most of that and the puppeteers behind George w. Bush finished things off for them. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 03:04 AM (#2030767) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Teribus Riginslinger, a number of things wrong with your example of "theft" detailed in your post of 19 Apr 07 - 11:39 AM, based on the premise that Genius A developes a computer program that lets blind people speak into a mic that produces text on a page to e-mail to somebody. "He takes his idea to Microsoft, who encourages Genius A to continue development and takes him to lunch, but they don't make him an offer. Then, after several months, when nothing develops with Microsoft, Genius A gets a bunch of his friends together, produces the product, and puts it on the market." - Riginslinger If that is what Genius A does he's badly advised and not such a genius. He would first start his company, let fall a few leaks in the right quarters regarding what his product is, then "Microsoft" would come to him. Done the way you describe Genius A has got nothing to sell. "In 3 to 4 months, Genius A is broke, and Microsoft picks up his patents and equipment in a "distress sale" situation, and a few weeks after that, Microsoft comes out witht exact same product they picked up from Genius A, but with their own name on it. Microsoft makes a fortune to add to the billions they already have." On the premise that the idea is Genius A's, there is no reason whatsoever for Genius A to transfer intellectual ownership of that idea to the company he sets up, again he would be extremely ill-advised to do so. Therefore there would be nothing for "Microsoft" to buy when Genius A's company folds. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 10:23 AM (#2031078) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger Teribus--You might be right, but if Genius A is a software engineer, there is no reason to suspect he would be adept at marketing. Of course Microsoft has marketing people, engineers, accountants, and on and on. They have all of that because they have capital. One could write a similar scenario for Wal-Mart or any global company that depends on monopoly to sustain itself. Which is the larger point. What right-wing polititions laughingly call a "free market" economy is anything but a free market when it is closely examined. It was really much more open and free before "supply side" economics gave all of the advantages to capital. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 07:07 AM (#2031841) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Big Al Whittle I used to like the one that wore a little hat and played the piano. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 07:16 AM (#2031844) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Big Al Whittle Mind you, my favourite scene was that film, when they were all in a circus on a train and Harpo played Blue Moon on a harp. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 07:25 AM (#2031848) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Big Al Whittle Actually I once wrote a song about my experiences of being a Marxist. http://bigalwhittle.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/trish.mp3 |
|
21 Apr 07 - 10:39 AM (#2031946) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger That's really good, Al, I like it. Have you recovered from Marxism, or do you still find it to be an attraction? |
|
21 Apr 07 - 11:59 AM (#2032000) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Stringsinger Teribus says: "Communism is first and last a political ideology, Capitalism is commercial and non-political. Totalitarianism is anathema to Capitalism as totalitarian regimes whether Fascist or Communist tend to rely heavily on central control of things. For capitalism to flourish it requires de-regulation to allow entrepreneurial flair to challenge the status quo." Fascist governments such as in Italy under Moussalini (sp?) were capitalist in that the system was a corporatocracy. Even in Nazi Germany, Krupp industries and I.B. Farben dominated the market with their manufacturing of ovens. De-regulation in the US has become a means by which huge corporations control the market. Small businesses do not survive in this environment because they are not competitive to Walmarts etc. Certainly we see this in agribusiness with the demise of the family farm. The Chinese government at the present time is a Communist regime with a controlled capitalism which seems to be working for them. They own a large percentage of the debt of the US. Frank Hamilton |
|
22 Apr 07 - 12:20 AM (#2032392) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: robomatic The biggest mistake is to take any of the theories seriously. Marxists evolved a dense theoretical structure called "Dialectical Materialsim" which in my opinion resulted in stultifying the argument by making it impossible to develop a structure antithetical to itself. Much as Orwell argued in his BRILLIANT appendix / afterword to 1984. Communism as practised in the 20th century was a dictatorship that did much more than enslave whole peoples. It robbed them of their souls. A Cuban refugeee rather recently said it in a nutshell: "The political depradations in the Capitalist world are not that different than they are in the Communist world- But at least in the Capitalist world they do not make you applaud". The actual quote is more poetic: For me, I do not stop wondering at the fact that in the democratic countries, when a person is sentenced to die, he is not first forced to applaud and beg, screaming for such a sentence. What a privilege, for me, really incredible to put the head quietly in the guillotine, without having to improvise and oblige a speech praising the magnanimity of the cruel one, without before having to become your own cruel one. That denial of true self, forced upon the citizens inside the totalitarian communist society is the real Cuba. It is the total lack of freedom in all aspects of your exterior and true inner self. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 09:13 AM (#2032558) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger I guess the people in South American countries who are electing Marixist governments are simply trying to find something better than they have. In the case of Chile, they had a Marxist governemnt, the US had it overthrown and got a Ronald-Reagan-free-market fellow, and after having experienced that, they've gone back to Marxism. One can't help but think there must be something better. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 01:00 PM (#2032677) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: autolycus Amos - I'm sorry you cannot discern the 'theft' in your own example. Please study your own post carefully until you've got it. For Teribus to say capitalism is 'non-political' is breathtaking in its , sorry,his , blindness. Well,you can't make the horse drink (ANALOGY). That view is absolutely typical of the conservative mindset,that describes anything conservative as non-political,neutral,independant. That's simply a clear of example of the common conservative tendency to treat one's own experience as 'neutral','normal',obvious','the way it is', and anything else as 'political','deviant','wrong'. To some of us,Teribus,to call capitalism "non-political",well i'm nearly lost for words. Mindboggling,absurd,plain wrong. So what sort of economic system do Conservatives with a large C represent then? Ivor |
|
24 Apr 07 - 04:05 PM (#2034676) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger "So what sort of economic system do Conservatives with a large C represent then?" A system that puts all of the capital under their direct control. |
|
24 Apr 07 - 04:11 PM (#2034683) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Ivor: If a man agrees to work for $20.00 an hour, and does so, finds it pleasant enough, makes friends in the workplace, and so on, is paid according to his agreement, then where is it exactly that you think he is being stolen from. It should be obvious to you that ANY product is produced uphill, against the tide of entropy and error. So if all the value of that product in the final market is allocated back to each person according to his time, or his skill, or some such scheme, then the viability of the group is severely at risk. One unpredicted event and boom. I work for a man who founded a tech company on the sweat of his own invention and grew it carefully. He makes a lot more than I do. He has been taking the major risk of the company and the burden of organizing and keeping itproductive and on a postive course for twenty years. Yet you seem to think he is stealing from me because he gets a larger share of the salary total than I do. I think that's silly. My deal with him is one that he and I entered into voluntarily and we are both keeping the agreement. If I want to make more I can go elsewhere. Where a similar equation will obtain. A |
|
25 Apr 07 - 11:36 AM (#2035403) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: autolycus Amos, i appreciate your measured response. Your stance is quite reasonable in its own terms. It is those very assumptions that I'm questioning,as have greater minds than mine. You and Teribus are,I think,either unable or unwilling , to look at the assumptions you make. (Which puts you in the majority by miles).Thus you live within a world view that so 'makes sense',that you take it as a mere (set of)fact(s), a 'normality' that is 'self-evident'. Most people do this in various ways,for many reasons. the consequence is to live within an ideology. One manifestation of an ideology is precisely that the 'upholders' of it see it as no such thing, but as 'normality'. Insofar as they are in that attitude,the ideology has succeeded in its function of presenting AN idea of reality/the truth as THE idea of reality/the truth. And it's much more psychologically relaxing to be there than not there. Many life problems become sorted. And people can then get on with their shopping,loving,backstabbing,respectfulness etc. They just run into trouble the whole time with the Other because the assumptions people hold vary. So we keep banging into other assumptions. Which are wrong,wrong,wrong. Obviously. And that's why those within some ideology or other get so upset/angry/antagonistic towards those who make so bold as to question the fundamental assumptions. I don't suppose anyone needs examples freom any time , any place. I'll just mention philosophers and martyrs. That's also why people stick to those who share their assumptions,so as to minimise all that banging. Then they say,hilariously,things like,"Well nobody I know thinks ........(whatever)". Of cooouuuuurrrrse they don't,for the reason already given. Best wishes, Ivor |
|
25 Apr 07 - 12:09 PM (#2035435) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos IVor: I am all in favor of bringing out hidden assumptions, and disinfecting them in the sunlight. While your post proposes to say a lot about my (or our) assumptions and how binding it is to have uninspected assumptions, you have made no effort to state what assumptions you think I am making here. I don't know what criterion you use to measure the degree of correspondence between ideas and reality. My measure of it is in the results one produces by applying them, and the degree to which they predict events which when looked for can then be found to exist. That's why thermodynamic theory is better than phlogiston theory. Anyway, I'd appreciate your breezy diagnosis a bit mroe if you provided me with concrete or at least specific examples of assumptions you think I am making which you believe are flawed, and a statement of why they are flawed. Maybe I could learn something. A. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 02:45 PM (#2035599) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: autolycus Amos, It's probably thru my work as a therapist that I suspect we learn more from our own discoveries and realisations than anything others propose. I could be quite wrong. So I'm not optimitic about the possible effects of the following. Every part of your postings seem to take the rules of capitalism as normality,givens,not apparently themselves to be examined. You delineate clearly how the system operates without questioning any of it in terms of, what alternatives could there be, why has this system arisen to be the way it is, is it moral, whose interests does it serve, whose interests does it work against, how has ownership come about, is property theft(Proudhon), what is the basis of our system, what is the world-view of capitalism and what others are there? As I say,none of these (and many other) questions seem to hove into view in your accounts.,despite your saying you're all in favour of bringing forth hidden assumptions. For anyone really interested in probing,there's a library of stuff that does all this far better than me. They will already be on to it. Ivor |
|
25 Apr 07 - 04:44 PM (#2035738) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: John Hardly "Then is the phenomena we are seeing with Neocons the start of something new? Centrally planned economy of the entire world?" I think that the "Neocons" are just one manifestation of the growing realization of a global economy. I think that they are attempting, whether wisely or un (I think un) to see to it that the USA has SOME say in that inevitability. And the Neocons do not accept the notion that the USA is the impetus for all international unrest. The other side is just as "internationalist" -- they just see the USA as a bad influence on the world and think that with the oncoming globalization, the USA should shrink in influence and importance. They want a centrally planned economy too. They just believe that everyone except the USA is predisposed to peaceful coexistence. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 04:44 PM (#2035739) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: GUEST,albert Marxism is an annual conference that takes place in central London every year in early July .Thousands attend and there are seminars,talks and meetings on just about all the important issues of the day and about our history....everything from the ending of slavery to the spread of city slums across our planet,from the wars in the Middle East to the alternatives to New Labour....and yes there are meetings that discuss in detail some of the basic beliefs of Marxism such as the theory of Surplus Value and the role of the working class as the only potential gravedigger of Capitalism. There are also gigs,book launches,art exhibitions films and theatre. Last year the Sottish folk singersa Alistair Hulett and Jimmy Ross performed the songs of Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger.Excellent stuff! For more info go to Marxism 2007.The event is organised by the Socialist Workers Party. Albert |
|
25 Apr 07 - 04:57 PM (#2035751) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Auto: Thanks for your input. I see it not as an effort to contrast or share your viewpoint with mine, but more, perhaps, as an attempt to erode my own by suggesting all sorts of questions I should ask about things; yet you have no idea whether I have been through your litany of questions back when I was a sophomore. If you have specific propositions you think I have blindly taken on, or specific propositions you think I should consider, by all means lay them out. I do not need a Guide Bleu to navelgazing. The right to own a thing is a fundamental to human exchange. The alternative is that the colony of indiivuals owns all the things, and gets to re-allocate them according to its version of wisdom. The problem with this alternative is that it erodes self-improvement, and personal, individual responsibility, as a motivation. Absent that motivation, improvement of the group becomes problematic, especially when it is not voluntary. Responsibility is never generated by other than individual will and perception, and that is perhaps my deepest assumption. When groups are born of voluntary coordination of efforts, because the individuals subscribing to it believe in the benefits, it is a different matter, of course. A |
|
26 Apr 07 - 02:32 AM (#2036039) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Teribus "The right to own a thing is a fundamental to human exchange. The alternative is that the colony of indiivuals owns all the things, and gets to re-allocate them according to its version of wisdom. The problem with this alternative is that it erodes self-improvement, and personal, individual responsibility, as a motivation. Absent that motivation, improvement of the group becomes problematic, especially when it is not voluntary. Responsibility is never generated by other than individual will and perception, and that is perhaps my deepest assumption." - Amos. Well said Amos - no truer words ever spoken. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 03:02 AM (#2036053) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Teribus Ivor asks: "So what sort of economic system do Conservatives with a large C represent then?" If you look back over the course of history you will see that that has continually changed and it will continue to do so. Riginslinger offers up the example of Fascist regimes that relied on Capitalists under central control to refute what I said about centralised control being an anathema to the economic ideals of the capitalist system. What Riginslinger did not go on to mention was that both Fascist regimes in Italy and in Germany were completely and utterly destroyed by the USSR and the free Democracies of the West (primarily the USA and the UK). With the capitalist industrial might of the US actually supplying equipment to all Allied forces. So I will stand by my statement. It is the ability to adapt free from central government interference that allows the capitalist system to work for the general benefit of all. That has been the case since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM (#2036426) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger What Marx failed to realize was, you need markets to establish demand and value. What Frederick Hyek failed to understand is, if you turn free markets loose with no control from government, you have ever expanding markets, demanding ever expanding populations, which puts ever expanding demands on resources, until you have standing room only, no air left to breathe, water to drink, or food to eat. The earth turns into a cinder. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 08:44 PM (#2036726) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Teribus Not quite correct Riginslinger, things change, things change due to evolution, people will contiually want different things in different parts of the world at different times. That has always been the problem with Communism, purportedly being by the people, of the people and for the people it dictates all of the above and continually gets it wrong. That is why it ultimately failed, because it failed the people, it did not give them what they wanted and the people quite rightly rejected it. |
|
27 Apr 07 - 08:36 AM (#2037051) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger I think you can say that Communism has failed, in the sense that we know it, as having evolved into unyeilding dictatorships in Russia and Eastern Europe, but the principals of Marxism, I think are very much alive. In Latin America and China, for instance, where they have allowed Marxism to adapt to markets. In Chile, in particular, where they went through a "free market" experience with a Ronald Reagan kind of fellow, they have now come back to a more controlled system. Maybe the real problem with the concept of "free market" is, it's not free at all. What we are experiencing now is a monopolistic economy where the people with the most capital run things to their advantage. If you could get rid of the scare factors, like religion for instance, it would have a better chance, but it's still a slave to human greed. |
|
27 Apr 07 - 08:31 PM (#2037627) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: GUEST,petr theres this idea that capitalism is a free market with no government controls - etc.. except until you look at the Federal Reserve which controls the money supply and hence the interest rates. now Im not saying that its necessarily a bad Idea to control the money supply but no one seems to suggest - hey why dont we let the market itself set the money supply etc.. (of course we did and things didnt go too well) lets look at the idea of de-regulation.. Reagan deregulated the airline industry and what happened - airlines started going bust due to increased competition and cutthroat pricing.. (basically the same thing that happened in the 30s prior to govt regulating the industry leading to 30 years of stability) building codes are another form of regulation - 20years ago Vancouver codes were changed to fit the national system and all of a sudden we started having leaky condos (because the national codes werent as stringent as the westcoast codes - and guess what? it rains a lot in Vancouver, a lot of people bought condos and then found out they had to come up with another $30, or $50,000 to fix the building envelopes - since the walls were rotting.. OF course all the developers made a ton of dough and didnt have to pay anything as it was after all a case of buyer beware..but thats another story.. to take the example of govt involvement further-- the US govt built the interstate highway system. It has been an investment which greatly benefited the US economy.. We can drive from Vancouver BC to Seattle Washington in about 2hrs. However take a look at the centrally planned former Soviet Union - if one wanted to go drive from St. Petersburgh to Moscow (roughly the same distance) you cant. There is no equivalent to the US interstate highway.. (a story related to me by an expat Russian) |
|
27 Apr 07 - 08:48 PM (#2037632) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: GUEST,petr also take a look at the health care system, only recently US manufacturing industry is starting to come around to some kind of national health care system.. because theyre being undermined by the current inefficient and expensive US system. But its employer compensated (in part) and makes productions costs when competing with those that have a national healthcare system.. GM makes the same car in Detroit and Windsor across the border in Canada. In Windsor the production is something like a $1000 cheaper because of the national healthcare system. |
|
27 Apr 07 - 09:16 PM (#2037641) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Joe_F Marxists believed that the engine of revolution in the industrial age would be the industrial working class. That was clearly a mistake. The engine of revolution, for the past 400 years, has continued to be the bourgeoisie. It is decadent, all right, but the working class is even more so. The decadence of the bourgeoisie, at a guess, coincides with that of the human race. The reason for the mistake was sentimentality. Marxists, like Christians, think that suffering has to *mean* something. |
|
28 Apr 07 - 08:59 AM (#2037878) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger "The reason for the mistake was sentimentality. Marxists, like Christians, think that suffering has to *mean* something." I would submit that suffering means a whole lot more to Jews than it does to Christians. But putting that aside, when we started out with the failed concept of a "free market economy" under Ray-Gun, things went along in a pretty predictable manner--rich people getting richer and poor people getting poorer--until the Savings and Loan Crisis hit. When the Savings and Loan Crisis made the scene, in a free market common sense would tell you that we should have just let the Savings and Loans collapse, and then go on from there. But if we had done that, a whole lot of rich people would have lost their shirts, so the government rushed in and quaranteed all the S&L depostis, and we effectively proved that a "free market economy" is a good idea as long as it only screws poor people. |
|
28 Apr 07 - 08:53 PM (#2038367) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Joe_F Riginslinger: I was not talking about how much it meant, but about the need to think it means something. Christians believe that their faith is validated by martyrdom, beginning with that of its founder. Marxism, which hoped in many respects to emulate Christianity (socialism : capitalism :: Christianity : the Roman Empire) supposed that the Revolution would be generated by the suffering of the working class. (Note the symbolic importance of Spartacus's revolt in its propaganda: mass crucifixion for a mass movement.) ObSongs: Well before the S&L scandal, Tom Paxton wrote a charming song, "I Am Changing My Name to Chrysler", about the similar irony of the Chrysler bailout. But it is a far older observation that business people believe in the free market only for other people and will put up with it themselves only if they are forced to. There is a famous passage in Adam Smith in which he notes that it is impossible for persons in the same trade to gather even for convivial purposes without at least discussing a conspiracy against the public. He did also note, tho, that the market tends to have its way with such conspirators in the long run if the do not succeed in getting the police on their side. The S&L scam was pretty massive, and the people who participated in it were not all rich. I suspect (tho I have not looked it up) that they were numerous enough that their votes would have entered into the calculations of the politicians who came to their rescue. |
|
29 Apr 07 - 09:41 AM (#2038630) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger "The S&L scam was pretty massive, and the people who participated in it were not all rich. I suspect (tho I have not looked it up) that they were numerous enough that their votes would have entered into the calculations of the politicians who came to their rescue." I suspect their votes would have only been important in Republican primaries, and of course, Daddy had to bail out his son Neil--the one Bush brother who has caused the least amount of damage. The Chrysler bailout, I would argue, was more democratic. With the S&L's, the people who were facing forclosure experienced foreclosure. The winners were the depositors, who would have had to have possessed some capital. The Chrysler money was repaid, if I recall. But getting back to Marx et al, it certainly couldn't have been he, himself, who wished to immitate the opiate traders for the purposes of subverting the masses. But Marx, who was looking at the state of the industrial revolution in the middle of the 19th Century made miscalculations that finally proved unworkable by the end of the 20th Century--though much of what he observed can still be said to be valid. People like Frederick Heyak and Milton Freidman, on the other hand, were more wrong than Marx, and the fruits of their miscalculations are materializing within a few years of their conception. Whoever was running Ronald Reagan even stooped to promote a little Keynesian phliosophy with the implementaion of a massive peace time military buildup. Of course it only benefited the folks who lived where the military industries were, and the military industries themselves. |
|
29 Apr 07 - 09:58 AM (#2038649) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Dialectical materialism, the core of Marx;s philosophical underpinnings, is a really trashy substitute for respect for individual creativity, and a second-rate explanation of the evolution of ideas, in my opinion. It is not entirely unreal, but it is a poor hypothesis, and certainly nothing to build a state around. A |
|
29 Apr 07 - 12:04 PM (#2038738) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger Amos--I would agree that the promotion of individual creativity would probably be the best point to start, for the purpose of finding something on which to build a state. I'm looking for a place to start with that. I'm absolutely certain that it's not capitalism, though, at least in the sense that I've come to know it. |
|
29 Apr 07 - 12:58 PM (#2038769) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Frank: That's a puzzler, indeed. I wold hazard a guess that capitalism within a socially responsible framework of standards would be the thing. The problem with extreme capitalism, as with almost any other system, I suppose, is that it allows success to violate the framework of support which engendered it. A successfgul company is NOT brought about solely by an entrepreneur and a buckket of money. But they can reap the rewards of success even tot he point where it becoms detrimental to tthat framework. That's why social restraints such as the establishment of the SEC, or social security, can be postiive forces in society. The balance point is a framework within which the able can prosper and flourish, but not erode the environment that made it possible. My 2 bits, for what its worth. A |
|
29 Apr 07 - 02:30 PM (#2038824) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger Well, we see China working towards free markets and France about to possibly elect a Socialist leader, so maybe the right mix-and-match combination is out there somewhere. I suppose it's an ever ongoing process. |
|
29 Apr 07 - 02:48 PM (#2038835) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: robomatic It's all about power. The ones in charge seek to stay in charge. China has never had a system of regular elections, nor has it a small 'c' nor a large 'C' constitution. Development has occurred, but there are structural problems ahead if China seeks to take an enduring place on the world stage. Other 'Communist' leftovers are in similar or worse shape. Vietnam, the obscenity that is North Korea, the somewhat less but still vile governments of Burma, Albania, and the devolution of governments in the erstwhile Soviet States such as Turkmenistan and Russia itself. Fine record there, Communists! |
|
30 Apr 07 - 08:59 AM (#2039355) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger But all over Latin America we see newly "elected" Marxist governments. |
|
01 May 07 - 09:48 AM (#2040310) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: beardedbruce Venezuela takes operations from big oil companies By Brian Ellsworth 39 minutes ago PUERTO PIRITU, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela stripped the world's biggest oil companies of operational control over massive Orinoco Belt crude projects on Tuesday, a vital move in President Hugo Chavez's nationalization drive. The May Day takeover came exactly a year after Bolivian President Evo Morales, a leftist ally of Chavez, startled investors by ordering troops to seize his country's gas fields, accelerating Latin America's struggle to reclaim resources. "The importance of this is that we are taking back control of the Orinoco Belt which the president rightly calls the world's biggest crude reserve," said Marco Ojeda, an oil union leader before a planned rally to mark the transfer. The four projects are valued at more than $30 billion and can convert about 600,000 barrels per day (bpd) of heavy, tarry crude into valuable synthetic oil. U.S. companies ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Britain's BP, Norway's Statoil and France's Total agreed to obey a decree to transfer operational control on Tuesday, although the OPEC nation complained ConocoPhillips was somewhat resistant. In Puerto Piritu, near the facilities that refine Orinoco crude, workers prepared early on Tuesday to celebrate the takeovers, displaying Venezuelan red, blue and yellow flags and daubing a wall with Chavez's slogan: "Homeland, Socialism or Death." The anti-American leader was also in a festive mood before a rally marking what he called the end of an era of U.S.-prescribed policies that opened up the largest oil reserves in the hemisphere to foreign investment. "Open investment will never return," he said late on Monday to thousands of cheering workers dressed in the signature red of his self-styled leftist revolution at a rally for workers rights. "We are sealing up that open investment era and burying it deep down in the Orinoco oil reserve," he added. Buoyed by an oil price bonanza in the No. 5 crude exporter to the United States, Chavez is popular among the majority poor for spending freely on schools, clinics and food handouts. The man who calls Cuban leader Fidel Castro his mentor has vowed to take at least 60 percent of the projects, radicalizing his policies as he rules by decree and politicizes the army, state oil company and judiciary. He is also quickly nationalizing power utilities and the country's biggest telephone company. TOUGH TALKS In the oil projects, the companies have agreed to hand over operations but are still discussing continued shareholding and compensation in sometimes contentious negotiations before a deadline next month. Despite being the only targeted company that refused to sign an agreement last week over the nationalization, ConocoPhillips said it cooperated on Tuesday "to ensure a safe, orderly transfer of operations." "Agreements have not been reached with respect to ConocoPhillips' future participation in these projects or the compensation the company will receive," it added in a statement. Industry analysts fear Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA could ultimately run into production and safety problems when it loses the management and technology of the experienced majors. As he shrinks the private companies' role, Chavez has formed joint ventures with allies such as China, Belarus and Iran involving many state entities that are unfamiliar with developing such crude. Still, Chavez hailed Tuesday's takeovers as the South American nation reclaiming its sovereignty. "The wheel has turned full circle," he said. "Long live PDVSA, long live the workers of PDVSA." |
|
01 May 07 - 10:08 AM (#2040319) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos The question of competency raises its ugly head. Conoco Phillips may be fat and greedy, but they built a working system. It remains to be seen whether this new constellation of socialist dreamers can keep it running. A |
|
01 May 07 - 12:00 PM (#2040416) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: GUEST,albert socialist dreamers you say?? Wouldnt that be elected socialists...the mass of working people and peasants in South America are sick of the havoc caused by structural adjustment programmes,privatisation and the IMF. and of course the US has taken its eye of the ball...although it will come as no surprise if theY attempt to destabilise Venezuela and other countries in the region who are attempting to escape the yoke of the bosses. albert |
|
01 May 07 - 12:03 PM (#2040418) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Albert: You misunderstand me. I said, their competency remains to be demonstrated in the thoroughly practical business of organizing, technology, fiscal management and operations resulting in production and sales. If they turn out to be competent at those things, well and good. The ideology they stand for politically is no indication whether this will turn out to be so or not. A |
|
01 May 07 - 03:40 PM (#2040567) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: GUEST,petr fiscal management? like the Neocons? GWB created a larger debt than all past presidents put together. |
|
01 May 07 - 03:47 PM (#2040573) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger "GWB created a larger debt than all past presidents put together." The only other one that even comes close was Ronald Reagan. They have a lot in common. |
|
01 May 07 - 04:35 PM (#2040610) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Amos Well, Petr, I was referring to conserving income, re-investing in maintenance and service facilities, paying your staff, and other normal fiscally prudent actions which keep a large organization operating. The debt incurred by Bush and his gang of wildflowers was not Conoco's doing, directly, anyway, and had little to do with the successful management of this group of plants. A |
|
01 May 07 - 06:22 PM (#2040713) Subject: RE: BS: Marxist View of History--Part Deux From: Riginslinger But it had a lot to do with Haliburton, Brown and Root, and that whole Texas oil gang. |