Im glad I was never taught about this guy in high school

[Oregone]

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff. - Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto 1848

I think this guy just likes the sound of his own voice, ya know...

Im also glad electric vehicles will soon make the combustion engine obsolete. They run on magic, require no resources, and take no increased production to distribute to every corner of the world. Not only will they solve global warming, but probably stop oil driven resource wars too.

For a moment, I was sweating a bit. And I thought mankind would just have to slow down, but we can speed on ahead, scouring for resources, greenly and cleanly.

Carry on.

[dionysus]

1. what's on tap for an encore, a group Das Kapital reading?

[JackRiddler]

188. No, we're going to lock you up in a reeducation camp.

:eyes:

[Warpy]

2. I spent most of the year in seventh grade

carrying around a paperback copy of "The Communist Manifesto" with a particularly garish cover featuring both upraised fist and upraised rifle against a red hammer and sickle.

I loved the reaction it got more than I loved the contents. However, I did read "Capital" and found it nourishing if dense.

Four years later, I read my way through Rand and finished her off in a gale of silly giggles as I tried to imagine her hard bitten characters coping with real life, especially life that had limited opportunities and lots of children in it.

Given such a dismal choice, I'd much prefer a system designed by Marx to one designed by Rand. I do find both suffered from the same fatal flaw: any system devised by either was predicated on the perfectibility of humanity.

I find myself convinced that only a mixed system will ever manage to work.

[Oregone]

5. "a mixed system will ever manage to work"

While I would agree in terms of the context of creating an economy that can perpetually grow while spreading the least amount of pain, I do not think capitalism is necessary in this mix. Private investment can be handled in other ways without rewarding it with infinite ROI at the expense of the workers.

OTOH, I'm not so sure an economy with perpetual growth and increasing production will ever "work" with the environment. Marx did a great job analyzing the problems of capitalism and predicting much of the future, but if he were alive today, faced with the environmental problems and over population, I believe his proposed "solution" would be very different; it would also be far less palatable.

[Warpy]

59. However, that capitalism is the best way to raise the money necessary

to expand small industries into major ones, from Ford's early steam engine servicing experience into an automobile company. He sold shares of his company, shares of his vision of a future, and people who bought into it cashed in. While no one would argue that it wasn't a mixed blessing, it also provided livelihoods to auto workers and retirees who lived on stock income, alike. Plus, we all use the product, from his company or another, whether or not we approve of the changes it made.

What a mixed system does is rather like the New Deal. It scrapes off the tops of obscene fortunes and puts them to work at the bottom. Prosperity always flows upward, that's how the money pump works, and even plutocrats getting hit with confiscatory tax rates manage to get a bit richer, just ahead of inflation. Meanwhile, a strong socialist safety net protects the weak and old. Unfortunately, the New Deal didn't go far enough and too many programs didn't take inflation rates into account and died because no one qualified after a decade or two.

Mixed systems will work. Capitalism is responsive to market change and new technologies while socialism does all the work that needs to be done to blunt its harsher side.

Pure systems will never work until humanity itself is pure.

[Oregone]

69. And the problem here is....

"and people who bought into it cashed in."

Up until the last few years, people were still cashing in on some of those same shares. Infinite ROI is ludicrous. At some earlier point, those early investors should have been paid off so the company could have focused on spreading its profits to the skilled laborers making these machines. At such a point, those investors could have found the next great project to invest in, instead of sitting on the gravy train.


"Mixed systems will work"

Unless they sustain an increase in the rate of production, until the Earth is scoured & polluted and humans can no longer live on the globe. Im not just criticizing capitalism here on all its merits, but on its ability to create a sustainable existence for humans. Any economic system that fails to do this, no matter how friendly, will end in eventual doom. To ensure that humans survive, there needs to be a social, philosophical and economic revolution, along with a whole other way to evaluate "standard of living". Growing irrationally "greenly" just isn't going to cut it (capitalism or socialism aside).

[Warpy]

83. Obviously, some of the regulation that is most necessary

is regulation that protects workers from being robbed of the fruits of their labor, something that has been policy from the last 3 administrations. Huge increases in productivity have simply been pocketed at the top. Nothing has gone to labor that achieved them.

Clearly, you're arguing from the point of unregulated capitalism. Few people on this board would say that is a good idea and I'm certainly not one of them. Even badly regulated capitalism, which we have now, is a brutal system.

[Oregone]

88. Capitalism deprives workers of abilities to recieve fruits of their labor

If you want that to happen, we don't need regulation. We need to repeal capitalism.

"Clearly, you're arguing from the point of unregulated capitalism"

Not so much. Im looking at the abstract here. Im arguing against ANY economic system that causes perpetually increasing production (and consumption of earth's resources). Any system will pollute the world and make it inhabitable, and create economic pressures that cause resource wars. We can't live like this. We cannot endlessly grow and endlessly produce

[Warpy]

113. RTDP

and think very carefully about the word "regulation." Thank you.

[Confusious]

117. A system that fails to take into account human nature will fail faster.

Communism, Libertarianism, corporatism, republicanism, etcism.

Communism Failed in less then a century. Libertarianism failed in less then 2 decades in Chile.

Capitalism has been around since the dawn of man, getting hotter during the renaissance, and moving into today where it can destroy us.

Not saying a mixed system will save us, but it's worth a try. Better then what we got.

[Oregone]

140. A system failing may not be so bad...

If success is constant accelerated growth and resource consumption (paired with pollution), failure isn't the worst that can happen.

[Confusious]

148. It can be

I'm talking massive system failures, where people starve, violence happens.

The end of oil will be one of those failures.

[Oregone]

154. Yeah, I got you there, and I can't disagree

No one wants more pain. I just see nothing but pain as inevitable if humans cannot collectively put the brakes on growth. The end of oil will help them put those brakes down, but it will be ugly if its cold turkey with no real plan and draw-down. Instead of planning, some people want to pretend it will never happen. Others are attempting to carry on, growing endlessly, just using different fuel.

[Confusious]

165. growing endlessly, just using different fuel.

That's evolution and life.

[county worker]

10. The problem I have with ideology driven movements is that no one really knows what the outcome will

be. No matter what the outcome is, faith in the ideology becomes to most important thing. The true believers become bullies. This is equally true of the right, left and center.

[Oregone]

12. OTOH, a movement devoid of ideology can have no coherent outcome

You sometimes have to have a starting point and a road map to a destination. Yes, when you don't get there, sane people redraw the road map. Zealots do not.

The main problem is that zealots always seem to outnumber the sane.

[Confusious]

119. The zealots are usually leading.

Fact of human nature: We seem to collect around people who are full of confidence that they are right even if they could be completely wrong, and shun those who could be completely right, but know they could be wrong.

Story I read lately, which follows the saying:

Those who have knowledge are full of doubt, and those who have none are full of confidence.

[JackRiddler]

189. No. "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

[WeDidIt]

3. I read both "Communist Manifesto" and "Capital" in high school

I find both nearly as childish as Rand's works, though Rand wrote fiction.

BTW, the date you list is off by a century.

[Oregone]

8. Whoops on the typo. Fixed

Marx nearly as childish as Rand? Right...

[WeDidIt]

14. !00% correct.

Both envision struggles to achieve Utopian societies.

History has proved time and again, neither vision is achievable. Both visions have failed the test of history because neither vision can function in reality.

[Ardent15]

15. No, Marxism has "failed the test of history" ...

...because the ruling class is afraid of it.

[WeDidIt]

17. No, Marxism failed in numerous nations

It's a failed philosophy.

It doesn't work.

[dionysus]

19. no kidding. no wait, the USSR was teh awesome!!11!

while certainly not as bad as cold war propaganda portrayed it to be, i'll have to go ahead and pass on it.

[WeDidIt]

20. And yet, capitalism still survives

albeit a well regulated capitalism.

And as has been proved time and again, unrestrained capitalism as envisioned by Rand will always result in economic calamity. Hell, just moving towards the abomination envisioned by Rand results in economic calamity.

Still, capitalism is the best solution. Of the two, Capitalism survives while Marxism is the philosophy relegated to the dust bin of history.

[Ardent15]

22. Capitalism is a psychopathic system

[WeDidIt]

23. Capitalism works. Marxism FAILED

I'll stick with the winner, thankyouverymuch.

I am proudly a capitalist.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeDidIt]

25. Ah yes, when you run out of arguments, ad hominems

:eyes:

Capitalism created the best living standards in the world. Marxism left their people starving wiht no hope for a future.

Capitalism allows people to THRIVE. Marxism destroys people.

History has proved this time and again.

[Oregone]

55. "Capitalism created the best living standards in the world"

Which seems to be destroying the environment and future human viability. Sounds awesome.

[WeDidIt]

97. Human existence destroys the environment

We are animals that consume resources in a limited environment.

One thing is absolutely certain, Marxism does so at a faster rate than Capitalism (c.f. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and The People's Republic of China).

Want to stop the polluting of the environment? Remove homo sapiens entirely.

[Oregone]

101. "We are animals that consume resources in a limited environment"

Not all of us live unsustainable. Not all of us must. Societies and economies have told us we all should, capitalism included. We ought to be examine this, quickly.



"One thing is absolutely certain, Marxism does so at a faster rate than Capitalism"

For the millionth time, find a new selling point here.



"Want to stop the polluting of the environment? Remove homo sapiens entirely."

Capitalism is doing its best. Thats my point.

[Confusious]

120. It worked better then the czar

Don't know if that's saying much.

[inna]

147. " Marxism left their people starving wiht no hope for a future." - LOL, what an

utterly idiotic and ignorant thing to say, especially followed by: "History has proved this time and again."


"Marxism destroys people". Oy. :crazy:

[Oregone]

41. Capitalism is working to destroy the environment, in order to sustain production

We must be able to survive in whatever system, if we are also able to proclaim that it "works"

And please, mind you, do not forget its "working" is done with a socialistic crutch that provides an educated workforce, sound infrastructure, stable marketplaces and a safety net.

[WeDidIt]

43. MArxism did the same, only it rapoed the earth at a much faster rate

I point to the Caspian and Black Seas, as well as Chernobyl to provide the evidence of that statement.

[Oregone]

57. It may, yes, but thank you for admitting that capitalism does too

Im not here to debate the merits of Marxism, as Ive stated numerous times. In fact, your main defense of capitalism is how bad communism sucks. Well, Im sorry, but if they both suck, then fuck em.

And I also already *guessed* that if Marx was alive today, seeing the environmental fallout of this production, his solution would probably been much different than communism, and far less popular.

[Confusious]

123. Well, if you you're going to bash a sytem

It should behoove you to come up with a better one.

Lets dump capitalism! Is a great slogan, but what are you going to replace it with.

Not saying I like the current system, but an idea here and there would be nice so you don't sound like a ranting "communist" loon.

[Oregone]

138. You don't want to know

I used to think a mixed economy of public services, public enterprise and primarily private employee-owned industry (with lucrative but finite private investor rewards) would serve a society quite well.

But this fails to address the problem Im aiming at discussing here: perpetual production & innovation causing environmental ruin.

It will take some type of regression, in my opinion, to fix the current environmental problems we face. It will take a social and philosophical revolution, and global cooperative movement. In otherwords, it just wont happen.

No one wants to go "backwards" to a low-tech use society (not to be confused with low-tech). No one will cede economic advantages to level the playing field, and perhaps lower their "standards of living". People don't want to examine the definition of quality of life, and see how coherent it is with a sustainable and quality existence. Its not going to happen. We are on the capitalistic bandwagon to hell, and I see no real momentum against it.

With that said, it isn't beyond critique or discussion. Im not brilliant enough to come up with a new "utopia", much less a path to one. What I can recognize is the current unsustainable path that capitalism demands will kill the globe. Once you see this, it pales much in comparison.

[Confusious]

145. Like part of that

"I used to think a mixed economy of public services, public enterprise and primarily private employee-owned industry (with lucrative but finite private investor rewards) would serve a society quite well."

"But this fails to address the problem Im aiming at discussing here: perpetual production & innovation causing economic ruin."

We're always going to use stuff, we're always going to produce stuff. Innovation, I have no problem with if you're talking about the creation of new products.

But I think a requirement to reduce packaging and recycle would go a long way toward helping that. Requiring producers to buy recycled metals, paper, etc. before buying new. The garage dumps should be no more. Technology to filter the garbage should be developed.

We're always going to make an impact, there a 6 billion of us. Reducing that should be a goal.

Oh, as for lower standard of living. We already got that, it ain't going up for a while.

[Oregone]

152. Something to consider if you want to know where I am coming from...

We're always going to make an impact, there a 6 billion of us. Reducing that should be a goal.

Oh, as for lower standard of living. We already got that, it ain't going up for a while.

This is supposed to increase to 9 billion in no considerably amount of time....

But at 6 billion, only 10% of those (Europe/Canada/US) really have access to a potentially high standard of living, besides the elite of rising industrial nations. Of those, many of them live below the poverty line.

And still...look, just look at the level of pollution and consumption of earth's resources. Now, take a look at China's recent CO2 increases just to get on a path to raising their standard of living. To get to a point where you have a standard you must sustain with perpetual consumption, it takes an ass load just to build up a country....

Ok...considering that...what happens when more and more nations, due to globalization, start to establish a middle-class that increases demand on food resources and consumer products. What will happen to the globe when just half the world has the potential to reach this standard of living? Aren't we already at a tipping point?

While technology may be able to reduce the impact of perpetual consumption, especially green energy, we have to drastically increase so much as the world rises around us. Resources will become scarcer too, and peak "whatever" will be seen more often. An upward equalization of the standard of living globally would be absolutely devastating.

This is the problem I'm sitting here looking at. I'm not here to flog a dead dolphin about capitalism. I'm here in the abstract to talk about human concepts such as growth, obsolescence, innovation, perpetual production, etc. Much of this is rooted in the capitalistic mindset, but can exists otherwise. Regardless, its eventually going to chew us up and be done with us all.

Food for thought.

[Confusious]

161. Yes, I agree with you

and it's something I try not to think about. Well, to much anyway. I just have it the back of my mind when I buy something new or throw something away, or drive a car, or ride a bike.

Can I fix it? can I grow it? can I make it? can I recycle it?

Do I really have to toss it?

P.S. Capitalism does have some good points, a lot of bad points. I just don't want to throw everything out.

I.e. The chance to make a better life from hard work( not tens of millions or hundreds of millions, not billions, not trillions ), Innovation ( I don't think American companie have been doing much of that recently ), competition.

Ok, maybe it's just those things. There might be some more, but I can't think of them right now.

[Oregone]

168. In a time and place, it had many advantages

Who can say that in specific contexts, an unplanned economy has nothing of value to offer? That would be absurd.

With that said, employee-owned private enterprise with finite ROI investment opportunities would offer many of the same advantages, while also rewarding workers directly based on their company's performance (and companies would have incentive to self-regulate to protect the shareholders/workers long-term interests).

But all that talk is in the old context of considering that the environment is here forever, and land & resources are infinite. Now, I am just lost thinking about it all


"Can I fix it? can I grow it? can I make it? can I recycle it?"

Awesome. Yes...growing, fixing, recycling, etc, is definitely part of an overall philosophy we need to share globally to lower consumption levels. But individuals can't do it all alone.

Its a tough gambit. Even if you buy used, you take a product out of the market someone else would of wanted. Anyway you cut it, it increases production. Yes, you need to completely bypass purchase from a marketplace to lower consumption, and thats not easy to do. But Im also not a purist too.

[Confusious]

172. Just one thought there

Ok...considering that...what happens when more and more nations, due to globalization, start to establish a middle-class that increases demand on food resources and consumer products. What will happen to the globe when just half the world has the potential to reach this standard of living? Aren't we already at a tipping point?

I was reading about the industrialized countries are having problems because they aren't replacing population fast enough.

Most European countries have a birthrate below 2 per couple, and japan also, and the United States. If we can get wiggle room, that 9 billion might start coming down.

[Oregone]

179. I don't think we will hit that mark anyway

Between environmental problems and economic/political instability from hitting peak "whatever the resource of the day is" (oil, lithium, etc), growth projections could be way off.

But more of the existing people might become higher level consumers in the meantime.

[Oregone]

28. "capitalism still survives"

You don't say.

Rich people who run things want a system that helps them get richer?

Oh yeah...water is wet.

capitalism is the best solution

:rofl:

Look, as far as we can tell, capitalism cannot even stand without a socialistic crutch to prop up its failings. That is why the US, and a slew of other "capitalistic" countries are really mixed economies to varying degrees. Using reality to illustrate your case, I think you would be hard pressed to find examples that support your assertion. Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[Ardent15]

29. Yep. Also...

..."regulated capitalism" is a contradiction and an oxymoron.

[WeDidIt]

44. Bullshit

Why do you think Corporations desire deregulation?

We live in regulated capitalism. Deny it all you want, it is the reality of your existence.

[Oregone]

58. And why do you think that at many times, corporations get just that

Even the concept of regulation is as boomy and busty as economic activity in capitalism. And boy...it sure sucks when we are in a regulatory bust (due directly to conditions capitalism creates). But hey, if thats your dreamy version of the "best", you are living in your own paradise. The rest of us, birds and fish included, are dying to change it.

[WeDidIt]

42. Your socialistc crutches cannot exist without the capital to prop them up

Captialism provides for those socialistic crutches.

This is regulated capitalism as opposed to the Randian vision of unrestrained capitalism.

[Oregone]

49. Capitalism doesn't create capital. It distributes it to the rich

Wealth was created through the process of production long before capitalism. This system only determines that the profits be distributed to the great grand children of plantation and sweat-shop owners, sitting at home in luxury, rather than the workers providing the labor. If anything, capitalism robs the government of this capital, by allowing the rise of the super-rich who lobby the government for wasteful contracts and lenient taxation of their capital gains.

[William Z. Foster]

64. far to the right of Lincoln and FDR

Saying, as so many Democrats do today, that capital is the source of wealth is the basic underpinning for all right wing political thinking and is in opposition to all political thinking that can ion any way be called even mildly left wing. In fact, this is what differentiates the political right wing from the left wing. The right wing sees Capital as the source of wealth, the left sees the working people as the source of all wealth. Where someone stands on that fundamental issue dwarfs anything else they claim to believe or support that could be called "left."

Lincoln:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

The world is agreed that labor is the source from which human wants are mainly supplied. There is no dispute upon this point. From this point, however, men immediately diverge. Much disputation is maintained as to the best way of applying and controlling the labor element. By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital -- that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it. Having assumed this, they proceed to consider whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent; or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far they naturally conclude that all laborers are necessarily either hired laborers, or slaves. They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again that his condition is as bad as, or worse than that of a slave. This is the "mud-sill" theory.

But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no such relation between capital and labor, as assumed; and that there is no such thing as a freeman being fatally fixed for life, in the condition of a hired laborer, that both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them groundless. They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed -- that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior -- greatly the superior -- of capital.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fair.htm

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29502

FDR:

Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history. This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776 - an American way of life.

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy - from the eighteenth-century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm

[Ignis]

70. +1. Can you imagine a contemporary president making such speeches?

My jaw would hit the floor If I heard a SOTU address that openly discussed labor vs. capital.

[William Z. Foster]

73. bashing Marx

People are bashing Marx on this thread, although they clearly are not even familiar with the work. It is not really Marx they are bashing, it is the entire left.

We are to imagine that the only thing even an inch to the left from the current Democratic party would be some sort of imagined Stalinist horror show. This is a fear tactic to drive people to the right. Rather than defending their very right wing views, people here will attack the left, and they will use Marx as a way to scare people and disguise their own intentions. They don't even try to refute or counter anything Marx wrote - for the most part they are incapable of doing that - and instead will jump right to claiming that what happened in this or that country was caused by Marx. That is like saying that the "democracy" in Haiti was caused by Thomas Jefferson, so we should reject Jefferson as a deluded Utopian and reject democracy as a "failed philosophy."

[Ignis]

110. Ah, but "Democracy" is on the Good Words List.

While "Marxism" has "failed." :silly:

So there you have it: All nice and neat and tidy--and easily scored on a standardized exam. Those PoliSci courses should only take about a week to teach now!

I'll share one thing this thread has shown me: I am definitely willing to pay higher taxes to fund any improvement in public education.

[dionysus]

136. ah, so anyone not stupid enough to be a marxist is a right winger. i see.

[William Z. Foster]

182. not even close

How did you get that from what I posted?

[WeDidIt]

79. Lincoln was nice and sentimental

But it's a far more complicated system of relationships than Abraham envisioned.

FDR is much closer to the mark.

This is why regulation is necessary. The relationship between labor and capital must be regulated. An unregulated system results in laissez faire capitalism and that is as unhealthy a system as Marxism.

And in the United States today, that relationship is way under regulated. I would agree, more needs to be done to put labor on a stronger footing when compared to capital. This is why I support Card Check.

[Oregone]

85. You are missing the overall point anyway, and will continue to do so

Regulate away, all you wish, and this economic system will still drive humanity to its grave. Its time we find one that will not....past time. By going into attack/defend mode, you've avoided even addressing these basic concerns about perpetual increasing production scouring & polluting the earth

[WeDidIt]

87. Capitalism has done more to advance human society than any other economic system in human history.

And it will continue to do so long after I have passed this mortal coil.

[Oregone]

91. Thats just religion

Capitalism is spearheading global warming, and again, you are refusing to address this. Long after "green energy" is implemented, it will spearhead consumption & pollution to meet the demand, spreading lead, cadmium, mercury, and other toxic metals across the surface of the globe and into our waterways.

We cannot grow forever. Any system that demands it, capitalism or marxism, will eventually fail man. Thats my overall point. Enjoy your Tesla.

[WeDidIt]

100. HA!

Marxism contributed to global warming at a faster clip than capitalism/

We can grow forever by expanding our environment and we can expand our environment by expanding beyond this rock.

And Capitalism is the best means to that end.

[Oregone]

103. "Marxism contributed to global warming at a faster clip than capitalism"

If the BEST you have to defend a system that causes perpetual growth to human extinction is to insult another system, thats a sad ass weak argument.


"And Capitalism is the best means to that end."

All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Right.

[WeDidIt]

107. .

One thing I have learned, the circular reasoning of Marxists means there is no talking to them.

There is but one group in the left that will never be my ally, Marxists. Marxism is anathema to everything this nation stands for and will be forever viewed as an enemy philosophy by me.

And with that, good day sir.

[Oregone]

144. You are labeling me a Marxist

This thread isn't about advocating Marxism. I used a specific critique of capitalism, and tied it to the concept of the production of "green" energy and "green" products (specifically, electric cars). Through sarcasm, I'm trying to invoke the idea that even this "green" technology will still be inline with capitalism's demand for increased production of potentially obsolete vehicles, that depend upon new resources that must be mined from remote regions of the globe.


"There is but one group in the left that will never be my ally, Marxists."

That is sad that you are so close minded.


"Marxism is anathema to everything this nation stands for and will be forever viewed as an enemy philosophy by me."

Being such isn't the worse thing. This country often sucks cock.

[NickB79]

118. It will be over a century until we significantly expand into outer space

By significant expansion, I mean widespread heavy industry, energy production, and large population centers beyond Earth orbit by 2100. And at the current rate, human civilization might not make it that long. Hell, the human SPECIES might not make it that long.

If the best argument you have is that we need capitalism because we are destined to make this planet uninhabitable no matter what we do, I don't think you'll find a large following here.

[Oregone]

155. Expansion of industry also doesn't suggest comfortable, habitable ecosystems too

Its no excuse to keep fucking this place up

[Confusious]

128. Actuall he's right on that point

Capitalism allowed merchants to acquire wealth, which lead to the downfall of the kings, and the rise of modern democracies.

Of course, it's form in the last century and a half has been a little disappointing.

It needs an update. Capitalism version 3 if you will.

[Oregone]

157. Was there not a rich merchant prior to capitalism?

:)

There were also many rich artisans too.

[Confusious]

159. No, mostly serfs

Some freemen. The merchants gave money for art to the artisans.

[Oregone]

162. LOL

Not that I agree, but accepting the premise, not much has changed.

[William Z. Foster]

94. may as well say "Christianity"

It would be about as true. Or why not say "northern Europeans?"

[Confusious]

131. You gotta push words into someone's mouth

Even when he didn't say them, or come close to them, don't you. it's race, race, race, 24/7. Sounds like you might have a problem with race.

For your info, every society has had money:

Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. The shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight.<10>. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC. Societies in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australia used shell money – usually, the shell of the money cowry (Cypraea moneta) were used. According to Herodotus, and most modern scholars, the Lydians were the first people to introduce the use of gold and silver coin.<11> It is thought that these first stamped coins were minted around 650–600 BC.<12>

If they didn't have some sort of capitalism, why did they need money?

[William Z. Foster]

142. silly

Trade and sales and money are not Capitalism. Those existed long before Capitalism arose.

Since Capitalism started and was impressed on the world by the northern European Christian countries, I do think that saying Capitalism has been such a blessing to the world is not much different than saying that Christianity is or domination of the world by northern Europeans is. (Probably should say Protestantism, not Christianity.) Same folks brought us all three, at the same time, and the three are closely interrelated.

On edit and in anticipation:

I am not going to get into an argument about what the word Capitalism "really means." Keep the word if you like and have it mean whatever you like. I am not talking about a word, I am talking about a phenomenon. It was recent, and it dominates the world now. It is the amassing of wealth by the buying and selling of Labor.

As far as the word goes, it was coined at the time the phenomenon appeared for the purpose of representing that phenomenon. I know that there are people, wealthy and powerful people, who want us to be oblivious to the phenomenon, ignorant of it, pretend it didn't happen and doesn't exist, and so to accomplish that they have been trying to re-define the word to confuse people over the last 100 years. That is a little like someone throwing rocks at you, and when you complain they start a debate about "what the word rock really means - it really means soft puffy harmless things that have been flying through the air since the beginning of time." Oh yeah? Well the rocks are still hitting us in the head, no matter what you want to call them or how you want to define the word "rock."

So it seems silly to argue about the definition of the word. There are still people throwing hard things at us, that was not always the case, and those hard things are hitting us and hurting us. We don't need the word "rock" to perceive the reality, nor to fight back.

[Confusious]

156. Sorry, Brittanica disagrees with you

Although the continuous development of capitalism as a system dates only from the 16th century, antecedents of capitalist institutions existed in the ancient world, and flourishing pockets of capitalism were present during the later European Middle ... (100 of 582 words)

"Same folks brought us all three, at the same time, and the three are closely interrelated."

That statement has to be the most inaccurate I have heard in the longest time.

Christianity: 30AD ( Middle east BTW)
Europeans: 1500->1950?
Capitalism: In one form or another, since money was invented. Romans had it, so did the Chinese. "Buying and selling of labor for money"

You're the one trying to redefine capitalism=Christianity. Now you don't want to talk about it.

But of course, you know better then any dusty history books. Your ideology tells you so.

[dionysus]

180. nicely done.

:thumbsup:

[Ignis]

130. Oh, now THIS is an interesting position!

Do you think that the Western Christian Tradition has done more good than harm to the Progress of Humanity?

[Confusious]

132. Don't know if you can read,

Apparently not. He said capitalism. not religion.

Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. The shekel was originally both a unit of currency and a unit of weight.<10>. The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC. Societies in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australia used shell money – usually, the shell of the money cowry (Cypraea moneta) were used. According to Herodotus, and most modern scholars, the Lydians were the first people to introduce the use of gold and silver coin.<11> It is thought that these first stamped coins were minted around 650–600 BC.<12>

Everyone has had some for of capitalism, even if it wasn't if the form we have now.

Christianity DOES NOT EQUAL capitalism.

[Ignis]

143. It's called a tangent. Try to keep up.

This is one of the classic Utilitarian-equation questions of the 20th century: Does the good that Religion has done outweigh the bad done in Religion's name?

But having read your post, I can confirm that I cannot read. :( It's tragic, no? :shrug: But some have reading deficiencies, while other nurture a deep anti-intellectualism.

Kurt Vonnegut would say: "So it goes."

[Confusious]

150. A tangent

the tangent line (or simply the tangent) to a curve at a given point is the straight line that "just touches" the curve at that point (in the sense explained more precisely below). As it passes through the point where the tangent line and the curve meet, or the point of tangency, the tangent line is "going in the same direction" as the curve, and in this sense it is the best straight-line approximation to the curve at that point. The same definition applies to space curves and curves in n-dimensional Euclidean space.


They are not "going" in the same direction

Don't F with me, I had to take 3 semesters of calc. 3 more to go. :)

[Ignis]

153. Well, fuck. I can't help that we bastardize math in English metaphors.

But you get the point, you...you!

How about I reclassify it as a "sub-thread?"

[Oregone]

175. A tangent

You know how a tangent is a straight line, whereas a curve can veer away.

Well, when a conversation goes into a tangent, it hops on one of those lines that was (at the moment) in the same direction and keeps on, instead of following the discussion (curve).

Yeah...doesn't make a ton of sense. I also took a ton of calc, including multi-var, but the English language is like that special kid in the back whose daddy is just the head of the CIA.

[Confusious]

176. I just thought there was never a point

where they were both going the "same direction"

[Oregone]

173. "Ever notice how economic theory is a lot like religion?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8525000

Yes, because I like tangents and starting topics that can go anywhere. :)

My pot is good. Is yours?

[Confusious]

177. Don't smoke

But it is.

Much better "tangent". I can see the connection.

[William Z. Foster]

92. LOL

How do you think we got the New Deal, strong Unions, and regulation? None of that ever could have happened had their not been a powerful and militant left.

If you ever go the Mideast, don't use your approach in the market. If the merchant asks $10 and you want to pay $5, you had better start the negotiations at $1. You never start with the price you would be willing to settle for.

Lincoln "sentimental?" Whew. Amazing.

You really need to read the writers you are attacking. "Lincoln was sentimental" and "Marx was a Utopian" - I seem to remember that we went a little deeper than that on the subject in high school.

[dionysus]

134. agreed. however we have a ton of re-regulating to do before it's back to kosher

[dionysus]

135. agreed. however we have a ton of re-regulating to do before it's back to kosher

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. So is capitalism

Just sayin'...

Failure to work well in practice doesn't seem like a very good standard for the capitalists to invoke.

[Spike89]

68. Actually, the test results are muddled

You can't truly say that capitalism "won", and mention the U.S. as proof--we're anything but a pure capitalistic system. Really, the closest we probably got to pure capitalism was pre FDR and we almost had a revolution. In that sense, capitalism lost the test of history. We've spent the 70-80 years since that failure trying to find out how much socialism is required to balance the toxic effects of capitalism.

The U.S. has been pragmatic enough to shift ideologies when they fail. Virtually all the marxist economies failed because they wouldn't blend ideologies. If you really want to, you could make the case that the U.S. "survival" is thanks as much to marxism/socialist influences as anything else. But the kernel of real truth is that pragmatism and balance will beat pure ideology every time.

[Oregone]

16. I never saw Marx's solution as a proposed magic "Utopia"

Maybe he used language such as that somewhere and I missed it.

That said, capitalism cannot function in reality either (by any sane standard), so ya know, where does that really leave us at the end of the day?

To avoid this tangent anyway, thats why I cited an excerpt specifically on his analysis, prior to proposing a solution (which I remain skeptical of as well).

Can you really claim this "childish" mind had it all so wrong?

[WeDidIt]

18. Yes, I can claim it.

It has been measured and come up wanting.

It is a failed philosophy.

Capitalism is what we have, but unrestrained capitalism as envisioned by Rand is as much a failed philosophy as Marxism.

And yes, Marx envisioned an Utopian society of the Proletariat. It's foolish in the extreme.

[Oregone]

26. Oh, so this analysis of capitalism is a distortion? Childish?

If he had it "all so wrong", then that thought discredits his critiques of capitalism. Remember...Im not interested in exploring tangents at the moment.


"Capitalism is what we have"

That doesn't mean it "works". Well, hell, I guess anything "works" to some limited standard you want to manufacture, including communism. But in the real world, face with extinction from the fallout of mass production, ever increasing, I would think "works" would be more reality-based.

[WeDidIt]

27. Marx describes unrestrained capitalism

We do not have unrestrained capitalism in this nation.

In fact, nowhere in the world will you find unrestrained capitalism. It doesn't work.

And that's the childishness of Marx. The descriptions of his Utopian Proletariat society are as big a fantasy as his descriptions of the evil Bourgeois.

Both Rand and Marx should be kept in the same section of your library as The Lord of the Rings, only the story about orcs is the least childish of all.

[Ardent15]

31. "We do not have unrestrained capitalism in this nation"

Where have you been the last 30 years?

[WeDidIt]

34. Living in the United States of America

This is nowhere close to unrestrained capitalism.

[Ardent15]

38. Ok. Where is the restraint?

[WeDidIt]

46. #1 restraint - Taxation

#2 - Standards by which a corporation may exist and do business.

#3 - Regulations in trade

#4 - Regulations in labor

The list goes on...

[Oregone]

39. Restraints are somewhat cyclic...

It depends greatly on which factions have, directly through capitalism, amassed enough power to lobby the government. It also depends upon the government's ability to cater to those interests and retain power with the current populace.

At varying times, there has been much to no effective regulations on many different industries

[WeDidIt]

47. that's because the balance of appropriate levels of regulation is always a moving target

The markets change. Buggy whips were once items all needed to survive. They became an oddity for the sentimetal.

Progress itself forces the levels of regulation required in any industry to change.

[Oregone]

52. Foolishness.

Markets should not determine what is "appropriate" in terms of regulations. Safety always should.

What does determine it in reality is money and politics. The struggle between getting re-elected by the people and bribed by private industry determines what the regulations of the day are.

Anything else is horseshit.

[WeDidIt]

77. Safety is oinly one concern

Markets must also determine regulation. Failure to do so results in economic calamity.

[Oregone]

78. "Markets must also determine regulation"

:rofl:

Allowing markets and well-connected lobbyist to determine regulations will result directly in economic calamity. Need an example? :)

[WeDidIt]

84. No, you need an example to understand my meaning.

The recent debacle in the banking industry is the best example of a market determining a need for regulation that I can reference. The banking market is in desperate need of new and strong regulation, as is investment banking and credit markets.

The collapse of the Housing market is another example of a market determining a need for regulation. The housing market should be further regulated and now is the right time as evidenced by what happened in the market.

I could could go on...

[Oregone]

93. * facepalm *

People got richer through all this fallout. Disparity increased. Some rich fucks aren't too sad.


Ya know. Don't worry about it.

[WeDidIt]

104. *double facepalm*

Because markets were deregulated when they should not have been moving closer to a Randian nightmare.

You just don't want to listen, do you?

[Oregone]

158. "You just don't want to listen, do you?"

Ditto.

You turned this thread into a Marxism vs Capitalism pissing match. In the most abstract form, it was mostly about neither, and actually criticizes concepts found in both systems at one point or another.

You accuse me of not listening?

[WeDidIt]

Final statement to you on the issue (ever, as it is impossible to discuss this with you in a rational manner. The baiting from you is extreme).

Claiming I started a "Marxism vs Capitalism pissing match" from you in this thread is the single most disingenuous statement I have ever seen on DU.

You started a thread attacking capitalism using the words of Marx and still make that claim?

Shame on you.

[Oregone]

170. Those words specifically dealt with production, consumption, innovation, resources, etc.

And I tied such a quote to concepts about the new green movement and how it will impact the environment, though I didn't spell it all out for you like you are a 3rd grader (no one wants to be talked down to). If you needed clarification, you shouldn't of stonewalled with the Marxism vs Capitalism pissing match, which I tried countless times to abate.

There is a pattern that seems inherent in capitalism; a grouping of characteristics that many classify as beneficial for societies. But this growth & production is causing environmental ruin. It will continue on in a system that demands it, green or otherwise. This is a problem, and you spent most of your posts not addressing it. Your only real answer was expansion into "space", as if knowing the invisible hand of the market will make life at habitable and enjoyable up there as it used to be on earth. If thats the view you are sticking to, fine, but we didn't need to clutter the thread with the pissing match to get there.

[WeDidIt]

171. Bait n/t

[Confusious]

126. We;re still nowhere near a libertarian paradise

On the other had, we're not a Europe either.

Check out Chile under Pinochet for "libertarian paradise"

[Oregone]

32. Oh my. It sure looks pretty restrained, no?

Have you read the newspaper lately?

There is no way to restrain capitalism. It acts as a mechanism to perpetuate disparity. Those who grow ever richer and more powerful will ensure the government will not restrain their economic activity.

[WeDidIt]

40. Yes, it's very restrained

Just not restrained enough. This is why we are having the issues we are.

Too much restraint kills growth, too.

There is a balance to the restraint on capitalism and that balance is in itself, unachievable. This is why the pendulum of political thought continuously swings.

Right now, we need to move back in the direction of much more regulation. If not, we will have another failure of the economy due to the unregulated activities of business. If we regulate too much, however, stagnation results accompanied with inflation. Both conditions are to be avoided.

Until we devise a better system, it's what we have. Eventually economic thought will evolve and that new system will be introduced. Until then, capitalism is all we have that we know will work.

Marxism was given its chance. It failed miserably. Time to move on.

[Oregone]

45. "and that balance is in itself, unachievable"

Of course it is. Capitalism perpetuates disparity, and those who accumulate the most will always tear down the walls of regulation until a disaster strikes. So here you are, naked in the cold, touting a system that produces booms of over-expansion and busts of pain and disasters as a system that "works".

Wow.


"Marxism was given its chance. It failed miserably. Time to move on."

And you cannot get over the fact that this thread was never about Marxism. It was about Karl Marx's accurate analysis of the failings of capitalism, which you failed to refute in full.

[WeDidIt]

50. Karl Marx's analysis is hardly accurate

It's a fantasy about unregulated capitalism. His vision of an all evil Bourgeois is simply, flat out, poppycock. IT never has and never will exist in reality.

[Oregone]

54. I think the only fantasy here is that of "regulated capitalism"

As time becomes arbitrarily close to infinity in a capitalistic system, regulations will come and go by the wayside due to the rise of the politically influential super-rich entities.

[blindpig]

63. It is not a matter of 'evil' or 'greed'

It is a matter of economic relationships. But you just read into it what you will. Or maybe you could just try reading it.

[William Z. Foster]

65. then why not support or document your claims?

You are merely repeating the anti-left propaganda, the point of view of the wealthy and powerful few as it has been relentlessly pounded into our heads, originating from well-financed and organized think tanks and propaganda organs that act on behalf of those who benefit immensely from public acceptance of and belief in the ideas you are parroting here.

Why not back up your claims and make an argument in defense of them?

[Ignis]

89. Because the underlying argument is a right-wing one.

And that's a tough sell on DU.

[William Z. Foster]

67. suggestion

Before you attempt to critique what someone wrote, it might help to read it.

No one who read the work being discussed here could possibly have read or comprehended it if they think it is about a "philosophy" or "Utopia."

Nor is libertarianism a philosophy. It is a concocted and marketed sales pitch.

How has "it been measured and found wanting?" Could not the same be said for democracy? The southern states in this country claimed they had democracy before the Civil War. Do we then say "they owned slaves, so democracy has failed and been found wanting and we had better stay away from that failed philosophy?"

All you are doing is expressing subjective feelings here, the precise feelings that decades of propaganda have trained you to feel, through the use of fear and confusion.

[WeDidIt]

76. It is about a utopian philosophy

Those words are not used in the work, but neither are the words "separation of church and state" used in the constitution.

Marxism has been implemented in numoerous nations. To date, only Cuba, China, and North Korea still cling to an existence. Cuba will end the failed experiment of MArixism within the next twenty years. China has already been captured by capitalism and can never go back. I need say nothing about North Korea.

Marxism has been measured and found wanting. It is a failed philosophy. It now only exists on the rubbish heap of history.

[William Z. Foster]

80. understood

You keep repeating the same things. I merely suggested that you actually make a case to defend and support your feelings about this.

[Oregone]

81. "Marxism has been measured and found wanting."

As has capitalism. Your only method of deflecting criticism away from capitalism is attacking Marxism. Its sad. This technique has been measured and found wanting.

This thread isn't even about advocating Marxism. Its about evaluating capitalism's global impact. You have taken the opportunity to change the subject and go on the attack. Its a tad intellectually dishonest.

[WeDidIt]

86. Capitalism has not been found wanting

Capitalism, even in the current economic downturn, continues to thrive and grow.

[Oregone]

96. And the globe continues to die

Oh, its so fuckn wonderful, aint it?

[William Z. Foster]

99. you have shared your feelings

They are word-for-word what the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have been pumping into the public consciousness for decades. I don't know why you keep repeating the same phrases and ideas over and over again. We all know them by heart. We have heard them our entire lives. Have you not ever questioned them? Do they feel like original thoughts to you, like things you are coming up with? If they were, could you not explain then to us the thought process by which you came to these conclusions?

[WeDidIt]

102. I'm not buying what you're selling

Marxism has failed. It's time to move on.

[Oregone]

106. Critiques aren't always meant to sell something.

This is straight up anti-intellectualism

[William Z. Foster]

109. not selling anything

You are projecting your mindset onto others - about selling, about beliefs, about systems. I often write in opposition to that approach, no matter what the cause. Most recently I argued with a Socialist here about that.

[Confusious]

127. Uh, yes it has

Or have you not seen the recent stock market crashes and joblessness?

Every regulation is a point where "Capitalism has been found wanting"

[rug]

33. Maybe you should read them as an adult.

[WeDidIt]

53. I would no more read Marx again than I would Rand.

Both are demonstrably phony philosophies.

Both philosophies have failed completely and utterly.

Both are irrelevant in the 21st century.

[rug]

60. That reads like a transcript of a high school debate.

[WeDidIt]

90. BEcause Marx barely gets beyond high school thinking. n/t

[rug]

116. Yes, high school thinking. Read his Writings on the U.S. Civil War.

[Oregone]

61. Well now, thats super open-minded

And on the same hand, you embrace the economic philosophy that perpetuates disparity and cyclic disasters of epic proportions.

You must be a great worker & producer. The elite thank you for your service.

[Ignis]

37. You're comparing one of the foremost modern philosophers to Rand?

Well, that's quite interesting. :freak:

[WeDidIt]

51. Karl Marx?

Yeah. He was as idiotic as Rand.

[Ignis]

56. That's deep, man.

:silly:

That sort of ignorant, sophomoric analysis puts me in mind of first-year Psych students who think they're geniuses because they can nitpick Freud using contemporary arguments and data--while completely overlooking the fact that they wouldn't even have the framework in which to discuss their objections without Freud's work.

:dunce:

[WeDidIt]

75. Marx is dead and buried, as is Marxism

When a philosophy fails as badly as Marxism has, jettison the piece of shit and move on.

Pining away for some perfect society that never has and never will exist is not healthy.

[Oregone]

82. The rot of Adam Smith isn't so sweet

Ask him if capitalism has failed, but Id venture to guess he will not answer anymore than Marx will

[Ignis]

105. Can you point to where Marx implies we should "pine away?"

I've read most (but not all!) of his writings, so perhaps I missed that part.

I can certainly admit that I don't know everything. :shrug: So please share.

[depakid]

124. You read Capital in high school?

:rofl:

Bullshit!

Next you'll tell us that you've read and understood the General Theory of Employment....

[Ignis]

151. Duuuuuude, I read it in the orignal language!

Upside Down!

In a mirror!

With a squint!

Right after reading the entire Joyce catalog as a light snack!

:freak:

[amborin]

4. Marx's incisive analysis is always relevant, now more than ever....

[mix]

6. +1 nt

[Confusious]

125. Marx wrote a nice fantasy book

Same with rand.

Maybe not garbage can worthy, but nowhere near lord of the rings.

[Dr Morbius]

7. In 7th grade, I read Mein Kampf. The following year, I read Das Kapital.

My classmates called me a Nazi, and then a commie. But they would have insulted me no matter what; these people voted me most likely to become a garbageman.

I swear, I grew up with the ugliest people you'd ever meet. Not physically ugly, mind you; ugly on the inside. There's a reason I've seen none of them for thirty years. Of course, some were all right. One girl in particular was nice; I hear she's a nun nowadays. So there ya go, I guess.

Anyway, one of my cleverer classmates pointed out to me that the systems of government all look good on paper. He was quite correct.

[Oregone]

9. People change

Off topic, you may have fun seeing people again. I was a dick growing up. Right-wing prodigy in some ways. Now, Id doubt many I went to school with would be on my idealogical left. Seeing so many people at reunions was very fun & rewarding, despite past relationships. You may be surprised what some would say.

[blindpig]

11. Further on...

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

This paragraph perfectly describes why we have been treated to a series of worsening economic crisis.

[amborin]

13. +1000

[Starry Messenger]

21. That dreamer.

:sarcasm:


Why does the description of conditions always cause people to call Marx an "idealist"? To me that's like hearing that Galileo advocated utopia because he correctly described the solar system.

[blindpig]

36. Damn well said.

The man hisself repeatedly stomped all over utopians.

One cannot help but think that those who dismiss Marx out of hand on the basis of 'human nature' believe that all humans are just as they...

[Starry Messenger]

48. That and the social conditioning of Capitalism.

It took the Church 400 years to forgive Galileo for being correct. Hopefully we can take down the priests of the Invisible Hand before we all die.

[blindpig]

62. People don't like to think that they have been conditioned

but how could it be otherwise, we are social animals and are responsive to our social environment.

Another quote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm

[Starry Messenger]

66. It is so logical and clear.

It is so dangerous a statement that billions of dollars of PR go into concealing that simple truth.

[Ignis]

72. I like your analogy to Galileo.

It's easy to pick on those who were the first to sketch out the broad outlines of a great debate. Their antiquated arguments sound so tired and over-used when we study them in high school, at the peak of our intellectual arrogance. :D

[Starry Messenger]

74. Thanks Ignis.

It's what helped me start to understand Marx and the resistance to his ideas in our society. People today are used to the ideas of Galileo, but there was a time when explanations of the galaxy were confusing and cumbersome but people were forced to accept them as the truth. To consider that the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system was too radical. Anyone who has tried to stare at a text on medieval astronomy can see the same kinds of dodging and weaving that we see in the various economic theories that we're forced to accept as the "truth" in this society.

[Ignis]

95. (OT re: Galileo)

Have you read Galileo's Dream by Kim Stanley Robinson?

It's considered a SciFi novel, but it's one of the best contemporary books to addresses several of the philosophy-of-science points we're both touching upon in this sub-thread.

:fistbump:

[Starry Messenger]

108. No I haven't!

I'll put it on my list. I like Science-Fiction but hadn't picked up anything good in awhile. Thanks for the recommendation, that looks really good. :D

[Ignis]

111. The SciFi is incidental to the philosophy.

Hope you enjoy it! :hi:

[izzybeans]

121. Always ironic, given Marx was a materialist.

Marx never really gave an outline to the future. He just thought cooperative relations would be the next stage in evolution. History has yet to unfold.

[William Z. Foster]

160. there is an agenda

Marx has to be seen as a guru, a Utopian, promoting a "belief system" in order to get people to reject his analysis out of hand.

The power of suggestion is phenomenal, because people pick up the work with the idea that they are reading about a belief system, and so cannot comprehend it. It is as though we handed a technical manual for an automobile to a person who had never seen an automobile, telling them before they started that it was about a religious belief system some people had. That person could then study that manual, learn it inside out and backwards, and yet not comprehend one single thing in it and have no way of knowing that they were not comprehending it. There could then be debates about what "carburetor" really means, and what it means when you get the magical signal "low fuel." Does it mean pray to the gods of ignition and gather firewood?

[Confusious]

178. He did have a solution too

That was called communism, which was the "utopia"

[Starry Messenger]

181. I realize that is what you think.

That isn't what I was trying to get at in my post. It was an analogy for understanding the purpose of Marx. If you feel that the purpose of Marx is a "solution" then I guess you do. I can't change that and won't bother to.

[Confusious]

183. It was a bad analogy

Galileo describing the solar system as a fact.

Marx describing capitalism was fact.

Marx gets banged for "utopia" not because of his describing capitalism, but for "hypothetical visions of egalitarian, communalist, meritocratic or other notions of "perfect" societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained."

"the term "Utopian socialism" was introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto in 1848."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism

[Starry Messenger]

184. I think we are talking about two different meanings for "utopia" then

I thought you were referring to the classical definition, which was how I was using it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia The "utopian socialism" had a specific meaning to Marx and Engels and was not espoused by them as you seem to imply in your post.

Utopian socialists never actually used this name to describe themselves; the term "Utopian socialism" was introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (in The Communist Manifesto in 1848, although Marx shortly before the publication of this pamphlet already attacked the ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in Das Elend der Philosophie (originally written in French, 1847) and used by later socialist thinkers to describe early socialist or quasi-socialist intellectuals who created hypothetical visions of egalitarian, communalist, meritocratic or other notions of "perfect" societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained.

In Das Elend der Philosophie, English title The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx criticized the economic and philosophical arguments of Proudhon set forth in The System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty. Marx accused Proudhon of wanting to rise above the bourgeoisie. In the history of Marx' thought and marxism, this work is pivotal in the distinction between the concepts of utopian socialism and what Marx and the marxists claimed as scientific socialism.

Marx introduced the concept/term to criticize this form. So if he's getting "banged" for it, somebody's aim is off.

Marx and Engels used the term "scientific socialism" to describe the type of socialism they saw themselves developing. According to Engels, socialism was not "an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to examine the historical-economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict."

From your link, so I won't bother relinking.

[ironic name]

30. You should have been taught this guy in high school

Not only are different viewpoints good when learning (believe it or not, capitalism is not infallible), but a lot of what he wrote rings true today

[Oregone]

35. I think so too

Its sad that economic philosophy is not taught in high school (mine at least)

[Robeson]

98. kick.

[geek tragedy]

112. Marx was perceptive at identifying some problems.

He utterly failed at solutions, and his philosophy overall was absurdly reductive. And let's not even get into the "barbarian nations" stuff.

[William Z. Foster]

115. yeah

We never invite him over for our get-togethers anymore. Deeprak Chopra, to name one example, is much more fun and entertaining for our guests. More modern and stuff, too.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

114. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist

DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,

her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.

That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

[izzybeans]

122. A good description of Objectivism, if there ever was one.

Randian Objectivism.

[Confusious]

139. I don't see how you get objectivism

from a part of Monty Pythons Holy Grail, when he's talking about being part of a collectivist farm.

[izzybeans]

185. It's probably one of the more regimented collectives still around, tis why.

No dissent, ever. The stupidity of objectivism as a philosophy is revealed by the collectivist nature of their enterprise. The shit about individualism is just a myth they tell themselves to bloat their egos. It doesn't matter how much you call forth the god of the individual to justify injustice and hierarchy, so long as you demand one fall in line with the closed system of thought that worships the ego/god, its nothing but a collective and an oppressive one at that. The dimwits thought they were being ironic when they named themselves the collective. In truth, that was the truth.

Atlas shrugged is a very romantic example of worshiping people who dominate the hierarchical nature of the market economy. She labels them producers when the fact of the matter is that they are seconhanders. What will we ever do if our has a hissyfit and CEO runs away. Oh noes!!!

[Ignis]

129. Only +9 recs for a young Liberal discovering Marx?

Please tell me this is only a Friday Afternoon phenomenon, DU!

:(

[dionysus]

137. it might surprise you to find that most liberals aren't marxists.

[Ignis]

149. In the US? No, not at all.

We've been fed a steady diet of anti-Marx, pro-Smith diction since at least the McCarthy era.

This has led to the uniquely American fallacy that one can be both Left and Anti-Union.

[dionysus]

186. supporting unions doesn't equate being a communist.

[Confusious]

141. Marx might have a few points about the system,

but completely fails at a solution or gauging human nature.

[Ignis]

146. Freud's solutions weren't so hot, either.

Yet he's considered the father of another social-science discipline. :shrug:

[Confusious]

166. You're comparing

science and philosophy. Apples and oranges.

Nobody uses Freud anymore, all the young communists still quote Marx.

[Oregone]

164. This is a fair view in my opinion

In no way was I invoking Marx to talk about his solution, but only his criticism. Someone failed to see that.

[Confusious]

167. Someone failed to see that.

me?

A little sign might have helped. I'm a little oblivious sometimes.:)

[Oregone]

169. No, YouDidntDoit

Come on, its not tough to see, but I don't think its kosher to call anyone out. I came here to open a discussion about this environmentally destructive economic activity (which will carry on "greenly"), and someone defensively countered by stonewalling debate by attacking Marxism.

Perhaps Im at fault for using a Marx quote, paired with sarcasm that paved the way for tangents. I think the only time the poster in question addressed the environmental problem was by claiming the magic invisible hand of capitalism will propel us to the stars before it utterly destroys the earth.

[Confusious]

174. the magic invisible hand of capitalism will propel us to the stars before it utterly destroys the ea

Hah! It won't do that.

It'll be the socialist governments of the world that will do that.

There's no money in that sort of research, so only governments fund it.

A matter of fact, there'd be a lot of nothing if governments didn't fund basic science.

[Oregone]

163. I'm not just discovering Marx

I'm just relating his thoughts about capitalism driving perpetual growth and consumption to ideas about our current environmental crisis and how "green" technology implemented in this fervor may not be a panacea

[Robeson]

133. Am I going to have to kick this damn thing again? Kick.

[JackRiddler]

187. Almost every response has been on conditioned reflex. I see little evidence...

that almost anyone here read the passage you posted. Or wants to speak to it. Just rooting for the home team in their minds, most of them.

Eighteen hundred and forty-eight common era, he wrote that.

Incredible.